Comments:US Supreme Court allows 'light' cigarettes lawsuits
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
people are trying to get money for it said enviromental purposes instead of health... wait what? you smoke cigarettes for years on end and you believe that you arent doing much harm to the enviroment because they put the label of light on the cigarettes? how can you justify sueing money that i seriously doubt any of the involved parties would send to enviromentalist groups instead of likely keeping the money in their greedy pockets glad they could sink their teeth into some amount of money. in the article it said someone was smoking these light cigarettes for 15 years. 15 years again 15 years isnt that a long time to be smoking cigarettes to all of a sudden become aware of possible negative affects they might have on the enviroment...?-138.163.160.42
- It says economical not environmental --199.190.223.190 17:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)