# Judge awards billions to Quebec smokers



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Just read that


> A judge (Brian Riordan ) has awarded more than $15 billion Canadian (US$12 billion) to Quebec smokers in a case that pitted them against three giant tobacco companies. The case is believed to be the biggest class-action lawsuit ever seen in Canada... The Quebec case marked the first time tobacco companies had gone to trial in a civil lawsuit in Canada and involved two separate groups of plaintiffs: some of whom became seriously ill from smoking and others who said they couldn't quit..


http://www.barchart.com/headlines/story/8413468/judge-awards-billions-to-quebec-smokers

I like this amount $15 billion  I also smoke....can Brian award me couple of billions too?! :biggrin:
I also curious if any preovince in any country can "award" billions of somebody's money 

Interesting...why nobody has lawsuits agains alcohol producers?! Much more people die from it than from smokes.... At least on cigaretes there are warning....and I've never seen any warnings on vodka or whisky
....
....


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

"British American Tobacco has been ordered to pay Can$10.5bn (£5.5bn) to nearly 1m smokers *who claimed they were never warned about the health risks*."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-Tobacco-ordered-to-pay-5.5bn-to-smokers.html

What a load of crap! I smoke and I know the risks and it's my choice. And almost bought BTI on Friday... sigh


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> What a load of crap! I smoke and I know the risks and it's my choice. And almost bought BTI on Friday... sigh


 the real crap  there can be also lawsuit against PEP or KO (not too healthy drinks), MCD, coffee makers (drink 2 liters every day and say that nobody warned you)..... BS.... 
I just don't understand validity of Quebec freaking important court  Moneytoo, do you think, can Supreme Court of Donetzk People's Republic also order those companies to pay $15 billion ?!


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

gibor said:


> Moneytoo, do you think, can Supreme Court of Donetzk People's Republic also order those companies to pay $15 billion ?!


When we were students, one of our friends from a medical university worked night shifts in a morgue. So he told us the best kept secret: in Donetsk, the lungs of non-smokers and chain smokers were undistinguishable! Both were covered in coal dust... Yet when I came to Canada (at 26, a smoker for almost 10 years), my first family physician complimented my lungs: said they were clean like a baby's! And now that I know a few non-smokers who died of cancer, yet our close friend's chain-smoking mother keeps puffing, I guess I can try to sue Donetsk People's Republic for polluted air that I had to filter through cigarettes lol

(I still want to buy BTI because sooner or later someone will develop an anti-cancer drug and all this ridiculous anti-smoking propaganda won't have a leg to stand on )


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> I like this amount $15 billion  I also smoke....can Brian award me couple of billions too?! :biggrin:
> I also curious if any province in any country can "award" billions of somebody's money


Of course they can..if they win a class action lawsuit..after years and years of appeals by the losing parties.



> Interesting...why nobody has lawsuits against alcohol producers?! Much more people die from it than from smokes.... At least on cigarettes there are warning....and I've never seen any warnings on vodka or whisky.


Good point...I drink alcohol too..and the breweries and distillers have deep pockets...now if I should contract sclerosis of my liver from too much consumption, 
I should also launch a class action lawsuit against these distillers for not having WARNINGS in flashing bold letters on their labels....

Suggestion perhaps? WARNING! Drinking this alcoholic product may result in injury to your health and/or possible loss of life...
not to mention loss of income to us and the provincial gov'ts...but enjoy the smooth taste of our premium distilled vodkas and
10 year old aged fine whiskeys..aged to perfection..and enjoyable at any time... 
Please don't drink while driving and/or drive while drinking. 

and for the iphone companies that distract me while driving or walking into cars ..I think I will launch a class action lawsuit against them for purposely creating a product that endangers my right to life..social media...

now the food producers that still use artificial colouring and additives....

and for the toddlers hiding behind the parents cars as they back up...yea!..finally a rear view camera and a warning to driver..
Stop! Brakes are automatically applied...child obstacle detected!


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Interesting ruling. 

If the primary argument is people were not properly warned it seems to me that would be very hard to prove, although it seems at least one Quebec judge disagrees. 

I think you're on to something Carverman. Where does this lead us to?


