Janice Pou, right or wrong? [Archive]

View Full Version : Janice Pou, right or wrong?

Lou Girardin

9th February 2006, 07:15

Janice Pou's estate is suing British American Tobacco and H O & W D Wills for several hundred thousand dollars for "seducing her into a lifetime of smoking".
Personally I'm in two minds about this; While I think the tobacco companies are lower than pond scum and their product is only legal through fortuitious timing, I have a difficulty with an adult blaming others for their weakness of will.
She started smoking in 1968. Through her life she was exposed to all the information of the dangers of smoking, yet she continued right until her death last year.
Will we see abusers of alcohol suing the suppliers for the strife caused in their lives?

k14

9th February 2006, 07:20

Yeah this is just another example of people not taking responsibility for their actions. Finding someone else to blame and taking it out on them. Yeah the tabacco companies are a bit dodgy but they don't force you to smoke its still your decision. I think we should thank all the smokers, where would motorsport be without tabacco companies sponsorship, lol.

marty

9th February 2006, 07:25

i note she lined the pockets of british american et al until her death. no sympathy from me.

oldrider

9th February 2006, 07:27

This is bullshit. What about personal responsibility!

She made the choice to smoke and then made the choice to keep smoking after she knew it could kill her.
It's her "own" fault that she smoked, nobody else's.
My opinion no matter what the outcome from the courts. :brick:

It's allways "someone else's fault" these days. Get real NZ. :yes: John.

trev

9th February 2006, 07:34

So if I crash my bike & injur myself who do I sue.
Kawasaki - for seducing me with such a beautiful piece of machinery or
the dealer - for presenting it to me.

Devil

9th February 2006, 08:01

So if I crash my bike & injur myself who do I sue.
Kawasaki - for seducing me with such a beautiful piece of machinery or
the dealer - for presenting it to me.
But do you keep riding it even when you realise it's going to kill you?

I think its ridiculous taking legal action because she's a mental weakling.
Sure a lot of people got sucked into starting, I dont think that can be disputed around that time, but keeping doing it when we know the effects.
What a dumbass.

riffer

9th February 2006, 08:08

I have to admit, I have no sympathy.

She started smoking in 1968 - curiously enough, the exact year they started posting health warnings on cigarettes.

I started smoking in 1979 and gave up in 1989. I was always aware of the dangers of smoking but did it anyway. I am sure she knew the dangers.

As for too addicted to stop - bollocks.

And besides - why do the family want financial compensation? Did they incur huge medical bills? I think not.

Grahameeboy

9th February 2006, 08:09

What a load of toilet eh

Hitcher

9th February 2006, 08:29

Like Lou, I am conflicted on this one.

However, this matter is now before the Court, so therefore has been deemed to be worthy of Court time. It is now up to eloquent legal argument to persuade the presiding Judge one way or the other. I will be interested in the arguments and the outcome, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

cheese

9th February 2006, 08:38

ah load of shit. they wont get squat.

Grahameeboy

9th February 2006, 08:45

...so the Family......who presumably did not stop Pou smoke are now wanting some cash......

My understanding is that they will have to prove things like loss of society, dependency.....to have a chance....how old was she?

Sniper

9th February 2006, 08:58

No sympathy from me for her or the family. Warnings have been out for a fair while so she should have heeded them then.

Finn

9th February 2006, 09:06

Will we see abusers of alcohol suing the suppliers for the strife caused in their lives?

Or biker riders suing biker dealers for selling them a bike that's dangerous?

I am not on the fence at all on this one. To me it's black and white. She had a choice. Only she is accountable and responsible for her own actions. If anyone should cough up it should be the government. Like our road taxes go towards roading (ha, ha), cigarette taxes should go towards related health issues instead of hip hop tours and nose picking studies.

This government is rapidly gaining too much control over our lives. Let us be and make our own judgements.

ManDownUnder

9th February 2006, 09:06

Yeah,

And druggies should sue their dealers, and we should sue the bottle store for damages (to liver, and marital relations ...).

There is the (suitably cynical) thought that the Giant company is being sued because that's where the moey is and there may be a precedent in a foreign country - also made by those seeking relief from personal responsibility... and debt...

... I failed to mention the lawyers' success in talking the gullible into proceeding with the lawsuits. I think they can rightly claim some of the credit too.

No - the fact is she started smoking, she knew of the dangers, and she died from a related cause. Kinda like living on a diet of pies.

I don't know it'd kill me from stuffed up arteries, but it'd sure boost my chances. (OK - we could sue bakers and fast food outlets too...)

