You want to bring up the economic argument? Do you know much taxpayers spend on obesity-related illnesses? The number has to be in the BILLIONS of dollars per year. And if schools are doing so poorly that they need to encourage the fattening of America, something needs to be done on some level of government to get more money to those schools.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what you are really saying is that we should have government get out of health care because amazingly enough when people don't pay for their health care, they don't care about the cost of it.
In fact they likely are using the money saved to eat at places like McDonalds.
groverat, I'm not throwing any stones or living in a glass house. This is just one of those things that you - and others - are, unfortunately, on the wrong side of.
McDonald's could, in theory, advertise Big Macs covered in milk chocolate and give packets of pure sugar with each purchase of a large fry.
People should be smart and level-headed enough to see through or - for health and safety reasons - resist such silliness. Now that's a goofy example, I know, because McDonald's doesn't sell chocolate-dipped burgers (not yet), but it still is up to people to do their part.
Children can't drive themselves and pay for their own food. And there certainly isn't a Ronald McDonald Tactical Brigade running around, abducting families and dragging them over to the nearest McDonald's and forcing them to eat this stuff.
Everyone could wake up tomorrow and go "that's it...I hate that food, it's bad for me, I've been putting on some weight, I'm spending too much money, etc." (pick one) and the problem would wind down and take care of itself.
But you can't stop people from doing what they want and you can't ding the place that's there giving people what they come in to get.
I'd TOTALLY see your side of it if, for the past 40 years, McDonald's had cultivated a repuation (via marketing, commercials, etc.) of healthy, low-fat, "smart" fast food and then BAM...we just found out last week that "oh man, they've lied all these years! They've been serving greasy, fat-laden junk!".
I'd be right there with you, brother man.
But that's not the case.
McDonald's can advertise how they want (I guess, within legal boundaries or whatever) and people can choose to go there and eat or not.
I just think it's a very, very simple, black-and-white issue. No one is "addicted", no one is forced to eat there, there are always alternatives (a nice can of Campbell's soup and a turkey sandwich is my favorite kind of lunch these days).
I could watch McDonald's advertising from today until this time next year, non-stop, and it's still not going to erase or overcome the fact that I know that I shouldn't eat that kind of stuff all the time.
If a simple, no-frills doofus like myself can figure that out and live my life accordingly, why couldn't others?
Why is McDonald's at fault or on shaky ground? McDonald's (and all the other fast food places) would not even exist if people didn't like them and go to them.
I just simply cannot buy that people can be born, grown up and not know - via watching others, the news, school programs, reading, putting 2 and 2 together, etc. that a life based on eating this stuff on a constant, frequent basis is not going to result in some unfortunate results down the road, be it physical or health-related.
It's up to people.
I don't need to get saucy and pull up goofy nutritional info and make fun of it to state all of this, so I'm not living in a glass house when I spoke about your tactics earlier.
I think I'm making a lot of sense without going that route.
Some times in life, common sense and acting responsibly simply trumps everything else. Despite how convoluted and funky many want to try and make certain issues.
And this is one of them.
You and everyone in your family never have to eat a bit of this type of food for the rest of your lives if you don't want to.
Whatever you might think about their advertising, McDonald's isn't physically pulling them in to their places and shoving this unhealthy food into them.
This is like the smoking thing. Lawyers and academics and people who live for arguing/debating go and over-complicate something that most of us have figured out on our own a long time ago: if you light something on fire, stick it in your mouth and suck on the smoke (and God knows what else) it produces, that can't POSSIBLY be a good, healthy thing to do.
Same with this, in my opinion.
Unless you were literally raised in a cave until last Tuesday, how can you NOT know certain things should only be done in moderation (if at all).
It's no one's fault except the person who willingly goes into, orders, pays for and consumes this food over and over again and winds up fat (or with other medical/health issues).
And yes, people should put down the video games, gadgets, satellite TV remote, etc. and exercise.
As someone earlier stated, these fast food places have been around before this all suddenly became a problem.
I'd bet my left eyeball that there is a solid, concrete link between the luxuries and technologies we enjoy today and this sudden "explosion of fat" everyone is talking about.
Digital satellite TV, video games, Internet, DVD, VCR, computer gaming, computer chatting, etc. are all relatively recent (some VERY recent) developments.