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

The companies did destroy information from studies that indicated smoking was bad for you.

Money should be awarded to the none smokers that were exposed to second hand smoke also.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

Certainly not an expert on the subject but it seems to me that cigarettes are much more "addicting" than other products (pop, alcohol, chewing tobacco, chocolate?) etc and while there are warnings on the cigarette packages it is difficult for smokers to stop. Also, was it not the case that years ago that cigarette companies enhanced the tobacco to make it more addicting? Lots of smokers would like to quit but just can't because of this addiction factor; similar to drugs in that once you are hooked its hard to stop.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

RBull said:


> Interesting ruling.
> 
> If the primary argument is people were not properly warned it seems to me that would be very hard to prove, although it seems at least one Quebec judge disagrees.
> 
> I think you're on to something Carverman. Where does this lead us to?


Like in the US..it's now a trend to litigation society.
Daily I see ads in TV of personal injury lawyers..promoting their services..on a contingency basis..no money up front..if we win, we take a percentage.

Tort lawyers are on the rise too with these kinds of class action suits as it is a happy hunting ground for these kinds of legal law firms. 

*John Grisham has written many books on lawyers*...*The Litigators* comes to mind..about class action lawyers and their ways to squeeze money out of the big corporations. Then another of his books "*King of Torts*", and of course one of his biggest sellers "*The Runaway Jury*" which just happens to be about a class action lawsuit of "Big Tobacco". It was made into a 2003 movie with John Cusack, Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz.
Excellent drama. 

Runaway Jury:


> However, as Fitch investigates Marlee's past, he discovers that her parents have been killed by smoking and that Marlee was actually planning against the defense. However, he has already sent the $10 million, so he lost $10 million in addition to having lost the trial.
> 
> Easter becomes jury foreman after the previous one falls ill (resulting from Nicholas spiking his coffee) and convinces them to find for the plaintiff and make a large monetary award – $2 million for compensatory damages, and $400 million for punitive measures. The defense lawyers and their employers are devastated.


Grisham's book was published in 1996 ..and the punitive settlement by jury was $400 million..shock and awe!..fast forward to 2015..
with inflation and tort cases becoming the norm now...it's 15 billion. 


Big Pharma is another hunting ground for class action lawsuits..this way the user victims can take on the big drug companies with deep pockets..
no wonder the prices of drugs are so ridiculously high..there is a litigation portion built into each pill they sell. 

Remember the asbestos companies in the 70s/80s? They are all out of business due to mesothelioma and class action lawsuits. 

Then there is GM with their chinzy ignition locks that could switch off with lots of keys hanging off it and the car encounters a bump...leading to several
losses of control and a few deaths...not as many as the victims that died of complications from "Big Tobacco"...

No wonder car manufacturers are going for voluntary recalls (Toyota airbags) even if it costs them hundreds of millions..still cheaper than the
billions that they would have to pay out.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

lonewolf said:


> The companies did destroy information from studies that indicated smoking was bad for you.
> 
> Money should be awarded to the none smokers that were exposed to second hand smoke also.


 Yes, but some of them have passed on. There was a sad story about a woman in Ottawa that worked in a restaurant/bar where smoking was allowed back in the
70s,80s and parts of the 90s..before smoking was banned inside. She contracted second hand smoke lung cancer and although she never smoked in her life eventually died from it. 
Just imagine what can happen to children and babies exposed to cigarette smoke in the confines of a car..while parents carelessly smoke.


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

carverman said:


> Like in the US..it's now a trend to litigation society.
> Daily I see ads in TV of personal injury lawyers..promoting their services..on a contingency basis..no money up front..if we win, we take a percentage.


Our daughter went to a house party last year and left my father-in-law's car (he let's her borrow it) parked in front of the house. A crazy neighbour drove home late at night, saw the car, thought it was her boyfriend's car, and rammed it from behind so furiously - she broke her leg! Imagine our daughter's reaction when she was ready to go home - and my father-in-law was devastated: he loves that car, and takes really good care of it - and he's over 80, so is used to it, and the idea of having to get a new car was not exciting for him as it probably would for someone younger.