Colapop

9th February 2006, 09:20

I agree with the sentiment that she made her bed so to speak. But she started smoking in 1968 when the dangers of smoking were not so widely known or promoted (at least not known but the general populace). Back in '68 (I wasn't there) smoking was considered to an ok thing and smoking was advertised as "refreshing" and "relaxing" and even "cool" - that is seductive advertising. Smoking is more addictive than heroin (according to research) so that means that there'll be more people who "can't" give up than people who can.
As an addition to that comment, what of the guys who served in the armed forces at that time and before? Smokes were issued free to every soldier right up to 1970 (I think that late...?) They weren't forced to smoke but it could be argued that they were encouraged to do so by the military.
I think the biggest point to note in the whole smoking argument is,
Did the tobacco companies know that smoking was harmful and if so then for how long?

How much to sue for? F*ck knows, they (the smokers and tobacco companies) have equal culpability.

TLDV8

9th February 2006, 09:23

I think it will be a great day when cigarette companies are sued into oblivion,i hope these people win...of course alcohol and cigarette tax is worth over one billion dollars a year,so you won't see the various governments pushing to hard.
***
I would also suggest any non smoker is blowing smoke... Anyone who has given up will know you simply don't stop,the !@#$s selling and reeping profit off them know that all to well.

Beemer

9th February 2006, 09:30

Apparently her reasoning was that the ads for cigarettes showed beautiful people and she wanted to be one of them. Stupid reason to start smoking, and if she'd ever looked in the mirror, she would have realised it was NOT WORKING!!!

Funnily enough, she can recall all the ads for cigarettes during the period when she first began smoking, but can't recall seeing a single warning, despite the fact they were printed in the same publications.

I'm sick of people trying to make out the makers of certain products are to blame for their ills. I hate smoking, have never tried it (only one in my whole family who never has) and while I have sympathy for anyone who develops cancer or other diseases from smoking, they must accept the blame for this themselves. I drink, and if I wake up with a hangover or feel sick because I've drunk too much, it's MY fault, not Montana or Speights! Likewise if I get fat from eating too much junk food, it's MY fault, no one else's.

She carried on smoking even after she knew of the dangers and I don't think she had any right to try and apportion blame. Her family should invest their energies (wonder if any of them smoke?) into stopping people from ever starting smoking rather than jumping on the gravy train.

Postie

9th February 2006, 09:37

Its total horse shit, if you do something that you know will kill you and it says on the packaging, "THIS CAN KILL YOU" then what the fuck do you expect to happen??? A long and healthy life. People went to war to fight for freedom for fuck all reason if life is going to be like this. If we are not made to be responsible for our own actions and we live in a society where we can sue companies that we have willingly purchased and consumed their products, how is that freedom? It’s like living in a dictatorship, "I didn't want to die from smoking but they made it so addictive and I couldn't say no, its not my fault, I was made to smoke"
I'm not sure if i am making my point very well, but I have been a smoker and now i don't smoke, i didn't use patches or gum, i just stopped because that was my choice, one day i decided to not smoke for a few different reasons and that was that. Never once did i consider ever seeing a tobacco company.
It is supposed to be freedom of choice, to sue some one for smoking is to say that you have given up your freedom of choice.
There was a case in America where a lady went through a drive through at Mcdonalds, she ordered coffee, she was driving her car and the coffee split on her and scalded her, she sued McDonalds because the coffee scalded her, she said she didn't expect it to be that hot......... she is probably the same sort of bitch that would have tried to sue them if it was too cold...? It’s a fucking joke, but if you ever wondered why the coffee cups at McDonalds say "CAUTION, CONTENTS MAY BE HOT" that’s why, because they already got sued for that.

Hitcher

9th February 2006, 09:42

I am sure that these and other arguments will be made by learned legal counsel during the trial.

TLDV8

9th February 2006, 09:42

If the cigarettes are known to kill,why are they still sold ? .. freedom of choice is a cop out.......... apparently thalidomide was not good for you either not that it was proved.

rasty

9th February 2006, 09:45

I started smoking in 1963 and we knew then that it wasn't a good move - we just saw it as cool. I can remember being told by my doctor that smoking could cause cancer ( as well as emphysema, buggered you for sport, and made you stink) but we still smoked, until 1984 in my case. While I sympathise with the family for losing their mum, I don't think the case should even be in court, let alone with taxpayer funding - she knew what she was doing.

riffer

9th February 2006, 09:48

Anyone who has given up will know you simply don't stop,the !@#$s selling and reeping profit off them know that all to well.

