Topic awaiting preservation: tobacco settlement money

First of all, I am the poster formerly known as me~. I usually use this name on boards, but started me becasue I thought I was just going to pop in for a question or two, but I guess I'll stick around for a while . Anyways, here is the main post......

Some time ago (don't remember exactly when, a few years ago) the tobacco compaines settled with the US goverment, and agreed to pay each state an amount of money, without any stipulations on how the money is used. In Michigan, gov. John Engler created a 2k scholorship for anyone who passes the state standardized test. Now groups like the Lung Association are complaing that the money should be used to prevent people from smoking and other tobacco related stuff.

I'm interested as to which side people will take on this, or they even care. Ill post my side after some people have posted their arguments (don't want to influence the debate).

I'm a former smoker, and my husband still smokes, so you know I really haven't got anything against smokers... But I firmly believe that smoking is a personal CHOICE, and no one, anywhere, anyhow, can force you to do it. (secondhand smoke is a different matter entirely) I thought, and still think, that the tobacco settlements were a result of some pretty slick maneuverings of the legal system, and the whole case was somewhere in the neighborhood of the chick who sued McDonald's for the fact that she put a cup of coffee between her knees in her car and it spilled and burned her. (She should know better than to put a hot cup of coffee in her lap in the first place, and if she did it anyway, she should suffer the consequences)

That the courts awarded any settlements is a miracle in and of itself. But now someone wants to stipulate how the money is to be used? This is just too much! I always suspected that American society was getting out of hand, this just clinches it...

I hate ciggaretts, they are evil . Unfortanutly I live in the tobacco state, Kentucky , but lucky for me I am not there as of now!

Though I agree with bohdi in principle, the fact that the lawsuit actually went through is due to the fact that the tobacco companies created new, more addictive varieties of tabbacco for their cigarrettes for the main purpose of addicting people, and thus increasing sales. Then they denied this...until that paper came out, proving that they did this.

No, no-one forced me to smoke...that's true. But these damned things are hard to put down, once you've started...and to find out that they made them even more addictive on purpose, was...well, aggravating, to say the least.

So I am glad that the lawsuit actually succeeded.

As for what to do with the money...now, that's just plain silly...I think it should be used where it is most needed...

Well, ok. Intent changes everything. But my mom always said, when you give money to someone, it becomes theirs, and you can't very well tell them what to do with it. The Lung Assn should sue the cigarette companies itself for a cut of the settlement if they really want control of the money...

BTW, did anyone hear about the cig tax hike in NY? from $0.08 per pack to $1.50! Now cigs there cost $7.00 per pack! OUCH! If I hadn't quit already, I sure would if I lived there!

#1: Anyone who believes that lawsuit was justice in action is a fool. If you don't know before you start that cigarettes are: A. Bad for you. B. Extremely addictive. And C. Going to kill you. You are an ignoramus and your death from lung cancer is a perfect example of Darwinian theories in action.

#2: Accepting that the lawsuit actually succeeded and the states now have money, it's their money to spend how they want. This is reminiscent of the big ordeal the Salvation Army (hey, we need a Salvagion Army; fighting jackasses since 1999.) went through with money donated for the WTC bombings.

To review:

If you smoke, odds are you're gonna die a horrible choking death while your lungs rot in your chest. When you do that, don't try to blame someone else, take some fucking responsibility for your CHOICE.

EDIT: To put it another way, if you got hammered and drove your car into the side of a large building, causing you to become one with your dashboard, should your family sue Smirnoff?

[This message has been edited by kretsminky (edited 07-03-2002).]

So Krets...actually, though you are mostly correct (and I think I said that...no one forced me to start), one didn't tell me that the tobbacco had been purposely altered to make one more addicted to smoking...the same corollary would be if that smignoff was made addictive...so that even if one wanted to, one couldn't stop drinking...and needed it every hour or so...now, the picture starts to change, doesn't it? No, no-one made that person take the first drink...but what about the second? And the rest?

It is a hell of a difference, if a product is damaging to your health (well, that's my problem, isn't it?) as compared to a product that is purposely made to addict one to it for the sake of sales...now, I knew that cigarrettes were addictive before, but I didn't know that the Tobacco companies had purposely made them even more addictive...unfortunetly, I've found out just how much more addictive...

And so, then the Tobacco companies lied about this to the general public...until they got caught with their pants down (yeah, thank god for that in-house paper...). So them getting sued for that is justified, according to the law. It's called lying...

WS: You fit right in to the theme of the decade: It's someone else's fault!

The tobacco companies are paying their fines, you think its righteous, I just think it's silly. Whether cigarettes are more or less addictive because of some additive is beside the point. Do you really think these people didn't all fully realize what they were doing would kill them? Additives aside, one of the people invovled in the lawsuit had smoked for something like 40 years. Do you really think he ever made a serious attempt to stop? I would like to see someone prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were unable to quit smoking even though they put a serious effort into doing so. If you truly want to quit, you will.

My dad smoked for 20 years, he quit. My mom for 20+ years she had to quit after a heart attack at 43 years old, my sister still smokes but is slowly weaning herself off of them.

You smoke, you die. I don't want to hear your excuses.

PS: I am also a firm believer that if you want to smoke, you should have every right to. These Truth ads that appear everywhere make me want to go out and smoke 18 packs just to spite them.

Although I may not have Krets' wit, tact, and diplomacy , I have to agree with him...

