Corporate responsibility vs personal responsibility...

[EnderJE]

So, you've seen the person suing McD's for spilling hot coffee. You've seen the gun with the "bullet comes out other end" or "do not use while drunk" labels. When does personal responsibility end and corporate responsibility begind?

Should we sue tobacco sellers for killing people with cancer when it was clearly preventable (don't smoke)??

Should we sue fast food restaurants for killing people with cancer when it was clearly preventable (don't eat fast food)??

Should we fund AIDS or cancer research when some of it is preventable (don't fuck, don't smoke, don't eat fast food)??

Should we sue energy sellers for the environmental damage?

When does it begin and end?

 

[manny78]

Only restrictions on lawsuits could prevent that madness (which hasnt reached that level in Canada yet) from growing. Something like they did with the gun industry should be done with others in order to force all these cry babies to assume their miserable life and consequences to their acts,

 

[EnderJE]

Only restrictions on lawsuits could prevent that madness (which hasnt reached that level in Canada yet) from growing. Something like they did with the gun industry should be done with others in order to force all these cry babies to assume their miserable life and consequences to their acts,

Great point for personal responsibility. Why stop there? Why not cut funding to AIDS research or Cancer research? It's a preventable disease. Let them assume their miserable life and consequences to their acts.

 

[Mr. dB]

So, you've seen the person suing McD's for spilling hot coffee.

If you're serving food that is hot enough to cause third-degree burns to an old lady's thighs and genitals, it's probably too hot to pour down her throat without injury too.

 

[manny78]

If you're serving food that is hot enough to cause third-degree burns to an old lady's thighs and genitals, it's probably too hot to pour down her throat without injury too.

When was the last time you bought coffee that wasnt too hot ? Maybe they should put some kind of label stating that this beverage may cause serious injuries or even death and blablabla..... lol

 

[Mr. dB]

When was the last time you bought coffee that wasnt too hot ? Maybe they should put some kind of label stating that this beverage may cause serious injuries or even death and blablabla..... lol

Hot enough to cause 3rd-degree burns?

 

[manny78]

Hot enough to cause 3rd-degree burns?

Tim Hortins and Second Cup are among the worse. You gotta wait at least 2-3 minutes before drinking. But everyone here know that. Btw i dont even touch their coffee for that specific reason. I take my money elsewhere. Oh and how could you burn your genitals with hot coffee ? I'm assuming she wasnt naked ? Any hot water going through layers of clothing would definitely not be that hot. Btw only in the US a 80 yr old woman would get $480 000 for burning her cunt with coffee.

 

[HiDnGoD]

IMO if corporations do their due diligence, then they should be absolved of responsibility.
If some idiot wants to eat at Mickey D's & endanger his health that's on him.
Smoking? Don't make me laugh.
However, if corporations knowingly deceive or mislead, their management should be gutted.
Corporations should also do everything in their power to ensure their product is as safe & usefull as possible.

 

[JayC9]

It begins and ends with the existence of US attorneys.
Link to the McD's incident?

 

[heatherrae]

Everyone is quick to blame lawyers and lawsuits, but I honestly believe that these incidences fall somewhere on a continuum. Plus, you have to remember that the litigants initiate lawsuits, not the lawyers. If we didn't have lawyers and you had been injured, I'm sure you would feel like it was a travesty of justice.

With regard to the hot coffee case, on the one hand, she was in a car handling hot coffee, so she is partly responsible. On the other hand, how hot was this coffee? If it was so hot that the average person is risking injury, then McD's was partially to blame. Now, the award that was given was pretty STEEP. Trust me, juries don't usually hand out awards that high. Now, if memory serves me, the amount of the award was reduced after an appellate court remanded for decision on the amount of the award.

