Smokers Ask Jury to Award Them Cancer Screening in Trial Over Marlboros

By | February 10, 2016

  • February 10, 2016 at 1:19 pm
    FFA says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 19
    Thumb down 3

    This is nuts. Them warnings have been on Cig Packs forever.

    • February 10, 2016 at 4:34 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Interesting how the tobacco industry has been involved with these types of suits and the alcohol manufacturers have avoided them. The products are somewhat similar – addictive, have no real medical value, and cause health issues over time. Seems like an attorney will come up with the idea to sue for liver transplants, rehab, etc. I suspect it’s been tried.

      • February 12, 2016 at 1:03 pm
        jadefox says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Most lawyers are drunks. AA is replete with them.

        • February 15, 2016 at 6:00 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 5

          Lawyers tear each others throats out at a trial and then go have drinks afterward like nothing happened. They are a very strange breed. 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is a good start.

          • February 16, 2016 at 9:05 am
            Ron says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 21
            Thumb down 1

            Agent,

            I thought you were pro-life.

  • February 10, 2016 at 1:45 pm
    Fanucci says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 3

    Nobody forced you to start smoking. This is a complete waste of time. Smokers knew the dangers of long term smoking. Then why not ban cheeseburger because an obese person stated that cheeseburgers made me obese. This is stupid.

    • February 10, 2016 at 4:46 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 1

      Don’t disagree with any of your comments. I do find it interesting that we allow a product like cigarettes to be manufactured and sold. They’re purposely addictive and have no health benefit. And now expensive. When introduced to a populous that’s young and/or low IQ, you’re just asking for trouble. But it’s great for the economy from the farmer, to the Pakistani store owner, to the medical professionals, and the lawyers.

      • February 12, 2016 at 9:53 am
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 8

        Aren’t these screenings covered by Obamacare?

        • February 12, 2016 at 3:12 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          Yes. “Cancer screenings are considered a preventive service by the Affordable Care Act and preventive services are one of ObamaCare’s Minimum Essential Benefits. This means that all ACA-compliant health plans have to cover lung cancer screenings and, in most cases, this service must be offered at no out-of-pocket costs.”

  • February 10, 2016 at 1:57 pm
    Jack Kanauph says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 22

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  • February 10, 2016 at 3:37 pm
    WyomingAgent says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 0

    The only people who benefit from class-action lawsuits are lawyers. I smoked for almost 30 years before I quit and I never would expect the tobacco company to pay for me to get a chest x-ray nor sue them if I did get cancer. I made the choice to smoke even though I knew it could kill me. (Pretty dumb on my part since I was and Air Force medic all that time!) More of people wanting something for nothing, it ain’t never their fault!!

  • February 10, 2016 at 3:57 pm
    UW Supreme says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 0

    Remind me to hire these lawyers when it comes time for me to sue Wendy’s for making me fat due to their “defective” and addictively delicious product line.

  • February 14, 2016 at 12:28 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Last time I ate at Wendy’s, I was sick for days. I lost weight. Stuff is nasty.

    • February 15, 2016 at 6:01 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 2

      You should have stuck to your Tofu or free range Chicken.

      • February 16, 2016 at 8:50 am
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        Actually, I hate tofu, tried it once and that was good enough. And, this Wendy’s experience was maybe 15 years ago. Which, was the last time I ever touched a fast food sandwich. I hear you on the chicken, though. Free range is certainly the way to go, absolutely the most humane for the animal.

        • February 16, 2016 at 12:35 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 0

          Don’t get fooled by the “free range” label, Planet!

          Birds raised for meat may be sold as “free-range” if they have government certified access to the outdoors. The door may be open for only five minutes and the farm still qualifies as “free-range.” Apart from the “open door,” no other criteria such as environmental quality, number of birds, or space per bird, are included in the term “free-range.”

      • February 16, 2016 at 10:45 am
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 0

        Again with the free range chicken, Agent? Do you remember what we discussed the last 3 times you brought this up?

        • February 16, 2016 at 1:21 pm
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          Rosenblatt, I hear you on the “free range” tag. I work in the food space so I have seen it. But, I’m talking about actually going to an organic farm 5 miles from my house, where the chicken are, in fact, free range.

          • February 16, 2016 at 2:06 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Roger that, Planet. If you’re checking out the farm and seeing first hand how the animals are being raised, I’d totally agree with your personal definition of “free range.”

            Just trying to make sure folks know that what they think is a valid useful label (e.g. free range or organic vs certified organic, just to name two) could not mean what they think it does.

            Most see “free range” and instinctively think those animals had been running around outside. I know I did! Little did I know “free range” could be just as as bad as one without that label because, hey, look at that, a door was open for 10 minutes.

            “Free range” is a deceptive label in my opinion and I just hope I can open up other people’s eyes so they’re not duped.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*