Bollocks. I quit cold turkey 17 years ago. Never smoked again since.

I don't subscribe to this whole "I'm too addicted" crap. :angry2:

If you want to do something, do it. Don't give it a half-arsed attempt then winge about not having the willpower, support or whatever.

Some people are just too mentally weak.

9th February 2006, 09:55

67% of all statistics are questionable and the often quoted "tobacco is more addictive than heroin" is one of these. Usually quoted in the form of "Research states…" or "Tests show…".

The only basis for this assertion that I know of is that a higher proportion of those who try tobacco, will continue using it and become dependent on it compared with people who try heroin. This is not an “apples-with-apples” comparison however.

The relative persistence of tobacco users is due to the easy availability and low cost of the substance, the low social stigma attached (try saying “I am just popping into the bog to bang some smack up my arm” at work and see what happens), and finally, the low risks of smoking (compared with self-administered intravenous street drugs, smoking is actually pretty damn safe).

I can also say that any pussy (like me even) can handle nicotine withdrawal. The main enemy is a tantruming mind. Having had extensive contact with opiate users I can say that opiate withdrawal is a much more significant physical experience.

Short version: She should have just stopped smoking. She played a numbers game and lost.

manuboy

9th February 2006, 09:59

This thread, like 99% of threads on this forum goes to show that there is no black and white. Only opinion.

I don't know enough about this case, only that somebodies family is suing a company because she died from smoking a product that she should have known may eventually kill her. Tough luck lady.

Why is she the only one suing??? Why hasn't the family of every other person who has ever died as a result of smoking tried to sue? What is special about this family?

TLDV8

9th February 2006, 10:14

Bollocks. I quit cold turkey 17 years ago. Never smoked again since.

I don't subscribe to this whole "I'm too addicted" crap. :angry2:

If you want to do something, do it. Don't give it a half-arsed attempt then winge about not having the willpower, support or whatever.

Some people are just too mentally weak.

Big deal,you gave up at 22 years old :violin: .....I also gave up cold turkey after smoking a pack a day since i was 19...... My concern is not for myself but that it is a highly addictive substance for millions of others and the people who produce it,know it..yet it is still for sale and doubt that will stop while there is a dollar to be made...Good luck with this case.

Finn

9th February 2006, 10:15

If the cigarettes are known to kill,why are they still sold ? .. freedom of choice is a cop out.......... apparently thalidomide was not good for you either not that it was proved.

The problem with your argument is do you really want to live in a dictatorship? If you give THIS government that much power, look out.

This country needs the billion dollars it gets from tobacco tax, beleive me and if it didn't get it from tobacco then it'll find some other way to get. If you are personally prepared to pay about $600 a year to subsidise a tobacco ban then you're a better man than me.

TLDV8

9th February 2006, 10:21

The problem with your argument is do you really want to live in a dictatorship? If you give THIS government that much power, look out.

This country needs the billion dollars it gets from tobacco tax, beleive me and if it didn't get it from tobacco then it'll find some other way to get. If you are personally prepared to pay about $600 a year to subsidise a tobacco ban then you're a better man than me.

I do not have an argument.. i do not smoke...... I am simply suggesting that if a substance that is now as stated in this thread known to kill and is highly addictive,why is it still being sold.If it were a medicine etc it would be removed immediately ????? remember asbestos ????... how they used to treat timber,Boron (sp)..how about dioxin in paper... remember toxic shock syndrome.....

(Governments encouraged smoking during the last war)

Lou Girardin

9th February 2006, 10:42

.. apparently thalidomide was not good for you either not that it was proved.

Thalidomide was extremely good at what it was developed for, it just wasn't very good for babies.
Interesting that the opinions here a quite unanimous.

MSTRS

9th February 2006, 11:00

I am sure that these and other arguments will be made by learned legal counsel during the trial.
If counsel were truly 'learned', they would advise this sort of client to "Go away and stop being so frivolously silly"........
....but no.....there might be a dollar or two in this for that 'learned counsel'

Finn

9th February 2006, 11:03

known to kill and is highly addictive,why is it still being sold.

Bikes are known to kill and are highly addictive. Should we ban them as well?

Let the people decide, not governments.

Hitcher

9th February 2006, 11:03

There will be a veritable shitload of dosh in this for learned counsel.

