It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BUSINESS: Court Rules B.C. Can Sue Tobacco Company

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
A 9-0 decision was made giving B.C. a thumbs up to seek the damage cost from smoking within the last 50 years. The money will be spent in a 25-year period mostly for treatment for cancer victims. The suit isn't only against Canadian companies but also against 9 other foreign firm's. Most estimate's of the amount of money to be gained from the suit is 100's of billions of dollars.
 



www.ctv.ca
In a decision that could lead to cigarette-makers coughing up billions of dollars to pay for sick smokers' health care, the country's top court has ruled that British Columbia can sue the industry.

"They upheld the constitutionality of the British Columbia legislation," CTV Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife reported from the Supreme Court.

"This is a landmark ruling that could serve as a prototype for other provinces to sue the big tobacco companies."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Hopefully this will also spark other provinces to start suing the big tobacco companies and getting some cash back for health care and other expenses

[edit on 30-9-2005 by trust_no_one]

[edit on 1-10-2005 by Nerdling]




posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   
I knew it was a mistake to let those companies be sued to start with, now everyone wants to get in on the act and by the time I'm in need of some of that money there won't be any left--Waah!



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   

The money will be spent in a 25-year period mostly for treatment for cancer victims.


Yeah, that is what they said here in the US too. Do you think it has actually been happening?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I don't know about B.C. but in Canada there's $4 billion in direct health care costs because of tobacco.
In America 1 in five deaths can be attributed to tobacco products. That is a huge toll on the health care system. If a company sells a product that kills it's customers then, yeah it should have to pay back society.

It was because of the Law suit(s) in America that truth was formed.


Basically, 46 states, the District of Columbia and 5 U.S. territories got together and sued the major tobacco companies to try to recover some of the billions of tax dollars spent caring for sick smokers. The tobacco companies settled out of court, signing an agreement to pay the states a certain amount of money, and the states then funded the American Legacy Foundation with a very small portion of that money.

truth is funded by the American Legacy Foundation - an independent, public health organization created in 1998 as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA).


I don't think B.C. is going to do that here. They are going to go through with this all the way so that the rest of Canada can follow suit.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax
If a company sells a product that kills it's customers then, yeah it should have to pay back society.


There's plenty of products that are sold and can kill it's customers. How much strain do auto accidents have on the health system? Alcohol? Firearms? Even computers and typewriters cause health problems. The customers should be informed--and I believe they are--that they're using it at their own risk.

I smoke because I want to, and if I end up with cancer because of it, that's my own fault. Not RJ Reynolds' or Phillp Morris' fault. If I shoot myself in the foot trying to clean a gun, I don't expect S&W to pay my medical bills because of my stupidity. It's not their fault I didn't pay attention to the risks involved. And if I can't afford the health care, then that's my problem, not the governments. I should've paid more attention in school, or worked harder at whatever job I was at, or saved as much money as I could've in case something like that happened.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
MCory1, the main difference between the thing you listed and smoking is that smoking is chemically addictive.

If you like smoking and wish to continue smoking that is your choice.
However for many others who really want to quit, can barely do it, if at all. Quiting smoking is one of the hardest things a person can do. And many people start smoking before the legal age, before they can make the responsible decision to not pick it up.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The problem with the argument; "IT is my body" is still the fact smoke can harm other people around you. The amount of times I walk down the street and people blow smoke near my face is disgusting and not just harming themselves but other people who do not wish to be placed into such an enviroment.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax
MCory1, the main difference between the thing you listed and smoking is that smoking is chemically addictive.

If you like smoking and wish to continue smoking that is your choice.
However for many others who really want to quit, can barely do it, if at all. Quiting smoking is one of the hardest things a person can do. And many people start smoking before the legal age, before they can make the responsible decision to not pick it up.


Balderdash. As Mark Twain (I believe) said, "Quitting smoking is the easiest thing to do. I must've done it 1000 times." Seriously though, I agree with you that it's difficult to quit; I've heard some people claim that cigarettes are more addictive than heroin even. My experience with quitting has shown me that it is something that you have to really, truly, deep down where there are no lies, want to quit or else all the patches and gums in the world won't help. There's been many times where I've told myself "I want to quit, really this time." But I don't quit, because I just don't want to bad enough. I'm not a psychologist by any stretch of the imagination, but my opinion is that if you can't quit, you just aren't being truly honest with yourself as to whether you want to quit or not. Like I said, just my opinion.


