"Peter" <someone@no-spam> wrote in message news:3efa083b_1@no-spam
>
> "pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF9A56D.94AB897C@no-spam
> > There is a question in my mind that keeps popping up from time to time,
> > so I thought that I would ask it.. :)
> >
> > Since tobacco companies can be sued for promoting and marketing a
> > product that they know is dangerous to public health, in fact deadly,
> > why can't governments be sued for allowing such a product to be legally
> > sold? The governments own anti-smoking advertising in itself is evidence
> > enough that they admit to knowledge of the dangers of smoking. If drugs
> > are known to be dangerous, they must be withdrawn from sale, so why not
> > tobacco? Yeah, I know it's all about money, but I'm asking from a
> > legalities POV.
> It would assist me to quit!
> I actually find the worst thing every time I try and stop the disgusting
> habit is all the signs around town that have a picture of a smoking
> cigarette in a red circle with a line through it.
> It really doesn't help to be constantly reminded of something you are trying
> to give up.
Trivial to fix that, poke your eyes out.
Rod Speed wrote:
> pedro <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF9A56D.94AB897C@no-spam
>
> > There is a question in my mind that keeps popping up from time to time,
>
> Best kill it with the largest waddy you can find the next time it trys that.
>
> > so I thought that I would ask it.. :)
>
> How dare you ?
>
> > Since tobacco companies can be sued for promoting and marketing
> > a product that they know is dangerous to public health, in fact deadly,
>
> Its less than clear if they can in this country.
>
> > why can't governments be sued for
> > allowing such a product to be legally sold?
>
> You can, and will lose.
>
> > The governments own anti-smoking advertising in itself is evidence
> > enough that they admit to knowledge of the dangers of smoking.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If drugs are known to be dangerous, they must be withdrawn from sale,
>
> That is just plain wrong. Plenty of drugs are known to be dangerous
> and are used anyway, because they can be benefitial when used properly.
> That is in fact the reason the prescription drugs are prescription drugs.
>
> > so why not tobacco?
>
> Because plenty that can kill is legal to sell.
>
> > Yeah, I know it's all about money,
>
> It aint.
>
> > but I'm asking from a legalities POV.
>
> Perfectly legal for the govt to allow stuff to be sold that is known to be dangerous to use.
>
> They obviously warn the user that it can kill.
Are you a lawyer Rod?
--
rgds,
Pete.
-----
"pedro" <pedro@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF9A56D.94AB897C@no-spam
> There is a question in my mind that keeps popping up from time to time,
> so I thought that I would ask it.. :)
>
> Since tobacco companies can be sued for promoting and marketing a
> product that they know is dangerous to public health, in fact deadly,
> why can't governments be sued for allowing such a product to be legally
> sold? The governments own anti-smoking advertising in itself is evidence
> enough that they admit to knowledge of the dangers of smoking. If drugs
> are known to be dangerous, they must be withdrawn from sale, so why not
> tobacco? Yeah, I know it's all about money, but I'm asking from a
> legalities POV.
** The Govt makes the laws - in case you had not noticed. Fags are on
sale world wide - so guess what - it is legal to sell them. Dangerous
products are often on restricted sale - like prescription drugs,
explosives, poisons.
Fags are on restricted sale too.
BTW Folk are allowed to fly ultralights, hang gliders, go water
skiing, parachuting .....
.............. Phil
"Martin Taylor" <mtaylor@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efbc0d6.41d37339.bm004@no-spam
> Rod Speed said....
>
> RS> Because plenty that can kill is legal to sell.
> RS>
> >> Yeah, I know it's all about money,
> RS>
> RS> It aint.
>
> It is all about money.
** It is all about democracy really.
Tobacco (and alcohol) excise is hefty. If the
> governments were serious about smoking, they'd ban it.
** We do not have dictatorships here - too many voters smoke to
even consider a blanket ban.
.............. Phil
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:33:19 +1000, Martin Taylor <mtaylor@no-spam>
wrote:
>Rod Speed said....
>
> RS> Because plenty that can kill is legal to sell.
> RS>
>>> Yeah, I know it's all about money,
> RS>
> RS> It aint.
>
>It is all about money. Tobacco (and alcohol) excise is hefty. If the
>governments were serious about smoking, they'd ban it.
They will never make smoking illigal for that fact the ironic side of
the coin is that it is actually illegal to grow and sell chop chop
(tobacco). Simply because by doing so the govt loses out on all its
lovely revenue. once heard the govt share of alcohol tobacco and fuel
was nearing 70-80%. Not to sure on the validity of it but wouldnt
surprise me if that was the case.
They would legalise recreational drugs if they could make enough money
out of them. Problem is they wouldnt be in govt any longer if they
tried They can only push the public to swallow so much tripe.