Anyways, his mechanic did a miracle and restored the car to the drivable condition, and just as we were about to put it all behind us - our insurance company called to inform us that the ***** wants to sue us for her broken leg! And the funny thing is - we have the same insurance company! So our daughter had to go to "the scene", my husband had to spend hours on the phone, and now says that if she still drags us to the court - he wants to look in her lawyer's eyes. Not hers, as she's obviously one of those who'd rather blame somebody else than look in the mirror...


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

carverman said:


> Just imagine what can happen to children and babies exposed to cigarette smoke in the confines of a car..while parents carelessly smoke.


Aw please, not you, too!  Just watch old movies and TV series (if you don't remember yourself) - how did that generation and their kids survive?


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Moneytoo said:


> When we were students, one of our friends from a medical university worked night shifts in a morgue. So he told us the best kept secret: in Donetsk, the lungs of non-smokers and chain smokers were undistinguishable! Both were covered in coal dust... Yet when I came to Canada (at 26, a smoker for almost 10 years), my first family physician complimented my lungs: said they were clean like a baby's! And now that I know a few non-smokers who died of cancer, yet our close friend's chain-smoking mother keeps puffing, I guess I can try to sue Donetsk People's Republic for polluted air that I had to filter through cigarettes lol
> 
> (I still want to buy BTI because sooner or later someone will develop an anti-cancer drug and all this ridiculous anti-smoking propaganda won't have a leg to stand on )


Are you suggesting the aggregate consensus of medical science as to the long-term effects of smoking are wrong, based on an anecdotal account?


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

BoringInvestor said:


> Are you suggesting the aggregate consensus of medical science as to the long-term effects of smoking are wrong, based on an anecdotal account?


I'm suggesting that if people used their brains more often, they wouldn't feel like entitled victims (and not only when it comes to smoking)


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Moneytoo said:


> I'm suggesting that if people used their brains more often, they wouldn't feel like entitled victims (and not only when it comes to smoking)


Then the provinces and federal gov'ts should ban the sale of all cigarettes and tobacco products. Of course that will make it illegal and when that happens
the cigarette illegal trade will climb higher than it already is and the medical complications and deaths will continue..with nobody to sue except the provinces.
and since they pay the judges salaries as well are bound to public health care..the success rate of winning at those class action suits is next to nil.

Look at what's happening with e-cigarrettes..banned or in the process of being banned. And medical science doesn't have enough data right
now to determine if these products will be a health hazard in the future..same with the hookah pipes.

Bottom line is" If there is no revenue from excise taxes for both the provinces and federal government, then it is easier for them to ban these
things citing "potential health hazards" and the annoyance factor of second hand smoke. 

You wouldn't want someone on the subway or bus coughing in your face...why should you have to tolerate some kind of chemically flavoured
smoke dispersing in your breathing space.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think the judgement is because the tobacco companies not only knew the bad affects of smoking, but actively fought against any evidence that smoking was harmful.


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

carverman said:


> Then the provinces and federal gov'ts should ban the sale of all cigarettes and tobacco products.


Quite the opposite - I believe the government should encourage those who wants to die sooner (either from drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and/or unprotected sex) rather than later. As I read somewhere (and I don't think it was a 100% joke), the perfect citizen dies on the first day of retirement :stupid: 



carverman said:


> You wouldn't want someone on the subway or bus coughing in your face...why should you have to tolerate some kind of chemically flavoured smoke dispersing in your breathing space.


Umm... I just celebrated 30 years of smoking in March, and yeah, hate my husband's cheesecake-flavored vapor e-smoke, prefer the real thing lol


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> I think the judgement is because the tobacco companies not only knew the bad affects of smoking, but actively fought against any evidence that smoking was harmful.


So that is punitive judgement against the tobacco companies, just like in Grisham's book "The Runaway Jury'. The victims were awarded very little for their pain and suffering in their last days. 

The same will happen in this case. Even if the tobacco companies knew, and medical science has published the medical hazards of smoking and even forced to put those rather nasty looking pictures on their cigarette packages with a warning that smoking can cause cancer...they just continue buying like any drug addicts and light up, not thinking......

