Smoker wins $8-million (U.S.) lawsuit

I don't know if i agree with this, it has been known for over a decade that smoking is bad. with all that literature out there, she could have made an informed decision on what she was doing, instead she kept on smoking, her own fault as far as i'm concerned

Personally, I'd like to see the Feds start taking some heat for tobacco as well. In Canada AND the US, they are little more than facilitators for drug pushers. Not dealers,

I'm not gonna argue yer point about it being her decision to smoke, but the shit should be banned outright. And gov'ts aren't going to listen until it starts costing them more in additional lawsuits than what they make in cigarette taxes.
And keep suing those tobacco companies and drive 'em out of business too.

with all the info that's been out there for decades, if she has health problems it's her own fault.

I'm sorry but when tobacco companies make flavoured cigarettes, it's geared to one age group. Get 'em while they're young, stupid and feeling invincible and you pretty much have a customer for life.

The following is from Nov, 2005. Pretty messed up if you ask me.

New research from the Harvard School of Public Health finds that cigarette makers are targeting young smokers with candy and liqueur-flavored new brands that mask the harsh and toxic properties found in tobacco smoke, and in one case, embedding a hidden flavor pellet within the filter. Despite assurances from cigarette makers that they no longer target the youth market, the researchers found that new brands are being marketed to young smokers and racial/ethnic groups using colorful and stylish packaging and exploiting adolescents' attraction to candy flavors. The study appears in the November/December issue of the journal, Health Affairs.

The researchers sifted through a database of more than 7 million internal tobacco industry documents spanning more than 30 years for information on alternative flavors and flavor technology used in the development of products targeting new and younger smokers. Carrie Carpenter, lead author of the study and a research analyst at HSPH stated, "Flavored cigarettes can promote youth smoking initiation and help young occasional smokers to become daily smokers by reducing or masking the natural harshness and taste of tobacco smoke and increasing the acceptability of a toxic product." A 1993 internal document stated, "Growing interest in new flavor sensations (i.e. soft drinks, snack foods) among younger adult consumers may indicate new opportunities for enhanced-flavor tobacco products that could leverage [a brand's] current strength among younger adult smokers."

Internal research by the tobacco industry showed manufacturers that they could capitalize on youths' attraction to candy flavors. They used innovative product technology, such as a flavor pellet imbedded in one company's cigarette filters, to deliver fruit and liqueur flavors. Some of the flavored cigarettes the companies have developed include; Mandarin Mint, Mocha Taboo, Mintrigue, Kauai Kolada, Margarita Mixer and others. Fruit and candy flavors were also added to smokeless tobacco products, cigars and cigarette rolling papers.

Gregory Connolly, senior author of the study and a professor of the practice of public health at HSPH noted, "Tobacco companies are using candy-like flavors and high tech delivery devices to turn a blowtorch into a flavored popsicle, misleading millions of youngsters to try a deadly product. Adding candy flavors to a toxic product (cigarettes) isn't any different than adding sugar to contaminated meat a century ago. The only difference is that today one is regulated by the FDA and the other is not."

Dr. Cheryl Healton, president and CEO of the American Legacy Foundation, a funder of the study, commented, "The public should recognize these products for what they are - a tool to lure younger smokers to their brands, and then potentially to a lifetime of tobacco addiction."

The study; "New Cigarette Brands with Flavors That Appeal to Youth: Tobacco Marketing Strategies; Health Affairs, November/December 2005, Volume 24, number 6, was funded by the American Legacy Foundation and the National Cancer Institute.

Harvard School of Public Health is dedicated to advancing the public's health through learning, discovery, and communication. More than 300 faculty members are engaged in teaching and training the 900-plus student body in a broad spectrum of disciplines crucial to the health and well being of individuals and populations around the world. Programs and projects range from the molecular biology of AIDS vaccines to the epidemiology of cancer; from risk analysis to violence prevention; from maternal and children's health to quality of care measurement; from health care management to international health and human rights. For more information on the school visit: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu.

'Too bad, so sad, sweetheart'. You made the concious decision to smoke. Live ( or die) with it!
Distillers 'flavor' their products so that they can gain a following to a particular drink. Distillers 'target' specific groups in the same manner. Their product is addictive as well. Should distillers, govt, and purveyors of booze be held liable on this basis as well? Assinine!

So did I. I quit 11 years ago. What's her excuse?

There have been several but unsuccessful lawsuits, here's why. Claims against makers of those products largely have been unsuccessful, in part because of the difficulty in showing companies' culpability for products that can be used safely. Moderate consumption of alcohol is actually considered to be good for a person.
Know any safe uses for tobacco?
Hell, it's even less socially acceptable than weed these days

And why the hell would anyone have a problem with tobacco companies being sued? Who cares who sues 'em? As long as the lawsuits keep coming, it might start making it unprofitable for them to continue pushing a totally useless and horribly destructive substance.

I've heard that tobacco can be used on bruises or something like that.

Tried, but never caugth some satisfection. Most part of my friends are smoking and I'm a really against of it because:
1)Bad for health
2)Expensive (packet jf them costs 10 Grn, it's 1.5 dollars) For this money I can go by bus all weak to the collage and back to my home)
3)Your clothes smells terrible.
4)You are going to have somy psychology deoendence from it.

Sorta, it was considered to be an antiseptic for cuts. Then again, the same people also believed tobacco was beneficial occassionally in cases with chronic asthma

The only thing about cigarettes that is even remotely medicinal is nicotine.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA0 ... obacco.php

This Bimbo should have had her silly rearend tossed out of court.
Just another case of a lot of law and no common sense or justice.
Cowhands in the mid-1800's said cigs put another nail in your coffin each time you smoked one. This is not new news.

As for getting big brother involved in anything? Big brother causes more problems, not less. And, he always takes more monies out of our pockets when he is involved.

Novel idea. we could take care of our own silly selves.
Below Charles Durning explains exactly what big-brother is all about.
Side Bar.
Durning was a hero of D-Day. As were all that went ashore that day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mNDHTfdn1A

Agreed, I'm an ex-smoker.

The government would help a large majority of people quit if they banned it outright as they should but there's roughly 6.4$ billion reasons why during 2008-2009 why they didn't. And only 2% of that goes into anti-tobacco programs.

Despite what the Tobacco Control Department constant messages of if your a smoker your a second rate citizens, the Health Minister though considers smokers a first rate tax generating machine for federal coffers. Even when we get sick and die from it to them we were a good investment for generating taxes. I find it so hypocritical to have one department in the government telling us how bad smoking is trying to do everything to make you quit while only 2% of tobacco sales for taxes go into that while the rest of the money goes into the federal piggy bank to pay for other programs.

People have the argument well if its banned outright illegal tobacco sales will go through the roof, newsflash if the government is too pussy whipped to go onto a native reserve now to shut down these operations I don't think the ideology would change anytime soon. If I was still smoking, I doubt I'd be taking a drive out to a native reserve once a month to buy a garbage bag full of smokes. I'd say thank you Mr Prime Minister, you made Canadian history and I'd quit smoking.