Incidentally, I had a similar situation happen. I took my little sis to Pizza Hut. She got these breadsticks that had marinara sauce on the side in a little covered plastic cup. The sauce was so hot that it melted through the side of the cup, and when she went to pick it up, it went all over her hand and immediately started forming blisters. I showed the cup to the manager and she admitted that an employee had erroneously set the warmer for the sauce on high instead of low and apologized. I took the cup with me, in case they wanted to deny it later. I took her to the hospital to have her wounds treated and sent the hospital bills to their agent for service of process, along with a cover letter stating that I would assume that they would happily pay for her treatment. Pizza Hut paid the bill and we left it at that. She didn't have any permanent scars or anything.

Should we have sued for her pain and suffering, etc? I don't think it is ethical to try to get some sort of landfall because someone made a small, unintentional error, unless you were really injured badly. I think you should be compensated for damages when the case warrants it.. Now, I do believe people should be compensated for lost wages, future earnings, etc in cases in which someone's negligence has caused some irreperable harm.

With regard to not funding research for cancer or HIV, I believe you are trying to be absurd to make a point. Am I right? Surely, no one is so cruel and heartless and absurd to actually think that everyone who gets cancer or HIV had it coming because they could have done something to prevent the illness. People could prevent pretty much all communicable diseases by not having social contact, but I don't think anyone would, for that reason, wish that all medical research regarding communicable diseases to cease.

Cancer is more complicated than the premise that "you smoked = you get cancer." Even when smokers get lung cancer, the doctors will tell you that it is hard to know for sure that it was caused by the smoking. On the other hand, if tobacco companies are making a product that they are aware is inherently dangerous and serves no useful benefit to society, should they not be held accountable for damages? Aren't they at least partially responsible for the deaths and illnesses. In light of the fact that the tobacco industry marketed their wares for decades with little or no warnings about the known serious health risks, doesn't that at least make them partially liable for injuries to people who took up smoking during the time period before the surgeon general's warning.

With regard to people who take up smoking knowing full-well of the risks, should the tobacco industry be held responsible? This is a tougher question. Personally, I feel that smoking doesn't serve any benefits and has no useful purpose whatsoever. I can't even think of another product for purposes of analogy that is as useless and dangerous as smoking. Most tobacco companies do other things besides tobacco. For example, Phillip Morris owns Kraft Foods and Miller Brewing. They could easily pull out of making this dangerous product and still make profits. Instead they denied the risks of smoking for decades. They concealed the truth about the risks, and then created a false controversy and tried to assert that there was a dispute among experts about whether smoking was harmful. I just feel that they are putting out a product that they know will kill millions of people and has no redeeming useful purpose. This, in my opinion, makes them at least partially responsible for damages arising from using their product. I understand that the product now has labels, and that people should exercise personal accountability, but I still feel that the liability lies on the part of both parties.

Then, we have the issue of second hand smoke and pregnant mothers who damage their unborn children while smoking. Shouldn't the tobacco company be liable when someone who didn't exercise a choice to use their product is harmed?

 

[manny78]

With regard to the hot coffee case, on the one hand, she was in a car handling hot coffee, so she is partly responsible. On the other hand, how hot was this coffee? If it was so hot that the average person is risking injury, then McD's was partially to blame. Now, the award that was given was pretty STEEP. Trust me, juries don't usually hand out awards that high. Now, if memory serves me, the amount of the award was reduced after an appellate court remanded for decision on the amount of the award.

And there's the problem (at least part of it. You folks in the US still have juries for civil trials. We dont. Archaic... Btw the $480 000 was the final amount reduced in appeal.

 

[tiger88]

heather rae nice copy and paste

 

[heatherrae]

heather rae nice copy and paste

I didnt copy and paste any of that. If I had, I would have credited the source.

 

[Mr. dB]

With regard to the hot coffee case, on the one hand, she was in a car handling hot coffee, so she is partly responsible. On the other hand, how hot was this coffee? If it was so hot that the average person is risking injury, then McD's was partially to blame. Now, the award that was given was pretty STEEP. Trust me, juries don't usually hand out awards that high. Now, if memory serves me, the amount of the award was reduced after an appellate court remanded for decision on the amount of the award.