Just like Moneytoo has mentioned..."If they used their brains".... but when it comes to drug dependencies (and nicotine creates a drug dependency) the addicts find it more convient (in most cases) to just continue with their nasty habit, than seek help to stop. No amount of advertising will help someone who doesn't want help.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Are you suggesting the aggregate consensus of medical science as to the long-term effects of smoking are wrong, based on an anecdotal account?


 I think she's suggesting that just living in thousands of cities aroung the world (include Canada) is much more hazard than smoking ..


> H2S(g) is often found at high levels in the Fort McMurray area and other oil sands sites. Exposure to H2S(g) leads to similar health effects suffered from carbon monoxide poisoning such as: dizziness, headaches, difficulty breathing and eventually death.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

sags said:


> I think the judgement is because the tobacco companies not only knew the bad affects of smoking, but actively fought against any evidence that smoking was harmful.


Alcohol is not less addictive than smoking and not less harmful and they have a lot of commercial on TV , sponsoring sport events etc... 
This QC guy can continue with his decisions .... rule that ministry of education should pay billions as they didn't teach good that snoking is bad, goverment of QC - as they allowed sale of tobacco in province, airlines - who carried hazardous product and so on


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> I think she's suggesting that just living in thousands of cities aroung the world (include Canada) is much more hazard than smoking ..


Hydrogen Sulphide (sour gas) are hazards of working in the oil patch. Generally you can smell it as "rotten eggs" and try to get out of there fast!

heard recently that China is banning smoking in their bigger cities due to extreme pollution ..Chinese are not happy about that as they feel they have a "right" to smoke...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> Alcohol is not less addictive than smoking and not less harmful and they have a lot of commercial on TV , sponsoring sport events etc...
> This QC guy can continue with his decisions .... rule that ministry of education should pay billions as they didn't teach good that snoking is bad, goverment of QC - as they allowed sale of tobacco in province, airlines - who carried hazardous product and so on


That is just one judges decision, and in a lower court. Big Tobacco have the financial resources to appeal a couple times at least and take it to the SCC 
because if they just accept the decision, it sets judicial precedence (the next tort case wins because the previous tort case won..etc),
and that opens a new can of worms across all provinces in Canada. 

Tobacco sales are still big busines..not as big as it used to be..but still a big revenue source for both the provincial and federal gov'ts, and they are not
goiing to step in to help the victims and lose that revenue.


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

carverman said:


> Tobacco sales are still big busines..not as big as it used to be..but still a big revenue source for both the provincial and federal gov'ts, and they are not goiing to step in to help the victims and lose that revenue.


Now you're talking...


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

I see a lawsuit in the making: Female Athletes with Busted Knees. They weren't properly warned about the dangers of running!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Moneytoo said:


> I see a lawsuit in the making: Female Athletes with Busted Knees. They weren't properly warned about the dangers of running!


and we can file lawsuit against Canada ... in Tel Aviv they didn't warn us that winters here so cold and we getting sick 



> Of course they can..if they win a class action lawsuit


than I'n surprised that some High Court of Taliban or similar ones didn't do the same yet


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

carverman said:


> Tobacco sales are still big busines..not as big as it used to be..but still a big revenue source for both the provincial and federal gov'ts, and they are not
> goiing to step in to help the victims and lose that revenue.


 Smokers cost more money then the government takes in for the medical & the unproductive smokers taking smoke breaks, being sick more etc. It is the bribes to a few politicians that make the laws in favour of the tobacco companies.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> and we can file lawsuit against Canada ...
> 
> than I'n surprised that some High Court of Taliban or similar ones didn't do the same yet


They have..Khadr has filed a 10 million dollar suit against the Canadian gov't hoping that he will strike it rich and never have to
work a day in his life...or pay income tax...because his rights as a "Canadian citizen" were violated...but this is
OFF TOPIC..

its' the tobacco companies that are seen as scourge of the earth...with deep pockets.:biggrin:

and so the lid has been lifted off the Pandora's box....let the class action suits begin.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...billion-lawsuit-against-big-tobacco-companies



> The Ontario government says smoking is the leading cause of premature deaths and illness in the province and costs the health-care system *$1.6 billion a year.
> *
> *Every province except Nova Scotia has filed similar lawsuits.*


*Solution to Ontario's growing debt and deficit? * Sue the tobacco companies for 50 billion...add a few billion for the tort lawyers too. 

