Alright then - BT wants to use laws against us? I say we should use the Constitution in our own favor.
Apparently Camel and Kool brands of sickarettes are what is helping Reynolds American to stay afloat and, therefore, those will be the brands this BT company markets the most.
I'm going to find a graphics artist who can create a caricature of a camel with emphysema and another one of a person dying of cancer in a hospital bed with a Kool t-shirt on.
It is freedom of speech after all, and the last I heard, that is a right that's protected under the Constitution of the United States.
:-D
I think I'm more in shock than anything else at the moment. I've been reading some of the court decisions as pertains to BT (Big Tobacco) and I'm totally flummoxed. This is justice?
I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised about a politician, former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson, representing and making argument for mercenary reasons. That's what politicians do. But I thought the justice system was supposed to be above all that.
Naive of me, isn't it?
In March, 2003 Madison County judge Nicholas Byron ordered a judgement for compensatory damages against Phillip Morris. The argument against BT was that the companies advertised "light cigarettes" as being less harmful. Obviously, there is no such thing as a less harmful cigarette. Ergo people had been misled about a product and enticed to buy it on false pretenses, and as a result were placed in harm's way.
So now the judgement against the BT companies is reversed because, and I quote...
The state Supreme Court ruled in a 4-2 decision that the Federal Trade Commission specifically allowed companies to characterize their cigarettes as “light” and “low tar,” so Philip Morris did not improperly mislead customers about the health impacts of its cigarettes.
“If the FTC has specifically authorized the use of the terms .... PM USA [Philip Morris] may not be held liable under the Consumer Fraud Act, even if the terms might be deemed false, deceptive or misleading,” Justice Rita Garman wrote for the majority.
Alright -- so tell me, who the hell do we have to go see to get this nonsense stopped!?!?! Who the hell do these people think they're fooling? What, does the FTC have to reverse its wording and issue a different statement? WHAT!? Just tell us and we can get the ball rolling!
I'm absolutely stunned at the lengths people will go in order to be obtuse enough to escape making a decision that is actually right rather than politcally correct. And no, I'm not talking about a question of morality, I'm talking about what is RIGHT.
If I developed a product, and in order to use that product as intended one would have to ignite it - and I had created this product so cleverly that, when ignited, the chemicals inside my created product would cause chemical addiction - documented and with no doubt or room for question my product caused a chemical addiction when used as intended - it wouldn't see one store shelf.
Why? Because the FDA would ban it from being sold. As they rightfully should! Barbituates exist for a purpose, but you're not able to legally walk into a local shop and buy them without a prescription. Why? Because when used as directed, they can become chemically addictive. A licensed physician has to prescribe them to you and oversee their use.
How do BT Companies escape this type of regulation?
It's time to quit worrying about political correctness and how many jobs will disappear. The salient point is that lives are disappearing because these products are chemically addictive and are made to be even more so than they would be if sold in pure tobacco form!
Wake up people! We're talking lives! Let's see - do we rule in favor of 2 million jobs, or in favor of 2 million lives?
DUH!
I know I'm displaying more irritability than I typically do, especially with my BL. I do feel, however, that I'm not displaying irritability over irrational things. Example. Last night I went to Sears and got a really great bedspread for our new King sized mattress. It's beautiful and I got it on sale and spent much less than BL gave me to spend for the item.
So, to celebrate, I went to the Chinese restaurant nearby and got 2 orders of shrimp w/mixed veggies. We love that meal and it's healthy. Brought it all home, BL ooohhh'd and aaahhh'd over the bedspread and went back to studying. I ate part of my meal and decided to save the rest for my lunch for the next day.
BL finally decided to break for food and ate part of his dinner. He's on a very strict diet regime, as he's battling obesity. So it didn't surprise me that he kept his portion small. He didn't go back for seconds when he'd finished his plate, so I took his left-overs and dumped them into the same container as mine, thinking "Tomorrow I'll have a nice big lunch..."
About an hour later, BL gets up and takes out the left-overs, heats them up and begins gobbling them in the kitchen. I'm wondering why he doesn't just come and sit down with me, but whatever. Eventually he does. The plate of food is now half gone, and I think that maybe he was just trying to be sure nothing spilled on the carpet or furniture.
Here's where it gets interesting. After he sits down he offers a bite to me. I've gained enough weight on this Quit that I don't need to be thinking about eating second helpings of anything, so I declined. Politely. I believe my exact words were...
"Oh, no thank you."
Said with a smile. But he kept pushing a full fork at me. "C'mon just one bite." and pouting like if I didn't eat with him, I'd hurt his feelings. WTF! We've talked about this about a million times. That's a horrible thing to do to somebody, pressuring them to overeat or indulge in something when they really don't want to.
It's one of the ways that people help contribute to other people's obesity. He knows that. He's seen it in action enough, especially when at our friend's restaurant, the folks look so hurt if you don't have dessert. Before he began his food management program, he'd give in to that time and time again because he didn't want to hurt their feelings.
So we've talked about this a number of times, and we promised never to do that to one another. And there he is, sticking his fork under my nose and pouting like I've rejected him and not the food he was offering.
Well, I'm not sure I said anything particularly nasty but I am certain I had a disgusted, annoyed look. He made me say "no thank you" several times and each time I kept getting more and more annoyed. I don't have anything close to a poker face. So I'm sure it translated.
So much going on with us right now. I don't understand it. He said to me recently,
"You've been very hard on me the last seven weeks."
Have I? And I'm perfectly willing to admit I am not the patient, forbearing person I typically am right now, as I'm the kind of person who very much wants to better myself and make things right if I'm messing up. But have I really been all that much harder on him?
Or has he been setting himself up for me to snap at him. Or is it a mixture of both? I'm aware that we who smoke tend to hide our emotions behind our smoke screens. But am I wrong to think that, last night anyway, BL set himself up big time to get me annoyed with him? Is he doing that so he'll have an excuse to fail?
I don't know. I don't get it. I don't want us to fail. I feel that our relationship is in great jeopardy right now. And I feel like I'm being blamed for that.
I have been quit for 54 days (1 Month, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, 9 hours, 32 minutes and 17 seconds). I have saved $164.54 by not smoking 598 cigarettes. I have saved 4 Days, 13 hours and 38 minutes of my life.