If McDonald's has been around for, say, 50 years (just throwing out a number) and was just as popular in the 60's and 70's as it is now and people weren't so fat, that points to something very obvious to me (considering we had none of these cool distractions and gadgets 20, 30 years ago).
Kids (and others) kinda had no choice but to go outside and play and run around. Now, your typical modern teen (and sometimes pre-teen) has cable TV, broadband Internet, a stack of video games and a cell phone all in their own bedroom.
Hell, I wouldn't go outside either!
Maybe these studies should look into that angle of it. Of course, I don't want to see lawsuits against Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Sega, Cingular, HBO, Nick-At-Nite, UPN, etc. either.
Hey Scott, not that I think being a dick is such a bad thing, I enjoy being one myself on occassion, but quibbling over sematics only leads so far in this case. Sometimes it's a productive excerise though, if it leads to a precision of terms that ultimately redifines the case. In this case it doesn't: I never claimed that they "added" tar or other chemicals, only that they modified the product to achieve the specific end of making cigarettes more addictive. This is the gist of Wiegand's testimony, and outside the scope of law it is also well supported by the medical community.
What broke the anti-tabacco cases wide open was the fact that chemists had been tweaking the nicotine delivery system for quite some time. Whether by addition of chemicals or processing with other chemicals, I don't know, nor could I tell you how it might work unless I'm reading from specific notes, but the notes are out there and so are explanations in lay terms. The only reason to do that is to increase the addictive effect of the product, though I'm sure there were also chemists who claimed that the processing of tabacco was only to improve taste, smoothness etc etc...
Unless you yourself are going to take this debate into very formal and technical minutae, or otherwise propose a significant new direction based on the questioning of facts, you are neither advancing the discussion nor defending your position (or even really having a postion to begin with)
If you must be a dick, have a point, go somewhere with it, otherwise you debase the fine art of being a dick, and make the rest of us look bad.
I'd bet my left eyeball that there is a solid, concrete link between the luxuries and technologies we enjoy today and this sudden "explosion of fat" everyone is talking about.
Of course that is a huge part of it. The most exercise that most of gets these days is a keyboard shortcut. Staying fit takes actual physical work- something most of us don't do anymore.
I do believe that most of the fault lies with ourselves. We want to have our pizza and our fettuccine alfredo, and the food industry is right there to help us get it, with convenient home delivery and microwave packs. But they aren't shoveling it down our throats, and they aren't physically barring us from the gym, or the playground. Then you add in our society's new mantra "It's not my fault!!" and you get some seriously fat people.
I have a dear friend that is nearly Nell Carter fat. She rides her exercise bike at a leisurely pace (she "hates to sweat") never walks faster than a leisurely stroll, pops every over-the-counter diet pill she can find (despite the fact that she has had a few bad rections to them), and yet still will not alter her diet one iota. I am not there to see what she eats for breakfast, but I have seen her polish off a whole basket of Louise's trattoria bread, followed by a creamy pasta dish, then up Montana avenue for ice cream, and then I leave her as she is ponying up to Coffe Bean for an ice blended. That's 3000 calories in one afternoon. I am not going to have this friend for very long, and that makes me terribly sad. But she is the one who makes the decision what to put in her body. i can only hope that she isn't dead really young, like Nell Carter
Sweet merciful Christ, p, have you seen me say McD's should've lost the lawsuit? Have you not seen me say those who get fat off the food are responsible for it?
I know you like your soapbox, but come on I couldn't make it any clearer.
--
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>Unless you were literally raised in a cave until last Tuesday, how can you NOT know certain things should only be done in moderation (if at all).</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Young kids haven't been around as you to know what you know and have the perspective you have.
2) Kids can't really grasp the long-term effects of constantly eating terrible foods.
Does that make McD's legally/monetarily responsible for those who turn into fatties? No.
Are they a corporation behaving in a socially irresponsible and morally reprehensible way? Absolutely.
Why do you think kids love McD's so much? Because of the great taste of their styrofoam "burgers"? Like it or not, kids are very easily brainwashed by colorful advertising.
This is like the smoking thing. Lawyers and academics and people who live for arguing/debating go and over-complicate something that most of us have figured out on our own a long time ago: if you light something on fire, stick it in your mouth and suck on the smoke (and God knows what else) it produces, that can't POSSIBLY be a good, healthy thing to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh Pscates. This is like the smoking thing. The tobacco companies were once infallible and absolved from any wrongdoing just like fat food companies are now. They have fallen and so will Big Fat. I think you know that based on your mentioning of it. And the fact that it doesn't seem like you supported that decision either is really, really suspect. I mean that decision wasn't over-argued then, it's not over-argued now. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
No soapbox, 'rat. It's just how it is. I don't think I'm on a soapbox at all, and I'm certainly not ranting. I just don't understand things or see them the way you and others do.
