QuoteOne statement reads: "Smoking kills, on average, 1,200 Americans. Every day."
Another says: "Defendant tobacco companies intentionally designed cigarettes to make them more addictive."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20520983
Well that's a shocker, not that the statements are true but that they are being told to admit it publicly in advertising they pay for.
the thing that bugs me about this, isn't that I feel sorry for the tobacco companies or anything - quite frankly I hope they go out of business soon... but the US govt also has known for decades that smoking is bad yet did relatively little about it - they're the regulators, its all well and good getting these firms to do this now and/or paying out costs/compensation but legislators should have been cracking down on these firms years ago, not just leaving it to the courts system.
That is one of the problems with the US political system, interested parties with lots of money to spend on lobbying can cause lawmakers to not act in the best interests of the population as a whole - this sort of reactionary stuff shouldn't be needed - advertising should have been banned by law decades ago, these firms shouldn't have been allowed to build up a brand or muddy any debate over health risks in the first place and health warnings should have been there already. There isn't necessarily a need to ban the products so long as they're only affecting the person choosing to consume them (banning smoking indoors in places of work etc..) but making the marketing of them less viable and printing clear health warnings would have removed the need for these sorts of cases as the companies wouldn't have been in a position to promote anything nor cause anyone to believe that smoking wasn't that bad - everyone would be well informed that if you regularly smoke then you're being a bit silly and are just massively increasing the chance's that you'll miss your future offspring's wedding day or die before your grand kids are born.
Unfortunately this has always been the case. Companies making huge profits will try almost anything to keep the money rolling in - even if the product isn't effective or even detrimental to health.
Tobacco, lead in petrol, drugs, (dare I mention global warming?) they all follow the same pattern. The latest is that when reviewed beta blockers are probably not effective against high blood pressure - despite many millions of prescriptions being given out every year.
The pattern is deny for as long as possible then claim more tests/data are needed. If possible pay your own 'independent' researchers to muddy the water as much as possible with claims and research that the reverse is the case.
Funny how no one's going after the drinks companies... Drink does far more harm to health and a nation's economy than smoking ever will. Passively to boot.
Quote from: Eagle on December 06, 2012, 02:57:49 AM
(excessive) drink(ing) does far more harm to health and a nation's economy than smoking ever will. Passively to boot.
Quote edited slightly for emphasis. I agree with you but as with almost everything but it depends on the amount consumed. Do so responsibly and keep it down then there is minimal effect to others and it might actually boost your performance, life and health slightly. Do so to excess and it can lead to massive problems.
I've had two friends go down to alcohol induced liver failure, although in both cases they were 'failed' by the medical profession. Alcohol seems initially to be a good way to dampen down pain, but drink a lot and your liver can become damaged. It could be easy for me to follow that route too if I wasn't so aware of the inevitable consequences.
In case you hadn't noticed the government are going to try to put a minimum price on a measure of alcohol...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20515918
This might reduce binge drinking at home but I suspect it will have little effect at pubs where the prices are already above this level, even with discounts and buy one get one free offers. Personally I feel pub specials like these are worse than low pricing. The prices should be set and stuck to, if they can afford to reduce the price then it should be all the time to stop people feeling the need to consume as quickly as possible.
Drink-driving injuries/fatalities are passive drinking. Being the recipient of alcohol-fueled violence is passive drinking.
The government simply aren't seeing it. The sooner there's a ban on alcohol advertising and packaging (like with cigarettes) the better (and fairer).