Jackrat

9th February 2006, 18:50

geoffm

9th February 2006, 21:16

What part of "smoking causes lung cancer" which has been printed on ciggie packets for over 30 years did she not understand. Sorry, but no one forced her to smoke, and she had plenty of time to stop. If you want to play, sometims you have to pay.
G

Pixie

10th February 2006, 12:32

apparently thalidomide was not good for you either not that it was proved.
Thalidomide slipped through safety tests in spite of the best efforts of its developers,because it only affects feotal development when the feotus is exposed in a specific two week window in the gestation.

Thalidomide is now regarded as a wonder drug in the treatment of some cancers,endometriosis and other conditions where its effect on tissue development can be used beneficially.

mstriumph

10th February 2006, 12:59

Hitcher

10th February 2006, 13:09

it's a frivilous action brought by oppertunistic relatives encouraged by unscrupulous & immoral legal vultures in a publicly-funded system whose lack of public accountability allows it to screw the taxpayer.
At one level, arguably yes. But at another level there is no New Zealand case law covering the ability of individuals or groups to pursue significant damages claims on this type. This is therefore an important test case of important legal significance. As such the investment of some public money is warranted, I believe.

Similar cases have been successfully prosecuted overseas, including the US (subsequently overturned on appeal).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121502034.html

Charlie

10th February 2006, 13:30

I'm against smoking, but in this situation I'm not even interested in that argument.

The act of suing by the family... is it ANYTHING to do with the mother smoking and causing her deterioration of health and eventual death? It has been said already; what is so special about this family? Thousands of people die all the time from smoking - something they know better than to do.

My 2c (acknowledging I don’t have all the facts and am purely having an emotional rant) is that this smells like a disrespectful family that is taking advantage of their own mothers death to gain what is hoped to be a huge financial reward.
Will they put that money into cancer research? Increasing awareness for the dangers of smoking? Quit smoking programmes? Or are they hoping it will bring back their mother?
Probably not. Then what exactly to they hope to gain from a cash pay out?
Had she died of anything else I'm guessing they would have still looked for blame and financial compensation. The tobacco companies are already hated and the focus of a lot of finger pointing. Their loss seems more of an opportunity.
I bet they have all eyed up some materialistic dream prize to spend their "poor-mother" money on. This family need a slap. :yeah:

Lou Girardin

10th February 2006, 13:38

My 2c (acknowledging I don’t have all the facts and am purely having an emotional rant) is that this smells like a disrespectful family that is taking advantage of their own mothers death to gain what is hoped to be a huge financial reward.

Janice Pou initiated the case before she died. The estate is merely continuing it.

enigma51

10th February 2006, 13:39

enigma51

10th February 2006, 13:39

oops only saw mstruiphm post now

enigma51

10th February 2006, 13:42

its funny humans want freedom of speach freedom to choice there own "lifes" etc but yet when something goes wrong they want sue everyone that caused them there problems you choice to smoke you take the problems associated with it

enigma51

10th February 2006, 13:46

Thats it im sueing honda for the damages I did to myself for trying motocross stunts which i saw on tv hmmmmm i am sueing the broadcasting services as well for warping my fragile mind which made me want to try the stunts out!!!!!!

Charlie

10th February 2006, 13:54

Janice Pou initiated the case before she died. The estate is merely continuing it.
Ok, thanks Lou, different story then. Did she say what outcome she wanted from this? Financial or otherwise? What purpose any money won would serve?

Lou Girardin

10th February 2006, 14:06

She wanted to punish the companies from the sound of it. I wouldn't know about the family's motivation though.

TwoSeven

10th February 2006, 14:30

From the little information I have read on the subject - ie. stuff news etc.

When she started smoking there were no health warnings (didnt start til some time later). One of the warnings from what I can gather is that no-one explained that smoking is addictive. Aparently the lady was so addicted she couldnt give up if she tried.

It made the news I think because its the first time an estate has carried on a law suite and its the first time an estate had applied for legal aid to pay for it.

It does make an interesting ethical case.