If it's such a big, nasty problem, then instead of these silly lawsuits, why aren't there good, sound programs in place (in schools?) to teach this sort of thing (nutrition, what a lifelong diet of burgers and frieds does to you, etc.).
And groverat, kids (small kids) aren't buying their little meals. They don't have money. Pre-teens? Maybe some lawnmowing allowance, but, again, where are the parents?
In any case, I still think these places are doing what they are required to do. None of them position themselves as "healthy" or whatever. They are what they are, and they are doing great business, I'm sure.
Is (or shouldn't) there be something there to counter all this cool, colorful advertising?
What, ultimately, do you want? What would be your ideal solution or take on the scenario then?
Toned-down commercials? Fast-talking voiceovers at the end like on car commercials? A ban on TV commercials for fast food (like there is for tobacco and hard liquor)?
If you ran the show, knowing and believing what you do, how would you approach it then?
Oh Pscates. This is like the smoking thing. The tobacco companies were once infallible and absolved from any wrongdoing just like fat food companies are now. They have fallen and so will Big Fat. I think you know that based on your mentioning of it. And the fact that it doesn't seem like you supported that decision either is really, really suspect. I mean that decision wasn't over-argued then, it's not over-argued now. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you saying exactly? I don't even know. I don't smoke because it seemed like a dumb thing to do. I don't eat at these other places 24/7 for the same reason.
What do you mean "that decision wasn't over-argued then...". By me? Here? Did we have a big smoking lawsuit thread here that I missed out on?
Or argued in general, by others? I'm confused. Say what you said above but more plainly so I can understand what you're saying.
Smoke and eat all you want. I don't care. Just know there are risks and you choose to do those things, knowing something bad might happen. It doesn't bother me that people smoke (unless they're right beside me, in which case I simply move away).
Hell, now that I think about it you might be agreeing with me (since I said it WAS like the smoking thing...), but I'm so @$%@ing accustomed to you NOT agreeing with me that even when you do I don't recognize it.
You're the only one whose posts I have to re-read 4-5 times to try and get which angle you're taking, and if you're dinging me or siding with me.
Can I sue the woman that sat next to me at work for bring in so many munchies and treats to eat at work. I think I gained at least 5 pounds off of her food. I mean it's not my fault. The boxes were so colorful and the snacks so salty delicious. I was manipulated.
She also brings in fresh eggs from her farm! She needs to be stopped!
Come to think of it since I work in a hospital there's tons of snacks around all the time. The fscking patients bring in all kinds of sweet treats. The people that work out at the treatment machines are freaking fat as hell! And it's all FREE!
I think we'll bring a class action lawsuit against our patients. That's a man bites dog story if I ever heard one!
<strong>Do it. In this culture, it would probably fly. You'd certainly have no trouble finding a lawyer to take the case, I'll guarantee you that.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
.
.
.
.
.
The merits of this case certainly don't neccesitate the opportunistic lawyer stereotype. I'm not really sure what you're saying about lawyers, but I think the reason that you won't find a shortage of lawyers here is because they are energized from recent victories against Big Tobacco. I think what you're saying about consuming products from Big Tobacco and Big Fat is that personal responsibility is first and foremost. But since Big Tobacco has already been defeated to some extent, what do you think that says about the parallels between that and Big Fat? What role should these corporations play besides being greedy, opportunistic, and profitable from the fattening of America? I cringe at thinking they have none as what has been suggested.
Yea yea I got it. Thanks for the read. Maybe it's because I'm a scientist but I get picky about these things.
But you know if people smoke to get nicotine and the companies find a way to give the people what they want ... what law was broken?
Maybe I just don't see the grotesque corporate manipulation others do. No one can claim that they don't know cig's are harmful. And cig's have nicotine no matter what you do. So ... you know ... I'm just not seeing it.
I also get a whiff of hypocrisy here. For example lets say pot is legal. Some super stoner hero breads a pot that has a lot of THT in it to get you good and high. Now would you all come here and cry over the grotesque corporate manipulation that caused people to smoke more pot and have ill health effects because of it? No you wouldn't. Should we sue all the crack dealers because they found an even better delivery system for cocaine? I'm sure you'd say no.
