This is crazy. You can control what you eat. Now I am by no means the most healthy eater in the world, but I know enough not to eat A POUND OF FRENCH FRIES A WEEK!!
I'm gonna get me an oversized guitar, gain 40 pounds, and become the next D!
Yeah this is the same kind of insanity that brought you the tobacoo lawsuits. Amazingly, I am not going to go into any anti-liberal tirades(at least until somebody has the gall to defend this kind of insanity).
Originally posted by GrimisYeah this is the same kind of insanity that brought you the tobacoo lawsuits.
The tobacco lawsuits were entirely different. Tobacco distributers put addictive materials in their product, knew it was dangerous, and yet didn't warn the public adequetly.
Unless there is some discovery of ingredients making McDonalds addictive, this lawsuit is stupid. It is an example of someone with weak will power rather than irresponsibility on the part of fast food management.
Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?" Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"
"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!" -Norman Smiley
I agree (and Iīm a big lefty). The fact that more people in the U.S. have quit smoking (including myself) than currently smoke gives me little to no sympathy for people who claim they īcanīt' quit and so someone else should be held responsible.
Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Tying down the courts with stupid lawsuits cost the taxpayers money. Hopefully this one will be thrown out quickly, but it probably won't be. The winners are, of course, the lawyers.
Originally posted by MoeGatesI agree (and Iīm a big lefty). The fact that more people in the U.S. have quit smoking (including myself) than currently smoke gives me little to no sympathy for people who claim they īcanīt' quit and so someone else should be held responsible.
I'm really torn on that issue. I really really feel strongly about individuals taking responsibility, and I think that every single thing that any person ever encounters in life, both good and bad, is directly a result of some decision they have made. However, what the Tobacco industry does is try and deny people the knowledge needed to make a sound judgment. I think tobacco has to pay not because I sympathize for those who have been hurt by smoking (because, as I said, that is a result of their own choices), but because the industry needs to be punished for their own poor decision making.
Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?" Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"
"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!" -Norman Smiley
Originally posted by GrimisYeah this is the same kind of insanity that brought you the tobacoo lawsuits.
The tobacco lawsuits were entirely different. Tobacco distributers put addictive materials in their product, knew it was dangerous, and yet didn't warn the public adequetly.
Unless there is some discovery of ingredients making McDonalds addictive, this lawsuit is stupid. It is an example of someone with weak will power rather than irresponsibility on the part of fast food management.
so then i can sue the soda industry because i drink 6 liters of Dt Mt dew a day because they hooked me with their knowingly addictive material, i.e Cafeene
sweet ^_^
"You can't fire a gun in a confined space! What are you tring to do, make us deaf?!" "Just get out of the chopper." "What?" "Get out of the chopper!" "The crops!?" - Jack Lemmon and James Garner, "My Fellow Americans", and the reason I say "The crops?" instead of "Huh?"
anyone who can't realize that eating crap like fast food on a regular basis CAN'T be too good for them shouldn't be allowed out of the house. I personally think that the Tabacco lawsuits are bullshit too because YOUR SUCKING SMOKE INTO YOUR LUNGS. I smoke (not cigarettes) and know it's not that good for me, but the effect helps releive the stress. Why don't we (the Wieners) sue The WWE for knowingly putting unentertaining shows on the air (based on our collective Gewertz bashing) and forcing us to sit through all the crappy WRITING just so we can see WRESTLING.
"My parents said I could be anything, so I became an ASSHOLE!"
rikidozan, they would find a way to prove that you got hooked on Mt. Dew while on some (nonexistant, possibly) trip to canada. In Canada, Mt. Dew has no caffiene.
Originally posted by MoeGatesHowever, what the Tobacco industry does is try and deny people the knowledge needed to make a sound judgment.
Jesus, what kind of fucking idiot doesnīt know smoking is bad for you?
What kind of idiot doesn't know NOW, you mean.
Eighty years ago or so, there were those who were concerned about smoking's harmful effects, but most of the worrying was about the obvious symptoms -- coughing, sore throats, that sort of thing. A famous ad of the 20's hawked cigs to women as a way to stay slender; "Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet," which led to an entertaining war of words between the cigarette and candy industries.
