Replies

I'm sure the Gov't will find a way to divert the $590 million elsewhere.

1 posted on 05/21/2004 12:33:00 PM PDT by wmichgrad

To: wmichgrad

I don't see why the companies should pay for this. Unless they can find who took up smoking prior to 1965, nobody should get any money.

2 posted on 05/21/2004 12:35:42 PM PDT by Crazieman

To: wmichgrad

Why not a cool $1B? These jurers are slackers.

3 posted on 05/21/2004 12:37:09 PM PDT by gathersnomoss

To: wmichgrad

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

4 posted on 05/21/2004 12:45:11 PM PDT by NCPAC

To: wmichgrad

It makes no sense to force companies to pay for programs to reduce their customer base on a legally marketed product.

5 posted on 05/21/2004 12:45:24 PM PDT by pgyanke ("The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God" - C.S. Lewis)

To: wmichgrad

Too bad that money cannot buy what really helps people kick the habit... willpower and responsibility.

6 posted on 05/21/2004 12:47:01 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (John F-ing Kerry??? NO... F-ING... WAY!!!)

To: wmichgrad; *puff_list; Just another Joe; SheLion; Mears; CSM; Conspiracy Guy; VermiciousKnid; ...

It's crapola like this that keep me fighting this battle.

I HATE the tobacco companies, but I despise the leech lawyers even more.

9 posted on 05/21/2004 2:55:51 PM PDT by Gabz (Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my second hand smoke.)

To: wmichgrad

I despise smokers who run to nanny government as much as I despise smoking Nazis who do the same thing.

11 posted on 05/21/2004 2:59:00 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794