Incidentally, I had a similar situation happen. I took my little sis to Pizza Hut. She got these breadsticks that had marinara sauce on the side in a little covered plastic cup. The sauce was so hot that it melted through the side of the cup, and when she went to pick it up, it went all over her hand and immediately started forming blisters. I showed the cup to the manager and she admitted that an employee had erroneously set the warmer for the sauce on high instead of low and apologized. I took the cup with me, in case they wanted to deny it later. I took her to the hospital to have her wounds treated and sent the hospital bills to their agent for service of process, along with a cover letter stating that I would assume that they would happily pay for her treatment. Pizza Hut paid the bill and we left it at that. She didn't have any permanent scars or anything.

Should we have sued for her pain and suffering, etc? I don't think it is ethical to try to get some sort of landfall because someone made a small, unintentional error, unless you were really injured badly. I think you should be compensated for damages when the case warrants it.. Now, I do believe people should be compensated for lost wages, future earnings, etc in cases in which someone's negligence has caused some irreperable harm.

That's what the old lady in the McDonald's case tried to do, except that McDonald's refused to compensate her for the medical expenses, so she was left with no alternative but to sue.

 

[heatherrae]

And there's the problem (at least part of it. You folks in the US still have juries for civil trials. We dont. Archaic... Btw the $480 000 was the final amount reduced in appeal.

Yeah, I know the original award was in the millions.

With regard to juries, Americans feel pretty strongly about having a jury of their "peers." The problem that you get is that sometimes they completely miss the finer points of the arguments within the case. Additionally, studies have been done that show that most people truly do not fully understand the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof in criminal cases.

However, the alternative is to have bench trials. Judges are only human, though, and carry their own biases and faults. In practice, I found bench trials to give more fair verdicts which, I believed, were consistent with the law. However, every once in a while a judge will hand down a really strange verdict. Even if the verdict is fair, the person on the losing side of the verdict often feels cheated because it was only one person's opinion.

The other option is to have a panel of judges, but this would be very expensive for local governments. Many judges in more rural areas cover several counties. There would be no practical way to have a panel of judges without backing up the dockets. Additionally, the "jury of peers" would be replaced by judges, a majority of which consist of the upper-middle to upper class, white, males.

So, there are pretty good arguments in favor and against all three systems.

 

[heatherrae]

That's what the old lady in the McDonald's case tried to do, except that McDonald's refused to compensate her for the medical expenses, so she was left with no alternative but to sue.

lol...I bet they really learned their lesson there. A quick settlement with an indemnity clause would have saved them so much money.

 

[Frisky]

I got food poison twice, but I didn't sue.

 

[mrplunkey]

I don't see why we don't institute a "filing fee" for civil cases. Make the plaintiff post a bond for 5% or 10% of the suit's claimed value. Then, if the plantiff loses take court costs out of that bond.

Now consider the four possibilities:

Great case; Great Damages: You'd file for a huge amount, and any lawyer/insurer/bond company in their right mind would jump all over issuing you a "lawsuit bond" to tide you over

Great case; low damages: You'd file for a modest amount, but you could either front the money yourself or use the law firm/insurer/bond company. If you decided to trump-up damages, the bond company would say "whoah now, I'm not issuing a bond that large for such modest damages."

Bad case; huge damages: Lawyers will tell you to screw-off and not plug-up the legal system. Go to vegas if you want to gamble.

Bad case; low damages: Again... suck it up and leave things be. Either that or threaten a small case and see if they settle.

 

[Frisky]

People need to take responsibility for their own actions. I taught my kids that 'fire' is hot. Not to touch the stove, Make sure the food is not to hot before they take a huge bite.

I don't blame any lawyer for taking any case, 'that is their job' and to defend their client the best that they can. But I think the lawsuits these days are so silly.

If there is a steaming hot cup of coffee, it doesn't take a genius to see the steam coming out the glass.