First, though, some background. I am a non-smoker. In my entire life I have smoked three cigarettes--all three in about a fifteen-minute period when I was hammered. Perhaps the fact that I wasn't able to move from the couch until well into the afternoon the next day had something to do with it, but I have never been even slightly tempted to smoke again. In fact, that one smoking incident ranks highly in my top ten list of idiotic things I did while hammered (I don't drink much anymore either, primarily because I have a tendency to do and say stupid things when drunk--but that's another story).

So, from where I stand, I must admit it's a lot easier for me to say it's the smoker's choice. I always try to look at both sides of an argument, and I do think that tobacco companies are money-grubbing, soulless bastards, but I don't think that relieves the smokers themselves of culpability.

So, WS, while I have to say I feel for you, I can't bring myself to place the blame on the tobacco companies. As for alcohol being addictive... well, for some people it is. They're called alcoholics. Granted, it may not be the same thing as a nicotine addiction, but I know people who need alcohol as much as some people need cigarettes. No, alcohol distributors don't intentionally make their product more addicting (they don't have to), they still sell it knowing that--if abused--alcohol can lead to death in various forms. I know, I know, comparing tobacco and alcohol doesn't work on a number of levels (like, for example, the fact that alcohol can be consumed in moderation by people in a social setting, and it can even be good for you), but the basic concepts remain the same.

Ultimately, if I had to answer the question "whose fault is it--the tobacco companies or the smokers?" I would probably have to say the smokers. Yeah, the tobacco companies sure aren't helping matters, and I do find that very disturbing, but it's about the choice. Like I said, from where I stand it's easy for me to say this. Maybe things would be different if I was addicted.

Krets Mon! Smoked my first three cigs at age five. That would have been 1953. By 1955-56 ages 8-9 I was pretty much smoking full time. 1959 I was most certainly smoking full time. ( I was the kid your mom told you to stay away from <lol> ) This was at a time when "Doctors" were endorsing cigarettes. So "You are an ignoramus and your death from lung cancer is a perfect example of Darwinian theories in action." doesn't quite ring true. I don't know exactly when the perils of smoking became "common knowledge" but it really wasn't all *that* long ago. Somewhere around the age of 21-22, I stopped for approximately one year, I have no idea why... nor why I started again but I did. And I've been puffing like a coal driven furnace ever since.... Now waitaminute here.... I have not had a cigarette since approximately April 19th of this year. I needed help mind you. Welbutrin (generic zyban) plus the nicotine gum. The welbutrin knocked the bottom out of the obsessive compulsive part of the habit and the gum curbs those immediate urges. If there are any smokers 'lurking' and you want to give it up... that's the first step 'want' to quit... then you should look into the welbutrin/gum combo. It's not for everyone mind you. Do I feel better? TONS! Is it going to make a difference to my life expectancy? I doubt it. <bg>

*sigh* Krets, c'mon man, read what I posted...I am not giving anybody else the fault...I think I've said that now, two or three times...I'm beginning to sound like a parrot...*squawk! Smoking is my fault! squawk!*

But the lawsuit had more to do with the lying (and the increasing of the addictiveness of the product to improve sales) then the actual harm to ones health.

Making something that is harmful to ones health (and knowing it, but officially denying it) even more addictive, is sick. All that, just for money...

Now, I'm not blaming the Tobacco companies for my smoking...(once again)...I'm blaming them for repeatedly mis-informing the public of the dangers of smoking, and for purposely making the damned things even more addictive. And that's my point (and the Lawsuit, as well).

As a smoker of only about 4 years, I'm finally realizing it isn't as cool as it was when I was 16, and the damage can only get worse. I'm trying like mad to quit, and it's pretty much the hardest thing I can bring myself to try and do...

Indeed, the cigarette companies are partially to blame for making their product more addictive on purpose, to trap more people (and quicker, mind you) into buying more and more cigarettes. But the underlined fact of the whole thing is that I chose to smoke in the first place, and it's entirely my fault for getting addicted to them, as there was a long period where I honestly could have walked away from them and never looked back, but I consciously made the choice to pick up that next stick.

But moreover, I think it's important to remember that cigarettes have been addicting since day 1, whether the companies added things to them/grew new varieties that were more potent, it was still addicting in it's purest form. Blaming them for going even further is just like blaming someone for throwing the can of gas in the fire... the fire's already burning, and regardless of how wrong it is to throw the can of gas in, it's still been burning since it started.

Really, I see that I've gotten myself into this mess, and (yes, because of finacial reasons) I've got to get myself out. It's no one's fault except my own, so I'm leaving it at that and tossing my ashtrays in the garbage cans.

Is it sick to hate myself for wanting to quit? They've been a big part of my developmental life, I see this. What I can't see is me driving a long distance or drinking socially with some friends without a smoke in my hand. Sick, eh?



njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

Well I am not into smoking but I have done it before severel times. The reason I didnt
continue doing it is becouse I am a sportman and I didnt like the taste....
But personaly myself I dont have nothing against it. Being born in Russia I grew up around smokers and saw a bunch of comercials on tv as well have and had a lot of friends who smoke. Ofcourse I know its bad for the health, but man its our free will to chose what we want to do................:-L

Cigarette companies lying, and covering up and purposfully making cigarettes addictive is wrong, and just adds fuel to the fire. Smoking, like everything else is a CHOICE made by the smoker. I agree the cigarette companies should be held liable for making it worse, but just because one chooses to smoke, doesn't mean one should sue the cigarette companies. The whole mess, as I said before, smacks of the McDonald's Coffee incident... just plain silly.

BTW - the truth ads are part of the tobacco company settlements. They have to make ads against smoking...