I must defend tobacco companies in the aftermath of a $145,000,000,000 settlement in the Florida case forcing tobacco companies to pay restitution to all smokers in the class action suit. This is not a repeat of previous posts; I wish to state the defense to the tobacco industry on strictly logical and legal grounds:
Tobacco is legal - The United States is a capitalist society and obviously someone will produce a product that is legal and as lucrative as cigarettes. Do we really think that Phillip Morris is really run by disciples of Satan just because they produce a less than wholesome product that happens to be completely legal? If it’s effects are that harmful to society then it should have been outlawed along with other drugs in the early part of the 20th century when other drugs of its type were outlawed. The states or the U.S. government should take the blame for poor foresight and legislation.
Tobacco is a natural product - Tobacco companies did not invent tobacco, Mother Nature did. In most cases they did not even grow it. They merely packaged a natural product as chewing tobacco, snuff, or cigarettes. You can argue that marijuana falls into the same category but please see point #1 above. Tobacco was given the green light to be distributed to the American people so either Mother Nature or the U.S. government are to be blamed, not the tobacco companies. This is what differentiates tobacco companies from other industries such as the automotive industry who actually build products of their own design.
Tobacco companies and smokers have already been taxed - All you smokers and ex-smokers out there remember the exorbitant taxes you have paid on top of the cost of a pack of cigarettes? This money is supposed to be going to research, health care, and anti-smoking campaigns. Smokers foot the bill for this. Those that can’t afford it must quit or cut down and this was the original idea. Where is this money going? The U.S. government must pick one or the other. Either take responsibility for the effects of tobacco through additional taxes or let the corporations producing a legal, natural product off the hook.
People have always known that tobacco is bad for you and will kill you - Even though I am a staunch supporter of scientific research, tobacco predates modern science by many centuries. Even so, It does not take a genius to make the association between smoking and lack of breath, shortened life, and cancer. People have known this since cigarettes were invented.
There is no known way to make cigarettes that are not harmful to human health - Again this is what separates tobacco companies from other industries such as automobile manufacturers. You can say that they manipulate levels in nicotine in cigarettes. Well duh? That is what people want and pay for. Cigarettes are offered in strength ranging from ultra-lights to full strength. It is up to the consumer to choose which of these legal alternatives to choose. There is no such thing as a safe cigarette today and certainly was not fifty years ago.
In short, tobacco is a legal, natural product that is bad for you. If the effects on society are that bad, then swift action must be taken. The U.S. government must take responsibility for smoker’s welfare via the billions in taxes that have already been collected. The smokers themselves must assume the remainder of the responsibility. If classifying tobacco as a controlled substance is needed then do it Uncle Sam! Do not impose half-assed penalties on a legal industry that affects millions of workers and shareholders.
Tobacco is legal -
Reply:
no one is claiming it’s illegal, just that it killed people.
You: 2) Tobacco is a natural product -
reply:
Natural??? chemically altererd to produce more of one component is natural? and anyhow, still doesn’t change the “it killed people”
you:3) Tobacco companies and smokers have already been taxed -
Reply:
Taxes have NOTHING, less thank nothing to do with damages caused by a product. Puleeeez. Just because I pay taxes doesn’t mean that when I hit you with my umbrella, you couldn’t sue me for damages.
You: 4) People have always known that tobacco is bad for you and will kill you -
Reply
Um, no, not exactly, and more to the point, the Cig companies knew long before anyone else, hid and denied the evidence, and STILL try and state that the links are “unproven”
You:5) There is no known way to make cigarettes that are not harmful to human health -
Reply:
again, this doesn’t change the facts, and in fact supports it. If you CHOOOSE to make a product that will Kill your customer base, why are you surprised that at some point you’ll be out of business???
and now, thank you, I’m tired of smoking gun questions…
It’s just a government swindle to get money.
We still pay a luxury tax on our telephones that was for WWII.
It they were bad and nasty and evl, why did our government which wants to protect us let them make and sell them for forty years?