 

[heatherrae]

I don't see why we don't institute a "filing fee" for civil cases. Make the plaintiff post a bond for 5% or 10% of the suit's claimed value. Then, if the plantiff loses take court costs out of that bond.

Now consider the four possibilities:

Great case; Great Damages: You'd file for a huge amount, and any lawyer/insurer/bond company in their right mind would jump all over issuing you a "lawsuit bond" to tide you over

Great case; low damages: You'd file for a modest amount, but you could either front the money yourself or use the law firm/insurer/bond company. If you decided to trump-up damages, the bond company would say "whoah now, I'm not issuing a bond that large for such modest damages."

Bad case; huge damages: Lawyers will tell you to screw-off and not plug-up the legal system. Go to vegas if you want to gamble.

Bad case; low damages: Again... suck it up and leave things be. Either that or threaten a small case and see if they settle.

Well, there already filing fees for filing civil cases, and I don't feel comfortable with the idea of making people post a bond in order to file a case. It would make the system less accessible to the poor. I think the biggest problem with our legal system is that it tends to favor the wealthy. They can afford to hire teams of lawyers, teams of expert witnesses, discovery costs, etc. It is really hard for someone of limited funds to keep fighting when the other side keeps making tons of motions, etc. Poor people run out of money before the case is over, if they are paying hourly. In the case of contingency fee based cases, usually the lawyer is already fronting all these costs for experts, depositions, filing fees, etc. If they do not win the case, they are usually out lots of money and time. To a lawyer, time is money. I think this fact already weeds out lots of meritless cases. Lawyers like to make the maximum money for their time.

Sometimes, though, the lawyer may be wanting to make a name by taking a controversial case that will put their name in the press. Sometimes consumer groups will front cases that they feel will further their interests as well.

I know what it is like to get bonds for cases. I used to have to post bonds in some foreclosure cases. The insurer posting the bond would have to have a relationship with the mortgage holder or would want assurances that they were solvent, etc. There were cases where the plaintiff was foreclosing on a property, so it was almost 100% that the plaintiff would recover and the bond would be released. I would doubt that many would be willing to post a bond for people of limited means.

I also believe that the fact finder (either the judge or jury) should decide the merits of case. We don't want to put up hurdles to make the system more inaccessible. People deserve their day in court. If it is meritless 99 times out of 100 it gets dismissed on summary judgment well before trial.

One last point: lawyers are bound by an ethical duty not to bring frivolous lawsuits. When we sign a pleading, we are stating that we reasonably believe that the case has a basis in law and in fact. If there is no case law or case law which is not in favor of the case, you must have a good faith basis for arguing that the law should be extended. Lawyers can be sanctioned by the court or suspended/disbarred for violation of the rule. That is a pretty strong deterrant.

 

[HiDnGoD]

I have a friend, going through a lawsuit right now. A contracter made a mistake working on his house. When the mistake was discovered, the contracter had a chance to fix it with minimal cost, & carry on. The contracter waffled on it, then they sent a service guy & he worked around the problem, but didn't fix it. The correction he made ended up with the house getting completely contaminated with soot, over a 2 year period. My friend had to pay for lab tests, engineering fees, various reports, etc. The company even admitted to their negligence. Yet the opposing lawyers, representing the contracter's insurance company kep stalling. My friend has spent his life savings, mortgaged to the hilt, to try to get some restitution. His family life has suffered because of the stress on the parents, and because of the lack of financial flexibility for holidays, activities. etc. I don't knonw if it's the opposing lawyers, or the ins company themselves behind it, but when they finally go before a judge in December, it'll be 6 years fucking with a hardworking average Canadian family. Makes me wanna hire bitme to exact justice.

 

[Phenom78]

Some form of reform is necessary. It is most certainly impacting our economy adversely.

People will for example attempt to minimize the impact on health costs with respect to lawsuits and malpractice insurance by including only the hard numbers involved, which are bad enough by themselves. What they fail to account for are the endless unnecessary tests and precautions undertaken by medical providers administered for no better purpose than covering their ass. It has made our entire health care system untenable.