The merits of this case certainly don't neccesitate the opportunistic lawyer stereotype. I'm not really sure what you're saying about lawyers, but I think the reason that you won't find a shortage of lawyers here is because they are energized from recent victories against Big Tobacco. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Please please SPJ don't dilute yourself this way. "energized from recent victories" Ha. You mean, "energize over huge legal fees they have won for themselves". Get real man. It has always been and will always be about money for these type of lawyers.
Kids (and others) kinda had no choice but to go outside and play and run around. Now, your typical modern teen (and sometimes pre-teen) has cable TV, broadband Internet, a stack of video games and a cell phone all in their own bedroom.
Comments
<strong>
One man's semantics are another man's facts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So no evidence is plausable then.
<strong>
You want to bring up the economic argument? Do you know much taxpayers spend on obesity-related illnesses? The number has to be in the BILLIONS of dollars per year. And if schools are doing so poorly that they need to encourage the fattening of America, something needs to be done on some level of government to get more money to those schools.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what you are really saying is that we should have government get out of health care because amazingly enough when people don't pay for their health care, they don't care about the cost of it.
In fact they likely are using the money saved to eat at places like McDonalds.
I concur....
Nick
<strong>Frankly I do not feel that what you eat makes people fat. The average person needs to eat only what they burn.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it's a mix of both, very heavy on the exercise aspect.
It's all about getting your fat-ass moving.
McDonald's could, in theory, advertise Big Macs covered in milk chocolate and give packets of pure sugar with each purchase of a large fry.
People should be smart and level-headed enough to see through or - for health and safety reasons - resist such silliness. Now that's a goofy example, I know, because McDonald's doesn't sell chocolate-dipped burgers (not yet), but it still is up to people to do their part.
Children can't drive themselves and pay for their own food. And there certainly isn't a Ronald McDonald Tactical Brigade running around, abducting families and dragging them over to the nearest McDonald's and forcing them to eat this stuff.
Everyone could wake up tomorrow and go "that's it...I hate that food, it's bad for me, I've been putting on some weight, I'm spending too much money, etc." (pick one) and the problem would wind down and take care of itself.
But you can't stop people from doing what they want and you can't ding the place that's there giving people what they come in to get.
I'd TOTALLY see your side of it if, for the past 40 years, McDonald's had cultivated a repuation (via marketing, commercials, etc.) of healthy, low-fat, "smart" fast food and then BAM...we just found out last week that "oh man, they've lied all these years! They've been serving greasy, fat-laden junk!".
I'd be right there with you, brother man.
But that's not the case.
McDonald's can advertise how they want (I guess, within legal boundaries or whatever) and people can choose to go there and eat or not.
I just think it's a very, very simple, black-and-white issue. No one is "addicted", no one is forced to eat there, there are always alternatives (a nice can of Campbell's soup and a turkey sandwich is my favorite kind of lunch these days).
I could watch McDonald's advertising from today until this time next year, non-stop, and it's still not going to erase or overcome the fact that I know that I shouldn't eat that kind of stuff all the time.
If a simple, no-frills doofus like myself can figure that out and live my life accordingly, why couldn't others?
Why is McDonald's at fault or on shaky ground? McDonald's (and all the other fast food places) would not even exist if people didn't like them and go to them.
I just simply cannot buy that people can be born, grown up and not know - via watching others, the news, school programs, reading, putting 2 and 2 together, etc. that a life based on eating this stuff on a constant, frequent basis is not going to result in some unfortunate results down the road, be it physical or health-related.
It's up to people.
I don't need to get saucy and pull up goofy nutritional info and make fun of it to state all of this, so I'm not living in a glass house when I spoke about your tactics earlier.
I think I'm making a lot of sense without going that route.
Some times in life, common sense and acting responsibly simply trumps everything else. Despite how convoluted and funky many want to try and make certain issues.
And this is one of them.
You and everyone in your family never have to eat a bit of this type of food for the rest of your lives if you don't want to.
Whatever you might think about their advertising, McDonald's isn't physically pulling them in to their places and shoving this unhealthy food into them.
This is like the smoking thing. Lawyers and academics and people who live for arguing/debating go and over-complicate something that most of us have figured out on our own a long time ago: if you light something on fire, stick it in your mouth and suck on the smoke (and God knows what else) it produces, that can't POSSIBLY be a good, healthy thing to do.