*Solution to the harm that smoking causes?* Sue them into oblivion! The "Big Three" tobacco companies will declare bankruptcy and cease to exist....then the Indians will take over..smuggling cigarettes and tobacco from the US..
after all they are a separate nation and are not bound by any laws from any of the provinces.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Tobacco companies misleading the gullible public?..naw..say it ain't true.:biggrin:

For the ladies out there...cigarettes help to keep that Hollywood star figure on you..that's what the tobacco companies used to tell you,










Joke; Wonder if Wookies Chew'bacca? :biggrin:


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

Damn, and BTI-A shares only lost a few dollars... Yeah, need more lawsuits - I was gonna buy 50 shares for ~$105... and maybe let's sue Hollywood for promoting glamorous smoking - I'd buy Disney under $100! :biggrin:


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Actually several years ago when somebody sued JNJ, was the best time to buy shares


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

Yeah, I heard, and have been waiting for someone to sue one of the companies from my watchlist lol


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Moneytoo said:


> Yeah, I heard, and have been waiting for someone to sue one of the companies from my watchlist lol


me 2 ... waiting when somebody would sue JNJ, PG (for bad shampoo) or KMB (for rough toulet paper)


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

carverman said:


> Like in the US..it's now a trend to litigation society.
> Daily I see ads in TV of personal injury lawyers..promoting their services..on a contingency basis..no money up front..if we win, we take a percentage.
> 
> Tort lawyers are on the rise too with these kinds of class action suits as it is a happy hunting ground for these kinds of legal law firms.
> ...


Yes, I know. Have read all those books by Grisham.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

gibor said:


> *Alcohol is not less addictive than smoking and not less harmful* and they have a lot of commercial on TV , sponsoring sport events etc...
> This QC guy can continue with his decisions .... rule that ministry of education should pay billions as they didn't teach good that snoking is bad, goverment of QC - as they allowed sale of tobacco in province, airlines - who carried hazardous product and so on


Really? You believe that? 

How many people that currently smoke are addicted to it? Answer- most likely nearly all. 

How many people that currently drink alcohol are addicted to it? Answer - not too many. 

YMMV


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

RBull said:


> Really? You believe that?
> 
> How many people that currently smoke are addicted to it? Answer- most likely nearly all.
> 
> ...


Sure I believe! Not even "believe", I just know! There are a lot of "Occasional" smokers as well as "Occasional" drinkers. And for Alcoholics even more difficult to quit than for "heavy" smokers ... I personally know many several "heavy" smokers who quit and much more "heavy" drinkers who quit.
There is AAA and nothing similar for "smokers"...

P.S. I'm addicted more for coffee


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

gibor said:


> Sure I believe! Not even "believe", I just know! There are a lot of "Occasional" smokers as well as "Occasional" drinkers. And for Alcoholics even more difficult to quit than for "heavy" smokers ... I personally know many several "heavy" smokers who quit and much more "heavy" drinkers who quit.
> There is AAA and nothing similar for "smokers"...
> 
> P.S. I'm addicted more for coffee


I'll stick with my position that alcohol is less addictive than tobacco. 

Most people that start smoking get addicted. Most people that start drinking are not addicted. Most anyone understands this.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

RBull said:


> I'll stick with my position that alcohol is less addictive than tobacco.
> 
> Most people that start smoking get addicted. Most people that start drinking are not addicted. Most anyone understands this.


Everyone has his own position  It's hard to find males (and even females) who never tried smoking, but maybe only 15-20% got addicted. and majority who tried drinking, continue drinking.


> Most anyone understands this.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

RBull said:


> Yes, I know. Have read all those books by Grisham.