Im hesitant to call for outside reform because there are any number of issues that can and should be dealt with by those knowledgable with the system. But counting on lawyers to straighten out this mess is futile. The spend endless tens of millions buying out politicians to prevent any kind of sensical reform. They treat our legal system like a huge lottery with endless payouts. There is no responsibility or ethics within the profession. And they are greatly harming our economy and innovative capabilities.

 

[EnderJE]

I have a friend, going through a lawsuit right now. A contracter made a mistake working on his house. When the mistake was discovered, the contracter had a chance to fix it with minimal cost, & carry on. The contracter waffled on it, then they sent a service guy & he worked around the problem, but didn't fix it. The correction he made ended up with the house getting completely contaminated with soot, over a 2 year period. My friend had to pay for lab tests, engineering fees, various reports, etc. The company even admitted to their negligence. Yet the opposing lawyers, representing the contracter's insurance company kep stalling. My friend has spent his life savings, mortgaged to the hilt, to try to get some restitution. His family life has suffered because of the stress on the parents, and because of the lack of financial flexibility for holidays, activities. etc. I don't knonw if it's the opposing lawyers, or the ins company themselves behind it, but when they finally go before a judge in December, it'll be 6 years fucking with a hardworking average Canadian family. Makes me wanna hire bitme to exact justice.

But then using your previous logic, then wouldn't you say that it's your friend's fault because he didn't do a good enough job to investigate the company that was doing the work for him?

 

[JayC9]

Link to the McD's incident please.

 

[GoldenDelicious]

the missing word is "reasonable."

 

[HiDnGoD]

But then using your previous logic, then wouldn't you say that it's your friend's fault because he didn't do a good enough job to investigate the company that was doing the work for him?

No. My friend rentented a piece of equipment. The local dispenser of said equipment had their licensed servicemen install it. There are laws regulating who can do this type of work. The installation was faulty, & when teh service people were sent back to rectify the situation, the repairs they made, did not conform to municipal(or provincial) codes. My friend had to take it on good faith that they knew what they were doing since the company has been a round for a long time, & their installers & service people had the appropriate accredition.

 

[heatherrae]

I have a friend, going through a lawsuit right now. A contracter made a mistake working on his house. When the mistake was discovered, the contracter had a chance to fix it with minimal cost, & carry on. The contracter waffled on it, then they sent a service guy & he worked around the problem, but didn't fix it. The correction he made ended up with the house getting completely contaminated with soot, over a 2 year period. My friend had to pay for lab tests, engineering fees, various reports, etc. The company even admitted to their negligence. Yet the opposing lawyers, representing the contracter's insurance company kep stalling. My friend has spent his life savings, mortgaged to the hilt, to try to get some restitution. His family life has suffered because of the stress on the parents, and because of the lack of financial flexibility for holidays, activities. etc. I don't knonw if it's the opposing lawyers, or the ins company themselves behind it, but when they finally go before a judge in December, it'll be 6 years fucking with a hardworking average Canadian family. Makes me wanna hire bitme to exact justice.

That is a shame. I hope your friend wins his case!

 

[redguru]

Everyone is quick to blame lawyers and lawsuits, but I honestly believe that these incidences fall somewhere on a continuum. Plus, you have to remember that the litigants initiate lawsuits, not the lawyers. If we didn't have lawyers and you had been injured, I'm sure you would feel like it was a travesty of justice.

How many lawyers advertise in your market, "if you've been in an accident you may have injuries you do not know about, please call us at..." or "Do you have mesothelioma?" "Have you been prescribed such and such a drug?"

With regard to the hot coffee case, on the one hand, she was in a car handling hot coffee, so she is partly responsible. On the other hand, how hot was this coffee? If it was so hot that the average person is risking injury, then McD's was partially to blame. Now, the award that was given was pretty STEEP. Trust me, juries don't usually hand out awards that high. Now, if memory serves me, the amount of the award was reduced after an appellate court remanded for decision on the amount of the award.

