Should the U.S. government become the Target of a Massive Class Action Suit?

[boxcar]

At the very best it appears the U.S. government is guilty of negligence if not for the manslaughter of untold millions due to the state's unbridled greed for tax revenue, which clearly trumps the health concerns of its citizens and even its own General Surgeon. And you libs talk about the greed of corporations? :bang: :bang: :bang:

Listen carefully to what the SG says:

tqHaYjeXv54

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

If one cigarette is too many then I might as well keep going now, huh?

[GaryG]

There is also the stupidity of those who continue to smoke despite all of the evidence that it will kill you. A smoker with lung cancer who complains about the danger of cigarettes is like the woman who sued McDonalds because the coffee was hot. What the hell did they expect?

[boxcar]

There is also the stupidity of those who continue to smoke despite all of the evidence that it will kill you. A smoker with lung cancer who complains about the danger of cigarettes is like the woman who sued McDonalds because the coffee was hot. What the hell did they expect?

Different issue. The issue here is that the government, now with full knowledge of how dangerous smoking [allegedly] is, is keeping this poisonous substance legal out of selfishness -- out of its pure, unadulterated greed for tax revenues. Should not the government be held liable for the murder of millions of people? By maintaining this substance's legal status, the government is clearly giving its tacit approval of its use, despite all its hypocritical health warning claims. Since government is supposed protect its citizens (in virtually all areas of life, according to liberals), then has not the government failed dismally with tobacco? Where is the outcry against government greed? Why does the government consider money more important than people's health and even lives?

Boxcar

[Tom]

Good idea, Box...by taxing and allowing ciggies, Uncle Sugar has put us all at risk, and we should sue his arse off.

Trouble is, his arse is our arse! :eek:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Different issue. The issue here is that the government, now with full knowledge of how dangerous smoking [allegedly] is, is keeping this poisonous substance legal out of selfishness -- out of its pure, unadulterated greed for tax revenues. Should not the government be held liable for the murder of millions of people? By maintaining this substance's legal status, the government is clearly giving its tacit approval of its use, despite all its hypocritical health warning claims. Since government is supposed protect its citizens (in virtually all areas of life, according to liberals), then has not the government failed dismally with tobacco? Where is the outcry against government greed? Why does the government consider money more important than people's health and even lives?

Boxcar

Excellent. We need more litigation and more laws so insurance companies and their counterparts can mandate that I drink water and eat rice cake to ensure a long, ultra-enjoyable life. I feel bad for those forced to jog seven miles a day as requisite since the Federal Civil Litigation Department doesn't allow the irresponsibility of your free will to harm you.

They tell you every which way in the world not to smoke anymore. That's good enough. Can't you accept a little hint of Darwinism here and there? ;)

[boxcar]

Good idea, Box...by taxing and allowing ciggies, Uncle Sugar has put us all at risk, and we should sue his arse off.

Trouble is, his arse is our arse! :eek:

Consider the lawsuit a new form of welfare -- maybe even something like reparations. Yeah.. that'll work... :D :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Excellent. We need more litigation and more laws so insurance companies and their counterparts can mandate that I drink water and eat rice cake to ensure a long, ultra-enjoyable life. I feel bad for those forced to jog seven miles a day as requisite since the Federal Civil Litigation Department doesn't allow the irresponsibility of your free will to harm you.

They tell you every which way in the world not to smoke anymore. That's good enough. Can't you accept a little hint of Darwinism here and there? ;)

Tell me this: Would the FDA, knowingly allow a drug to remain on the market after it is discovered that its side effects can kill?

Would the EPA allow a water treatment plant to sell its water after it's discovered that it has very harmful bacteria in it?

And finally, warning me not to smoke, but making the poison legally available to me strikes as a wee bit contradictory. Mixed signals only serve to confuse the young, the very old and in general the stupid masses. The government isn't doing its job protecting us from ourselves (as with ObmaCare, the SS Act, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) all because it places the Almighty Dollar before the health, safety and lives of its citizens. The government is a despicable, evil, greedy and hypocritical institution by not outlawing and banning this poison from the marketplace. Love it. Live it. Learn it.

Boxcar