Edbear

11th February 2006, 16:33

Whilst I have no love for the tobacco companies - they are shooting themselves in the foot on this one, by claiming that the health warnings were around at the time. Up until fairly recently they were contrarily claiming that, (in USA courts), that they didn't know that smoking was dangerous! They actively promote, (and strongly now in third world countries now that advertising and smoking in general is declining in most 1st world countries), cigarettes! I have no liking at all for those who actively promote selling a product that they know full well is dangerous. THey couldn't care less if their customers suffer and die horrible deaths as long as they keep buying their products. However, while it is very hard to quit due to the highly addictive nature of the product, it is well said that we need to take responsibility for our choices, and smoking is a personal choice. I've never smoked, but have been addicted to prescription drugs and it was a living hell! It was also a living hell to get off them, but I was determined to get off them and out of the wheelchair they'd put me in. They were killing me and I knew it. The withdrawal was a nightmare, but within a month of being drug free I was standing and walking again, now I am back working and, (more importantly!), riding!! A long term smoker, it has been said, can regain the same chance of getting cancer as a non-smoker within ten years of quitting. The health issues have been around for a very long time now, she really doesn't have much of a case. :thud:

Skyryder

11th February 2006, 22:20

Any one who can take on the tobacco companies I say go for it. This is not about personal responsibility. It's the seduction of the indavidual by the type of advertising that the tobacco companies use. Young nubile females chasing after a beach ball, and the men, virile macho studs that if you have a ciggerette in you mouth the woman find you irrestiable. The tobacco companies new years ago that thier product was addictive and resulted in ill health but they resisted every move governments tried to make to bring them into line. Now that the west has finaly wised up they are using the same methods in africa and asia to sell their product and casue ill health to thousand of humans. If this product was food it would have been banned years ago. Hope they win and take them all to the cleaners.

Skyryder

mstriumph

11th February 2006, 22:59

Clockwork

12th February 2006, 05:58

However evil tobacco companies may seem I suspect most of them came into existance long before the health effects of smoking were known. To expect any company to voluntarily go out of business out of some sense of moral duty is unrealistic.

Companies exist for one reason only..... to make money for their shareholders. The only time morality will figure into their business plan is if they perceive it will increase their profits. This is why governments need to regulate them!

dawnrazor

12th February 2006, 08:05

well I don't know about anyone else, but after reading that I fancy a smoke now!

Maybe after that I'll start a thread about eating pies.

Skyryder

12th February 2006, 11:21

if you extended the arguement to junkfood --- especially from those companies that advertize on childrens' tv - i'd be right behind you :hitcher:

I know what you mean but the analogy between the two is not a good one. Junk food is food and as such there is some nutrional element in it. How much well I'm not a nutritionist but if you and I were stranded on a desert island with one hamburger and a cigge I think we would both be sharing the hamburger. However if one of us were a smoker i doubt if there would be any need to share as the smoker would go for the cigge instead of the food.

Skyryder

Hitcher

12th February 2006, 16:36

if you extended the arguement to junkfood --- especially from those companies that advertize on childrens' tv - i'd be right behind you
Don't blame the "junk food" companies -- they're only going about their lawful business. Blame the parents.

Virago

12th February 2006, 17:32

The funniest part of the whole court drama, has been the woman's sister nipping out of the court for a quite smoke. Her justifications are hilarious, and predictable: "I need to smoke, this whole thing has been so stressful, etc, etc....":rofl:

mstriumph

13th February 2006, 02:13

Don't blame the "junk food" companies -- they're only going about their lawful business. Blame the parents.

so the argument comes full circle
if parents are generally accepted to be responsible about what goes into the bodies of their children then surely adults must be similarly expected to be responsible about what goes into THEIRS ............. making this, as i said before, a frivilous .....etc etc blah blah blah ....:wait:

... then again, didn't someone sue macwhatsit's, sucessfully, in the USA for 'making them fat'?? ........ *exits, stage left, clutching boggling mind ... *

Postie

8th March 2006, 14:26

Tobacco company death-case winds up

08.03.06 3.00pm

Lengthy closing arguments are under way in a landmark court case against a tobacco company accused of causing the death of a smoker.

The children of Janice Pou, who died from lung cancer four years ago, are suing British American Tobacco New Zealand.

Brandon and Casey Pou are seeking damages of more than $300,000 at the Auckland High Court.

They claim BAT breached its duty of care when she started her 30 cigarettes a day habit in 1968.

Warnings did not appear on cigarette packets until 1974.

BAT argues it was common knowledge well before then that smoking caused lung cancer and that Mrs Pou failed to exercise her choice to quit.

Fishy

8th March 2006, 14:56

Somebody just bloody shoot them and be over with it. :2guns:

Postie

4th May 2006, 08:40

landmark bid to make tobacco companies pay for an Invercargill mother's death has been extinguished by a High Court decision which says she knew the dangers of smoking and could have given up.

Janice Pou smoked nearly 30 cigarettes a day from the age of 17 and died in September 2002 at the age of 51, just over a year after being diagnosed with lung cancer.