To make coffee, you must boil water to extract the flavor from the bean. Boiling water is very hot, the average person should know this by the age of three. Handling coffee at all is dangerous.

Incidentally, I had a similar situation happen. I took my little sis to Pizza Hut. She got these breadsticks that had marinara sauce on the side in a little covered plastic cup. The sauce was so hot that it melted through the side of the cup, and when she went to pick it up, it went all over her hand and immediately started forming blisters. I showed the cup to the manager and she admitted that an employee had erroneously set the warmer for the sauce on high instead of low and apologized. I took the cup with me, in case they wanted to deny it later. I took her to the hospital to have her wounds treated and sent the hospital bills to their agent for service of process, along with a cover letter stating that I would assume that they would happily pay for her treatment. Pizza Hut paid the bill and we left it at that. She didn't have any permanent scars or anything.

Should we have sued for her pain and suffering, etc? I don't think it is ethical to try to get some sort of landfall because someone made a small, unintentional error, unless you were really injured badly. I think you should be compensated for damages when the case warrants it.. Now, I do believe people should be compensated for lost wages, future earnings, etc in cases in which someone's negligence has caused some irreperable harm.

I don't see the cases being similar, all coffee is scalding hot, the scalding marinara is due to negligence.

With regard to not funding research for cancer or HIV, I believe you are trying to be absurd to make a point. Am I right? Surely, no one is so cruel and heartless and absurd to actually think that everyone who gets cancer or HIV had it coming because they could have done something to prevent the illness. People could prevent pretty much all communicable diseases by not having social contact, but I don't think anyone would, for that reason, wish that all medical research regarding communicable diseases to cease.

Cancer is more complicated than the premise that "you smoked = you get cancer." Even when smokers get lung cancer, the doctors will tell you that it is hard to know for sure that it was caused by the smoking. On the other hand, if tobacco companies are making a product that they are aware is inherently dangerous and serves no useful benefit to society, should they not be held accountable for damages? Aren't they at least partially responsible for the deaths and illnesses. In light of the fact that the tobacco industry marketed their wares for decades with little or no warnings about the known serious health risks, doesn't that at least make them partially liable for injuries to people who took up smoking during the time period before the surgeon general's warning.

With regard to people who take up smoking knowing full-well of the risks, should the tobacco industry be held responsible? This is a tougher question. Personally, I feel that smoking doesn't serve any benefits and has no useful purpose whatsoever. I can't even think of another product for purposes of analogy that is as useless and dangerous as smoking. Most tobacco companies do other things besides tobacco. For example, Phillip Morris owns Kraft Foods and Miller Brewing. They could easily pull out of making this dangerous product and still make profits. Instead they denied the risks of smoking for decades. They concealed the truth about the risks, and then created a false controversy and tried to assert that there was a dispute among experts about whether smoking was harmful. I just feel that they are putting out a product that they know will kill millions of people and has no redeeming useful purpose. This, in my opinion, makes them at least partially responsible for damages arising from using their product. I understand that the product now has labels, and that people should exercise personal accountability, but I still feel that the liability lies on the part of both parties.

Then, we have the issue of second hand smoke and pregnant mothers who damage their unborn children while smoking. Shouldn't the tobacco company be liable when someone who didn't exercise a choice to use their product is harmed?

I agree with you regarding aids and cancer research, that is constitutionally advocated in the Preamble by promoting the general welfare of the people. A lot of early AIDS victims were hemophiliacs who caught it from the tainted blood supply. Including the wife, daughter and son of Paul Michael Glaser (Starsky). His wife caught it during a transfusion, his daughter from his wife's breast milk, and his son in utero.

However, I disagree with some of your premises regarding tobacco. The warning label has been on cigarette packages since 1969. Any smoker who began since then is negligent of thier own health. That massive lawsuit placed by the several states on the tobacco industry was just a money grab.
The States aren't even using that money for public health-related projects.

