Janice Pou, right or wrong?

**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

Originally Posted by TLDV8

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.

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.

**Cookie** · 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

Originally Posted by riffer

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

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

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

.....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

Originally Posted by TLDV8

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

Originally Posted by Finn

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

Originally Posted by TLDV8

.. 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:Me** · 9th February 2006, 11:00

Originally Posted by Hitcher

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'