Her estate, executed by her children Kasey and Brandon, claimed $310,966 from British American Tobacco New Zealand and WD & HO Wills.

But Justice Graham Lang ruled in the High Court at Auckland that Mrs Pou must have known the risks of smoking. Her attempts to give up waxed and waned and were doomed to fail.

"I do not consider that Mrs Pou ever made any reasonable attempts to give up smoking," he said.

As a result she must have accepted the risks.

"It was therefore not open to Mrs Pou to seek redress from the defendants once she developed lung cancer because the possibility she might develop lung cancer was one of the risks that she assumed."

The decision has saddened Mrs Pou's family and angered anti-smoking groups but British American Tobacco New Zealand spokesman Carrick Graham said the decision was a sensible one.

"British American Tobacco New Zealand is engaged in the legal business of manufacturing tobacco products for informed adults who make a personal decision to smoke," he said.

But Mrs Pou's sister, Helen Toomata, knows only too well how addictive smoking is.

Janice was her second sibling to die of lung cancer. Another sister, Margaret Karipa, died in 1988.

Mrs Toomata, also a smoker, has tried many times to give up. Nicotine patches gave her nightmares, but hypnotherapy had helped reduce her cigarette consumption, although she would not say how many she smoked now.

The court case was to make tobacco companies aware of the harm smoking inflicted, but they were still not accountable, she said.

Her sister's dying wish was to make a difference by bringing the action and she hoped it had at least raised public awareness.

A lawyer for the family, John French, said hundreds of hours had gone into preparing the case and the result was disappointing. The family had yet to decide whether to appeal.

The Public Health Association said the case was about cigarette companies' actions since the 1940s and 1950s when they discovered they were marketing a lethal product.

In 1954, US tobacco manufacturers jointly published A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers in more than 400 US newspapers.

The advertisement questioned research findings implicating smoking as a cause of cancer, promised consumers that their cigarettes were safe, and pledged to support impartial research to investigate allegations that smoking was harmful to human health.

In the 1960s, the Rothmans Sports Foundation used high-profile figures such as Peter Snell, Arthur Lydiard, cricketer Bert Sutcliffe and All Black Don Clarke to promote sport.

And in 1974, the health warnings that did appear on cigarettes said only that "smoking may damage your health".

"Janice Pou should have quit smoking, but she couldn't beat the addiction," said association director Gay Keating.

The Cancer Society said the decision appeared to be a willingness to let companies profit from the death and misery their products caused.

Action on Smoking and Health director Becky Freeman said the organisation was angry that cigarette companies had won.

"We are angry that an industry that not only manufactures products which are addictive and kill people but also lies about it has not been held accountable."

She hoped the Pou family would appeal.

In his decision Justice Lang said that even if Mrs Pou was not aware of the dangers of smoking in 1968, she must have been aware of those risks by 1974 at the latest.

She continued to smoke, he said, and did not take reasonable steps to quit despite having the ability to.

"Informed consumers are entitled to exercise an autonomous right to purchase and consume products that are lawfully sold, not withstanding the fact that such products may be harmful to their health."

Lou Girardin

4th May 2006, 08:52

The right decision.

Hitcher

4th May 2006, 09:28

Now we have an established legal precedent. Albeit at considerable cost.

Paul in NZ

4th May 2006, 09:47

At the back of our minds we usually realise that a heck of a lot of the things we do are either potentially dangerous or proven to be harmful.

Marketting and advertising provide us with the excuses we need to go ahead and do them anyway!

However, there is a very fine line! The tobacco companies get little sympathy from me as they have known for a very long time about the risks with their products. Where they crossed the line was shifting focus to the 3rd world when it got too difficult for them in the 1st world (hey where did the 2nd world go?). Also the target marketting to kids (selling singles and 10 packs), women etc etc.

The fast food industry has a similar strategy! But then where do you stop? The fuel industry knows that one day the oil will run out but by golly theres a heck of a lot of money still to be made eh! Tomorrow will take care of itself and all i need is to make enough myself to retire on!!!

In my opinion we need to look at the basic structure of the business world. I realise that it is unpopular and won't work but ultimately you have to consider the human side of business and ask yourself if you are doing a good or bad thing.

But what the heck would I know. I had a burger for dinner last night and probably will tonight (another all nighter) and my wife works for a certain battery company that had a little incident in India a few years back and we still take their money every week!

Pixie

4th May 2006, 10:22

The tobacco,fast food,alcohol and sterilise everything, cleaner companies,are the only vectors that nature has left to improve the human gene pool