This is pure utter bullshit!!

[beck]

Ya know, if I wanted to be a greedy money hungry bitch, perhaps I could get my mom to sue the tobacco company too since my dad smoked when he was a teen till the day he died. Hell, right before dad died, my brother-in-law told me when he picked me up from the airport when I came in from Kuwait, that dad was smoking a carton of cigs, not even in a full week. And a carton use to last dad at least a week and a half. (keep in mind, dad died of a massive heartattack at the age of 50, not cancer but I'm sure that he also had cancer somewhere in his body)

I just don't get ppl who think they have to blame the tobacco companies for ppl's addiction. I don't see ppl sueing the beer companies who make their loved ones or themselves drink to death or cause they were drunken drivers. In fact, I think its wrong that if you can't advertise for cigs, then I don't think they should be allowed to advertise ANYWHERE for alcohol.

Here is the article I'm talking about.

Comments

I agree

[litia.livejournal.com]

My mom started smoking when she was fifteen, and the only times she quit were when she got pregnant. She still smokes, and is now fifty-three. None of my siblings, or I, have had any smoking-related health problems as we were lead to believe we would by all the anti-tobacco campaigns. Cancer runs in my family also, yet none of us have developed it. Personally, I think the tobacco controversy is a waste of time, because the people who smoke today are well aware of the risks associated with tobacco use, yet they still choose to smoke. If they choose to smoke, they're opening themselves up to that addiction. Nicotine comes second to the mental addiction of smoking, and it's almost hypocritical for a person to sue the tobacco company for damages they knew they would receive.

Ok, I'm done. Just thought I'd throw my two cents in.