Same with this, in my opinion.
Unless you were literally raised in a cave until last Tuesday, how can you NOT know certain things should only be done in moderation (if at all).
It's no one's fault except the person who willingly goes into, orders, pays for and consumes this food over and over again and winds up fat (or with other medical/health issues).
As someone earlier stated, these fast food places have been around before this all suddenly became a problem.
I'd bet my left eyeball that there is a solid, concrete link between the luxuries and technologies we enjoy today and this sudden "explosion of fat" everyone is talking about.
Digital satellite TV, video games, Internet, DVD, VCR, computer gaming, computer chatting, etc. are all relatively recent (some VERY recent) developments.
If McDonald's has been around for, say, 50 years (just throwing out a number) and was just as popular in the 60's and 70's as it is now and people weren't so fat, that points to something very obvious to me (considering we had none of these cool distractions and gadgets 20, 30 years ago).
Kids (and others) kinda had no choice but to go outside and play and run around. Now, your typical modern teen (and sometimes pre-teen) has cable TV, broadband Internet, a stack of video games and a cell phone all in their own bedroom.
Hell, I wouldn't go outside either!
Maybe these studies should look into that angle of it. Of course, I don't want to see lawsuits against Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Sega, Cingular, HBO, Nick-At-Nite, UPN, etc. either.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
What broke the anti-tabacco cases wide open was the fact that chemists had been tweaking the nicotine delivery system for quite some time. Whether by addition of chemicals or processing with other chemicals, I don't know, nor could I tell you how it might work unless I'm reading from specific notes, but the notes are out there and so are explanations in lay terms. The only reason to do that is to increase the addictive effect of the product, though I'm sure there were also chemists who claimed that the processing of tabacco was only to improve taste, smoothness etc etc...
Unless you yourself are going to take this debate into very formal and technical minutae, or otherwise propose a significant new direction based on the questioning of facts, you are neither advancing the discussion nor defending your position (or even really having a postion to begin with)
If you must be a dick, have a point, go somewhere with it, otherwise you debase the fine art of being a dick, and make the rest of us look bad.
<strong>
I'd bet my left eyeball that there is a solid, concrete link between the luxuries and technologies we enjoy today and this sudden "explosion of fat" everyone is talking about.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course that is a huge part of it. The most exercise that most of gets these days is a keyboard shortcut. Staying fit takes actual physical work- something most of us don't do anymore.
But also, the <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=594&ncid=594&e=3&u=/nm/20030121/hl_nm/fat_portions_dc"; target="_blank">average portion size</a> has increased over the past few decades, and some of the blame for that has to go to the restaurants who keep upping the sizes of their meals; making those portions seem the norm. A supersized <a href="http://freedietlinks.com/mcdonalds.htm"; target="_blank">big mac meal</a> can easily get to 1500 calories, which is 75% of the <a href="http://www.hooah4health.com/toolbox/TargetingFitness/ParticipantGuide/partguide24pt3.htm"; target="_blank">daily caloric intake</a> of someone weighing 160 lbs. I was told by my doctor that it only takes an extra 1000 calories to keep who is seriously obese, seriously obese.
I do believe that most of the fault lies with ourselves. We want to have our pizza and our fettuccine alfredo, and the food industry is right there to help us get it, with convenient home delivery and microwave packs. But they aren't shoveling it down our throats, and they aren't physically barring us from the gym, or the playground. Then you add in our society's new mantra "It's not my fault!!" and you get some seriously fat people.
I have a dear friend that is nearly Nell Carter fat. She rides her exercise bike at a leisurely pace (she "hates to sweat") never walks faster than a leisurely stroll, pops every over-the-counter diet pill she can find (despite the fact that she has had a few bad rections to them), and yet still will not alter her diet one iota. I am not there to see what she eats for breakfast, but I have seen her polish off a whole basket of Louise's trattoria bread, followed by a creamy pasta dish, then up Montana avenue for ice cream, and then I leave her as she is ponying up to Coffe Bean for an ice blended. That's 3000 calories in one afternoon. I am not going to have this friend for very long, and that makes me terribly sad. But she is the one who makes the decision what to put in her body. i can only hope that she isn't dead really young, like Nell Carter
I know you like your soapbox, but come on I couldn't make it any clearer.