Originally posted by Odium
The problem with the argument; "IT is my body" is still the fact smoke can harm other people around you. The amount of times I walk down the street and people blow smoke near my face is disgusting and not just harming themselves but other people who do not wish to be placed into such an enviroment.


I understand that, but shouldn't you take that up with the smoker themselves? I personally can't stand the smell of exhaust; when I'm sitting at a stop light behind an old pickup or a semi, I'm irked at the person driving it, not at the manufacturer. Even then it's misplaced anger, but it's a little more reasonable to blame the consumer than the manufacturer--the business is just trying to make a buck, just like the rest of us. It's up to the consumers to decide whether the product is worth the liabilities associated with it. Again, just my opinion.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I feel that ALL lawsuits against tobacco companies should be thrown out. So what if their product is harmful, only a severly mentally challenged person could tell you otherwise. I have nothing against big tobacco and strongly support tobacco farmers. I find it outrageous that these lawsuits continue. My advise to someone who thinks tobacco owes them for their(or their family members) health, DONT BUY TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND INFORM OTHERS. The fact that juries keep handing out money in tobacco cases proves this species is mostly retarded. What next someone suing because their coffee is too hot


[edit on 30-9-2005 by jrod]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Ahem, I think McDonald's was successfully sued for coffee that was too hot.
The issue here is not whether a person has the right to ingest a harmful product. There are laws in place that make it clear, conspiracy to hide harmful effects of a product and/or conspiracy to increase harmful/addictive properties are not going to be tolerated in a society that has a modicum af value placed on honesty. Maybe one day we'll all wake up and have a real conscience, in the meantime, there is something important going on here, and it will do for a start. This was a huge victory for BC because this was a supreme court case, there is no real recourse for the tobacco industry, Canadian law is going hit the industry hard.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
About time.

Yea Canada.

Tobacco companies hid the addictive and damaging effects of nicotine, purposefully created products to maximize addiction, and marketed to take advantage of vulnerable populations. Reprehensible, IMO. They should be bankrupted by lawsuits. ASAP.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Bankrupted by lawsuit? Hmm, letting the government dictate to the populous what they may and may not purchase. Don't they do that enough already?

Ok, let's look at the downside. They companies go out of business, the people still want the product, black markets open up, biker gangs and criminal cabals get even stronger, more is being spent on police, corrections, courts, etc..........

I don't see an upside here.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I gave this a "YES" vote for correct structure.

EDIT: I thought indviduals were sueing...not the gov't. My bad

[edit on 1/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   


There are laws in place that make it clear, conspiracy to hide harmful effects of a product and/or conspiracy to increase harmful/addictive properties

Hmm, I think in todays time almost EVERYTHING falls into that category, even fruit and vegetables. Do you know how many chemicals and steroides are used to farm animals and grow produce? Alot.

And Coke, Im not even gonna go there! I'll stay away from Coffee too...all that caffiene.

[edit on 1/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
You're missing the point Sporty, it's not people that are going to sue, it's the government. Further intrusion on our market by the GOV!



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

And Coke, Im not even gonna go there!


Coca-Cola is just like the tobacco companies. Coke should be treated the same as well.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   


Coca-Cola is just like the tobacco companies. Coke should be treated the same as well.

I agree, the companies are wrong and should be dealt with accordingly. But should the consumer be able to sue? I don't think so, becasue they knew/know the side effects and hazards involved.

However, maybe instead of sueing the money could go to education of tobacco awareness or something like that....take it ALL from the tobacco comapanies, drain 'em dry. But a person that made a decision to smoke (in this case) should not gain nothing from a law suit, because they made the decision knowing what could happen and they know smoking is addictive.

But yeah, the companies should be punished, but the consumer should not be awarded for thier own acts.

[edit on 1/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
The consumer isn't suing. It is the Provence of British Columbia. They want to sue for the health care costs that smoking has caused.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I stand corrected...in that case, carry on B.C.

as long as the money goes to the the community and healthcare etc..etc.. and not to individuals, it's good to go.

Note: I edited my above post to keep the discussion on topic.

[edit on 1/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
OK another thought has come to mind. BC gov't wants to sue the tobacco companies, the BC courts say, "Hmm, Okay". Who runs the courts? The Department of Justice, ie: THE GOVERNMENT! Isn't there a conflict of interest here?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join