Tutunul. Cat de legal ar fi daca s-ar inventa astazi?

u.b.i.k. a scris:

Asadar, daca fumatul alcoolul, sunca de porc, untul cu 80% grasimi si etc. (puneti aici ce vreti voi) ar fi inventate astazi ar fi declarate, desigur, ilegale pentru ca abat omul modern de sopul impus de societatea moderna: "Fa astfel incat comportarea ta sa nu iasa din tipare; munceste mult, consuma mult, nu pune in discutie nimic".

Am simtit miros de flori proaspete si ... chiar daca nu erau pt. mine :coffee: Eu am adus cafea. si pentru fumatori si pentru nefumatori :bow:

Iata un scurt istoric al jurisprudentei americane pe aceasta tema (la cerere, il voi traduce)

The first tobacco lawsuits were filed in the 1950s, but almost always failed. The tobacco companies argued that the harmful effects of smoking had been recognized for decades; people choose to smoke and so are personally responsible if they suffer ill effects.Slate: A Tobacco Lawsuit Primer (April 25, 2000)
In the late 1990s, plaintiffs began introducing scientific documentation of the chemical dependency generated by smoking—and proof that the tobacco companies were well aware of its addictive properties.Slate: A Tobacco Lawsuit Primer (April 25, 2000) The first successful tobacco lawsuit was awarded in February 2000, when a California jury ordered Philip Morris to pay $51.5 million to a California smoker with inoperable lung cancer.Slate: A Tobacco Lawsuit Primer (April 25, 2000)
Altria Group v. Good
The most recent case, called Altria Group v. Good, argues that Philip Morris (now owned by Altria Group) marketed low tar and low nicotine cigarettes as less harmful than regular brands. Litigants argued that smokers compensate for "light" cigarettes by taking longer puffs and smoking more cigarettes.Washington Post: Court Rules in Favor of Smokers Who Seek to Sue Big Tobacco (December 15, 2008)
The lawsuit cited internal Philip Morris documents that proved that they were aware of the fact that smokers compensated in this manner. The lawsuit won under Maine state law, but Philip Morris appealed, arguing that federal law regulating advertising precludes state law.Washington Post: Court Rules in Favor of Smokers Who Seek to Sue Big Tobacco (December 15, 2008)
The U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4, deciding that in this case, national law does not preempt state law.Washington Post: Court Rules in Favor of Smokers Who Seek to Sue Big Tobacco (December 15, 2008)


Personal, ma indoiesc de faptul ca se poate stabili o relatie cauza-efect fara echivoc intre emfizemul, cancerul, etc fumatorului si fumat. Dar deh, orice fumator isi are Churchil-ul lui ca exemplu care sa-i justifice viciul.

Ah, si stiati de noul trend de interzicere a solariilor, sau a Red Bull Cola ? Poate maine urmeaza cuptorul cu microunde si companiile de telefonie mobila. Just a matter of time… trebuie sa se nasca interesul pentru orice actiune cu implicatii macrosociale.