--
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>Unless you were literally raised in a cave until last Tuesday, how can you NOT know certain things should only be done in moderation (if at all).</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Young kids haven't been around as you to know what you know and have the perspective you have.
2) Kids can't really grasp the long-term effects of constantly eating terrible foods.
Does that make McD's legally/monetarily responsible for those who turn into fatties? No.
Are they a corporation behaving in a socially irresponsible and morally reprehensible way? Absolutely.
Why do you think kids love McD's so much? Because of the great taste of their styrofoam "burgers"? Like it or not, kids are very easily brainwashed by colorful advertising.
<strong>
This is like the smoking thing. Lawyers and academics and people who live for arguing/debating go and over-complicate something that most of us have figured out on our own a long time ago: if you light something on fire, stick it in your mouth and suck on the smoke (and God knows what else) it produces, that can't POSSIBLY be a good, healthy thing to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
once i get my fat-ass moving, it jiggles for hours...g
If it's such a big, nasty problem, then instead of these silly lawsuits, why aren't there good, sound programs in place (in schools?) to teach this sort of thing (nutrition, what a lifelong diet of burgers and frieds does to you, etc.).
And groverat, kids (small kids) aren't buying their little meals. They don't have money. Pre-teens? Maybe some lawnmowing allowance, but, again, where are the parents?
In any case, I still think these places are doing what they are required to do. None of them position themselves as "healthy" or whatever. They are what they are, and they are doing great business, I'm sure.
I can't make THAT any more clear.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Is (or shouldn't) there be something there to counter all this cool, colorful advertising?
What, ultimately, do you want? What would be your ideal solution or take on the scenario then?
Toned-down commercials? Fast-talking voiceovers at the end like on car commercials? A ban on TV commercials for fast food (like there is for tobacco and hard liquor)?
If you ran the show, knowing and believing what you do, how would you approach it then?
<strong>
What are you saying exactly? I don't even know. I don't smoke because it seemed like a dumb thing to do. I don't eat at these other places 24/7 for the same reason.
What do you mean "that decision wasn't over-argued then...". By me? Here? Did we have a big smoking lawsuit thread here that I missed out on?
Or argued in general, by others? I'm confused. Say what you said above but more plainly so I can understand what you're saying.
Smoke and eat all you want. I don't care. Just know there are risks and you choose to do those things, knowing something bad might happen. It doesn't bother me that people smoke (unless they're right beside me, in which case I simply move away).
Hell, now that I think about it you might be agreeing with me (since I said it WAS like the smoking thing...), but I'm so @$%@ing accustomed to you NOT agreeing with me that even when you do I don't recognize it.
You're the only one whose posts I have to re-read 4-5 times to try and get which angle you're taking, and if you're dinging me or siding with me.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
She also brings in fresh eggs from her farm!
I think we'll bring a class action lawsuit against our patients. That's a man bites dog story if I ever heard one!
<strong>Do it. In this culture, it would probably fly. You'd certainly have no trouble finding a lawyer to take the case, I'll guarantee you that.
.
.
.
.
.
But you know if people smoke to get nicotine and the companies find a way to give the people what they want ... what law was broken?
Maybe I just don't see the grotesque corporate manipulation others do. No one can claim that they don't know cig's are harmful. And cig's have nicotine no matter what you do. So ... you know ... I'm just not seeing it.
I also get a whiff of hypocrisy here. For example lets say pot is legal. Some super stoner hero breads a pot that has a lot of THT in it to get you good and high. Now would you all come here and cry over the grotesque corporate manipulation that caused people to smoke more pot and have ill health effects because of it? No you wouldn't. Should we sue all the crack dealers because they found an even better delivery system for cocaine? I'm sure you'd say no.
<strong>
.
.
.
.
.
Please please SPJ don't dilute yourself this way. "energized from recent victories" Ha. You mean, "energize over huge legal fees they have won for themselves". Get real man. It has always been and will always be about money for these type of lawyers.
Here?s some reading for the forum
<a href="http://www.overlawyered.com"; target="_blank">OverLawyered</a>
<strong>.
Kids (and others) kinda had no choice but to go outside and play and run around. Now, your typical modern teen (and sometimes pre-teen) has cable TV, broadband Internet, a stack of video games and a cell phone all in their own bedroom.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you mean pre-teen? My son has wireless DSL pumped to his Duron 1100 PC with a Voodoo 5500 in it.
He's also three.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Nick