The pregnant woman analogy is a dangerously slippery slope. Why stop at tobacco? If the mother drinks alcohol or eats junk food and harms the baby, should those manufacturers be held liable?

 

[heatherrae]

[/B]How many lawyers advertise in your market, "if you've been in an accident you may have injuries you do not know about, please call us at..." or "Do you have mesothelioma?" "Have you been prescribed such and such a drug?"

Well, in my opinion, lots of lawyer advertising is low class, and I don't condone commercials that reflect poorly on the profession. I view that as a different topic, though.

To make coffee, you must boil water to extract the flavor from the bean. Boiling water is very hot, the average person should know this by the age of three. Handling coffee at all is dangerous.

You don't have to serve it that hot, though. There is the difference. I think that both parties were negligent in that case. Incidentally, I think the lady was more negligent than McDonalds in that she was sriving around drinking hot coffee. Some states say that if the plaintiff is more than 50% negligent they can't win a negligence suit. In the other states you can divide negligence at whatever proportion. So, if I'm 80% negligent for m own injuries, I can still collect from you for the 20% negligence of yours that contributed to my damages. I'm not sure which system I feel is better.


I don't see the cases being similar, all coffee is scalding hot, the scalding marinara is due to negligence.

I see the distinction that you are making, but I believe neither should be served boiling hot to a customer.

I agree with you regarding aids and cancer research, that is constitutionally advocated in the Preamble by promoting the general welfare of the people. A lot of early AIDS victims were hemophiliacs who caught it from the tainted blood supply. Including the wife, daughter and son of Paul Michael Glaser (Starsky). His wife caught it during a transfusion, his daughter from his wife's breast milk, and his son in utero.

I think all but the most extreme would agree with this.

However, I disagree with some of your premises regarding tobacco. The warning label has been on cigarette packages since 1969. Any smoker who began since then is negligent of thier own health. That massive lawsuit placed by the several states on the tobacco industry was just a money grab.
The States aren't even using that money for public health-related projects.

I see your point. That is why I said it is somewhat harder to argue for those who began smoking after the warnings. In general, protecting people from their own stupidity rubs me the wrong way, as overly paternalistic. Once again, both parties are at fault, but dividing up the fault is fair, in my opinion.

The pregnant woman analogy is a dangerously slippery slope. Why stop at tobacco? If the mother drinks alcohol or eats junk food and harms the baby, should those manufacturers be held liable?

Sometimes, despite a slippery slope, you have to draw the line somewhere, no matter how arbitrary it may seem. Alcohol and junk food can be incorporated into someone's life without causing any harm. I could drink a glass of wine and have a handful of potato chips everyday, and I most likely will be just fine. I just put cigarettes in a different category. The others are a matter of moderation. I don't think you can smoke in moderation and remain unharmed.

 

[HiDnGoD]

I see your point. That is why I said it is somewhat harder to argue for those who began smoking after the warnings. In general, protecting people from their own stupidity rubs me the wrong way, as overly paternalistic.

I've always said, you can't legislate against stupidity.

 

[EnderJE]

With regard to not funding research for cancer or HIV, I believe you are trying to be absurd to make a point. Am I right? Surely, no one is so cruel and heartless and absurd to actually think that everyone who gets cancer or HIV had it coming because they could have done something to prevent the illness. People could prevent pretty much all communicable diseases by not having social contact, but I don't think anyone would, for that reason, wish that all medical research regarding communicable diseases to cease.

To some degree. The main point is that if you could prevent it, then you accept the consequences if you don't prevent it.

For example, if someone has unprotected sex with a person who has AIDS, then that someone deserves whatever they get.

Should I fund research to cure it? Fuck that.

If someone gets AIDS by a blood transfusion, then I'm more willing to fund that because they would assume that doctors ensure that the blood is clean.

However, I want the people responsible for that mess to pay.

If a person gets cancer by smoke, then should I pay to cure it? Fuck that. You smoked. You're going to die for it.