Another tale I have heard bandied about the back porch is that many
years ago when the tobacco industries were first blossoming there was
a debate to decide which drug to be promoted, tobacco or marijuana.
apparently the decision was made due to the fact that tobacco is much
more addictive than marijuana and as such would generate much higher
revenues. and as such more promotion etc was put into tobacco and
marijuana was made illegal.
(these tales have no basis in fact that I know of we all know old
people have their tales so dont blast me if you have statistics to
prove otherwise I wouldnt mind seeing em if you do!)
>
>What pisses me off though, is the preferential treatment that alcohol
>gets, in terms of society acceptance. You can't advertise cigarettes at
>a motor sport event, but you can with alcohol.
>
>(the governments and road authorities are always beating us about the
>head with driving, speeding and drinking).
>
>Now, while smoking takes years to kill you, alcohol can have a fairly
>quick effect, such as drink driving. It also has other social issues
>such as domestic violence, workplace accidents and absenteeism,
>hooliganism at sporting events, and the usual crap that you see in
>nightclubs, and afterwards outside of the pubs.
glow <g_bonnes_1@no-spam> wrote in message
news:r6jnfvggm0rvikl8a2qpm0a5nm79h97asv@no-spam
> Martin Taylor <mtaylor@no-spam> wrote
>> Rod Speed said....
>>>> Yeah, I know it's all about money,
>>> It aint.
>> It is all about money. Tobacco (and alcohol) excise is hefty.
>> If the governments were serious about smoking, they'd ban it.
> They will never make smoking illigal for that fact the
> ironic side of the coin is that it is actually illegal to
> grow and sell chop chop (tobacco). Simply because
> by doing so the govt loses out on all its lovely revenue.
Have fun explaining why home brewing and wine making is perfectly legal.
Have fun explaining the considerably money the govt spends on
anti smoking campaigns, the warnings they force on the packets etc.
> once heard the govt share of alcohol tobacco and
> fuel was nearing 70-80%. Not to sure on the validity
> of it but wouldnt surprise me if that was the case.
Thats an over simplification, particularly with wine, but it is very high.
> They would legalise recreational drugs if
> they could make enough money out of them.
Complete and utter drivel.
> Problem is they wouldnt be in govt any longer if they tried
Have fun explaining the fact that quite a few recreational
drugs are legal, and some arent even taxed at all.
> They can only push the public to swallow so much tripe.
Pathetic, really. You're the one spewing utterly mindless tripe.
> Another tale I have heard bandied about the back porch is that many
> years ago when the tobacco industries were first blossoming there was
> a debate to decide which drug to be promoted, tobacco or marijuana.
Complete and utter drivel. 'tobacco industrys' have always been
with us, long before many even considered marijuana at all.
> apparently the decision was made due to the fact
> that tobacco is much more addictive than marijuana
> and as such would generate much higher revenues.
Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
> and as such more promotion etc was put into
> tobacco and marijuana was made illegal.
Flagrant lie. Never happened anything like that.
> (these tales have no basis in fact that I know of we all know old
> people have their tales so dont blast me if you have statistics to
> prove otherwise I wouldnt mind seeing em if you do!)
You're so stupid that you cant even consider
the basics on that stupid claim for yourself.
"Martin Taylor" <mtaylor@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efbe8df.23849ab6.bm000@no-spam
> If they legalised marijuana, they'd make a fortune.
** Very doubtful.
Thing is, I'd much
> prefer to meet up with a bunch of people leaving a "hooch bar" than I
> would those who stagger out of a pub.
** Asinine comment.
> It doesn't matter which one it is. A drug is a drug.
** Even dumber - there are huge differences.
They are all harmful.
** Absolute shite.
It's just that the hypocrisy in our society deems that some
> drugs are acceptable, while others are not.
** The hypocrite is YOU.
You are blowing it out your arse - big time.
............... Phil
Martin Taylor <mtaylor@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efbe8df.23849ab6.bm000@no-spam
> glow said....
>> They would legalise recreational drugs if they could make enough
>> money out of them. Problem is they wouldnt be in govt any longer
>> if they tried They can only push the public to swallow so much tripe.
> If they legalised marijuana, they'd make a fortune.
Nope.
> Thing is, I'd much prefer to meet up with
> a bunch of people leaving a "hooch bar"
No such animal, and there wouldnt be if it was legalised either.
> than I would those who stagger out of a pub.
You've always been one for neurotic fears.
And your neurotic fears might well have a problem with those
who schitzophrenia is triggered by heavy marijuana use.
> It doesn't matter which one it is.
> A drug is a drug. They are all harmful.
Mindlessly superficial. Alcohol used in
moderation actually has health benefits, fool.
And water used to excess is harmful too.
> It's just that the hypocrisy in our society deems that
> some drugs are acceptable, while others are not.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to
work out the difference between caffiene and heroin.