Great! I have read some too..because I had some experience with divorce lawyers...heh! heh! 
Which one(s) are yer favourites?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> Sure I believe! Not even "believe", I just know! There are a lot of "Occasional" smokers as well as "Occasional" drinkers. And for Alcoholics even more difficult to quit than for "heavy" smokers ... I personally know many several "heavy" smokers who quit and much more "heavy" drinkers who quit.
> There is AAA and nothing similar for "smokers"...
> 
> P.S. I'm addicted more for coffee


So you have just admitted that you are a caffeine addict getting yer daily fix at Timmies?"

ob.joke: Customer: Waitress! "This coffee tastes like mud!"
Waitress: "I'm very sorry to hear that sir! It was just ground this morning.":highly_amused:


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> So you have just admitted that you are a caffeine addict getting yer daily fix at Timmies?"


 No way...I'm frugal and making everyday my own coffee


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Report just in on the amount of money spent in Canada on injuries due to preventable accidents.

Big numbers here..even more than the lawsuit against the tobacco companies..and just like smoking diseases and resultant deaths, pretty much all preventable.
So what does this say about human nature in general? 



> "Injuries cost Canadians almost $20-billion a year. That's the cost of inaction because most injuries are predictable and preventable,"





> The human toll is as massive as the economic one, with injuries claiming 13,667 lives, leaving 5,023 other Canadians permanently disabled and an additional 62,563 with a permanent partial disability. Injuries also send more than three million people, young and old, to emergency rooms each year for treatment, the study shows.


Ontario has just announced that distracted driving fines are going to double...about time. 

So is unauthorized drug use...currently there is a HIV epidemic in first nation communities in Saskatchewan, and there are other areas as well due to sharing needles and
other forms of activities.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...ents-cost-economy-198-billion/article4282447/


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

gibor said:


> Everyone has his own position  It's hard to find males (and even females) who never tried smoking, but maybe only 15-20% got addicted. and majority who tried drinking, continue drinking.


Kudos for the efforts.....You're trying a lot of different angles here....however I am not reading anything supportive of your original statement. Key word is "addicted". Using your number - its highly unlikely 15-20% of all people who tried drinking are addicted to alcohol. I suspect if you truly think about all the people you know you will agree with this. 

Anyhow, peace!


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

carverman said:


> Great! I have read some too..because I had some experience with divorce lawyers...heh! heh!
> Which one(s) are yer favourites?


Hard to say about a favorite since I've read many, and will probably finish off them in the next year or so. My memory is not strong enough to start singling them out. They all kind of blend together. Although his one "Innocent Man" non fiction was just shocking. He's just a great story teller.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Using your number - its highly unlikely 15-20% of all people who tried drinking are addicted to alcohol.


 Lets go from different angle  80-85% of people who tried to smoke, don't smoke at all. Hardly 5% of people who tried to drink , don't drink at all (btw with coffee this number even smaler). Obvious prove that tobacco is less addictive. 



> Anyhow, peace


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Awarding is one thing, collecting is another. I guess it will go to appeal.

Huge money win for the law firm if their case is ultimately successful.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

gibor said:


> Lets go from different angle  80-85% of people who tried to smoke, don't smoke at all. Hardly 5% of people who tried to drink , don't drink at all (btw with coffee this number even smaler). Obvious prove that tobacco is less addictive.


How about 100% of people that tried pizza still eat pizza. Therefore 100% of pizza eaters are addicted and might even smoke or drink alcohol. :biggrin:

Back on topic- I agree with what Fraser just wrote. This is being appealed and will drag on for a long time with lawyers being big winners.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Interesting conversation about the various addictions compared to smoking.

I don't think anything other than controlled medical studies can really give the correct answer, though. There is simply too much variability in social influence going on to draw any conclusions based on stats.

For example, what would the outcome be if it were acceptable to have a "drink break" three times a day while at work? or have a drink in the car on the way home?

On the flip side, no one bats an eye when a non-drinker occasionally gets drunk in a social setting. But people are all like "whaaaaat you smoke?!?!" if a non-smoker decides to smoke occasionally in a social setting.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Yeap, law firms are winners regarding of outcome


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

And BTI is up again - didn't even dip to the previous low... oh well, will go have a smoke :biggrin:


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> I don't think anything other than controlled medical studies can really give the correct answer, though. There is simply too much variability in social influence going on to draw any conclusions based on stats.