There were assorted POSITIVE health claims in cigarette ads (smoking helps concentration, it's relaxing, it diminishes appetite, it soothes the nerves, etc.) until the 40's, and even then the FTC (the body that sought to end said claims) did so by releasing a 1950 report stating that ALL cigarettes, in moderation, were "not appreciably harmful."
The first reports strongly linking cigarettes to cancer didn't arrive until the early 50's, and even then the advertising minimized the potential health risks for years, claiming that filtered brands provided excellent protection. When the FTC cracked down on that, advertising shifted to hawking low-tar brands, until it was found that they generally weren't any lower in actual tar or nicotine than standard brands.
The Surgeon General's report in 1964 echoed a British study in 1962, and was the first direct US Government statement that smoking could cause lung (and other) cancers. The now-ubiquitous side-of-the-pack warning arrived a year later.
Which means, of course, that smokers have been buying a product for forty years that's labeled "THIS CAN CAUSE CANCER" in so many words, which limits my sympathy dramatically. The addictive nature of nicotine is a separate issue in the lawsuits, and if fault is to be found on the side of the tobacco companies, it may be there.
The food lawsuits will be harder to win, IMHO, in that studies as to (fatty foods -> cancer/obesity/heart disease) links have only taken off in the last couple of decades. An interesting question: in what year did McDonald's, Burger King et al. start posting nutritional information in their restaurants?
"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_." -- Frank Zappa
Man has his hand stuck in a pringles can "Hey, they should put a warning label on these things, like on cigerettes."
like that would stop people
my best friend in the whole world smokes, and she knows what smoking did to her grandmother, because she watched her slowly waste away.
She won't quit for herself, but she vows that when she gets pregnant, she will quit for her child...i hope she can do it... quit i mean
She knows full well what the cancer sticks do to her, but the addiction is too hard to drop, like my Mt Dew, i get pulse pounding headaches if i don't have a drink every 30 mins or so. And the caffeene is why i have sleep disorders [look at my posts vs time of day, most are between 0000-0700, when i should be sleeping]
"You can't fire a gun in a confined space! What are you tring to do, make us deaf?!" "Just get out of the chopper." "What?" "Get out of the chopper!" "The crops!?" - Jack Lemmon and James Garner, "My Fellow Americans", and the reason I say "The crops?" instead of "Huh?"
Originally posted by rikidozanthis all reminds me of "Clerks"
Man has his hand stuck in a pringles can "Hey, they should put a warning label on these things, like on cigerettes."
I was thinking more about the Chewley's gum rep who leads the revolt against cigarettes only because he has something to gain. Food lawsuits come out because somebody has something to gain, mainly the left-wing food police(as in the Center for Science in the Public Interest) or the Trial Lawyers who tend to ruin a lot of things for a lot of people.
Originally posted by rikidozanthis all reminds me of "Clerks"
Man has his hand stuck in a pringles can "Hey, they should put a warning label on these things, like on cigerettes."
I was thinking more about the Chewley's gum rep who leads the revolt against cigarettes only because he has something to gain. Food lawsuits come out because somebody has something to gain, mainly the left-wing food police(as in the Center for Science in the Public Interest) or the Trial Lawyers who tend to ruin a lot of things for a lot of people.
i was going to use it too, but like 2 weeks ago someone pulled it out in this (?) thread already
"You can't fire a gun in a confined space! What are you tring to do, make us deaf?!" "Just get out of the chopper." "What?" "Get out of the chopper!" "The crops!?" - Jack Lemmon and James Garner, "My Fellow Americans", and the reason I say "The crops?" instead of "Huh?"
The main reason the states sued the tobacco companies is the million of dollars pumped into the health-care system to take care of addicted smokers and their smoking related illnesses. Smoking causes cancer, however we can't turn away people from hospitals (and using taxpayer money) just because they smoked until the developed cancer. Same with any other drug out there, except that cigarettes and alcohol are the only ones that are legal to abuse.
-Jag
"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."
"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."
"Who do you love?"
-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
While thatīs a good point, smokers actually cost the taxpayers LESS in medical costs than non-smokers. Why? Because of the fairly macabre reason that they tend to die a lot sooner.
On the other topic, please name me three things that the 'trial lawyers' have ruined. Cars free of those annoying buckling things perhaps?
Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Admittedly I don't really care about politics, but I don't understand the big deal here. It's human nature to want to relax when facing a stressful situation and I can't imagine it not being a picnic for either President Obama or the head of BP.