It also depends a lot on nationality/race .... some becomes much more addictive to alcohol than others.... remember what did "fire water" to First nations?! Finish is also very addictive to it....


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

Just saw it on CP24: "New survey says 14 per cent of American adults or 33 million people could be considered "problem drinkers"."

Just sayin'


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Moneytoo said:


> Just saw it on CP24: "New survey says 14 per cent of American adults or 33 million people could be considered "problem drinkers"."
> 
> Just sayin'


and how many "problem smokers"?!


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

All people caught DUI should sue breweries and provincial governments selling alcohol for not warning them with enough labels that DUI kills. Earn billions

oh wait. Doesn't work like that!

It will be hilarious to sue the very same government that is selling you stuff without all the labels designed on the presumption that we are all retarded and cannot make our own choices..


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

tenoclock said:


> All people caught DUI should sue breweries and provincial governments selling alcohol for not warning them with enough labels that DUI kills. Earn billions
> 
> oh wait. Doesn't work like that!
> 
> It will be hilarious to sue the very same government that is selling you stuff without all the *labels designed on the presumption that we are all retarded and cannot make our own choices*..


LOL! In this life we are given free will to make our own choices, some choices are considered wise as savvy investors on this forum...yet others are dumb..
Last year (winter time) there was a woman dentist that got loaded at a bar and attempted to drive home DUI...she lost control and crossed over the line on the highway and hit a car headon and killed the driver in that car, although she didn't have any serious injuries.

Her defence tried to argue that she was a victim of circumstances. because the cop investigating was "biased".

*The judge said that while the officer was biased, he was not malicious. “He simply did not know any better,” the judge told court.*


> Two of the statements were from staff at an an Ottawa bar and grill, saying *she didn’t appear drunk*.


Defence attorney and his partners successfully had Natsis‘s breathalyzer readings tossed out of court when a judge ruled that an


> OPP constable trampled her charter right to a lawyer on the night of her arrest.





> The breathalyzer readings showed s*he had a blood-alcohol level 2 1/2 times to legal limit to drive *when she collided with the other driver, *whose own blood-alcohol level was 1 1/2 times the legal limit.* He died from massive internal injuries


Er?..pardon me?..do TWO WRONGS, ok maybe 3 wrongs?.. or 4 wrongs?? = ONE RIGHT in this case?

Who would be sued here?

a) The female dentist, who should have known better... but decided to "have one for the road"?
b) The bar who served her the alchoholic drinks on her tab?
c) The other driver who was just a bit intoxicated and drove home?
d) The breweries for making alcoholic beer available? (after all there is NON ALCOHOLIC BEER..which almost tastes the same)
e) The dept of highways for putting curves in the road and black ice/blowing snow across the highway?
f) the stupidity of both drivers? or just one?
g) the car manufacturers for designing cars that drunk drivers can still manage to start and drive away?
h) all of the above?
i) none of the above?

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...-driving-trial-opp-officer-biased-judge-rules


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> and how many "problem smokers"?!


33 million problem drinkers in the US..thank goodness they don't drive on Canadian roads. We still have enough of our own problem drinkers, distracted drivers
and drivers that drink and smoke at the same time.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

The trick is to sue everyone. Eventually you will get a billion dollar payout because some judge thinks that you deserve it. 

In your case, it's obvious - sue the breweries because it's a BUSINESS and that's a cow you can milk aplenty. In fact it's the only cow you can milk.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

carverman said:


> LOL! In this life we are given free will to make our own choices, some choices are considered wise as savvy investors on this forum...yet others are dumb..


I heard they are planning to ban hookah bars in Toronto starting October, in the name of our safety. Freechoice be damned


----------



## Owen09 (Jun 11, 2015)

Yeah even I heard about banning the hookah bars. I don’t think it will serve any purpose in the long term. I am not sure how much safer the roads and society will be after the ban. Even my cousin who works with a DUI attorney Los Angeles was quite amused when he got to knew about this.


----------



## Allien (Aug 14, 2015)

Sdsadasdsasdsadasdsasdsadasdsasdsadasdsasdsadasdsasdsadasdsa


----------