[quote]
If you CHOOOSE to make a product that will Kill your customer base, why are you surprised that at some point you’ll be out of business??? {/quote] and if you sconsciously and willfully ingest something that you know can kill you, is it any suprise when you get really sick.
The surgeon general announced the danges of tobacco in the 60’s. Even if a plaintiff is 60, They had 40 years to avoid the injury. That is a mighty long time.
Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go get drunk and have a dip of Kodiak.
the topic was defending the cig company. My comment is directly that if the cig company is unhappy about being potentially out of business, then how come they continue to spend most of their time and $$ making products that kill their customers??? yea, I’ll open a restaurant that serves poisoned food and complain that I go out of business. That’s all I was going for, the corporate responsibility for it’s own short sighted decision.
wasn’t trying to rehash the whole thread that this was based on.
enjoy your chew and remember me in your will…
If you commit suicide, who is responsible? The bridgemaker, who made their product so high above the river? The pharmaceutical concern, who made their sleeping pill so effective? The gunmaker, who made such a powerful product? None of the above. All of those groups made a working product. Nothing more, nothing less. In this country, making a working product is the best you can do. The tobacco industry made a working product as well. People knew what tobacco did to you. They just didn’t care enough to quit. They just slowly killed themselves. Nobody’s fault but their own. And in a country that believes in individual responsibilty, that’s an important concept.
First off, all those examples are not the same as what we-re talking about here–they all have legitimate other uses. Now, if we were to talk about somebody making and manufacturing an iron maiden, and showing commercials with people happily about to step into one…THAT’S more what it’s like.
Umm, hello? It’s extremely * addictive. * You can’t just quit–nicotene is in fact one of the most addictive drugs we know of, ounce for ounce. Even if you do quit after you realize it’s bad for you, it may be too late.
I’ve watched both my grandfathers die from tobacco. One of them quit very soon after it became publically known that it was harmfull. Didn’t matter, caught up with him in the end anyway. The other survived two heart attacks brought on by complications with tobacco-induced illnesses. The third one got him. Even after the first two, he still ** wasn’t able ** to quit, even with his frickin grandchildren running around putting out his cigs with a squirt gun. You’re going to tell me he didn’t care?
As for people who started after the knowledge became widely available, there is less of a blame on the companies there, but still plenty. First off, they market this as a wonderful fun thing (look at the billboards and tell me those people don’t look happy), knowing that it will quickly get you hooked and eventually kill you. Only reason they stay in business is because it kills so slowly.
All I know is that without my personal experience, I probably would have started smoking too–the companies market heavily to get you to start, and then do some rather shady things to keep you on it.
[hijack]
Knew a guy who never smoked, but became addicted to the nicotene gum. Some cure, huh?
[/hijack]
Every one of your points work just as well to justify every quack medicine that congress hasn’t specificaly gotten around to outlawing yet. Does responsibility for the damage caused by charlatans who know they’re charlatans not devolve onto them in any way? Is it all the patients fault?
Do swindlers not bear responsibility for their swindling? The fact that the mark was complicit in a situation set up by the grifter does not mean it’s their fault and they deserve what they get. A con is a con, and selling an addictive drug specifically to teenagers to get them hooked (as no one realistically denies the tobacco companies have done) cannot be brushed off on the grounds that “they should have known better”.
There’s something wrong with your logic.
On a more personal note, my mother smoked all her life; that life was cut off when I was still a teenager. She was all of forty-five. I agree that this settlement is not just. It will not put cigarette manufacturers out of business, nor will it result in any jail time for the murderers running them. The idea of wergelt should have been left behind in the dark ages.
In a world where individuals have the ultimate responsibility for their own actions (i.e.: this one), the catchphrase is: caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). The government can (and should) label things. But a label will not force the cig out of your mouth. And an ad will not force it in. If we assume free will, we must accept individual responsibility. If we do not assume free will, why are we debating?
BTW: Don’t say addiction is the end-all, be-all of the end of individual responsibility. If you have enough willpower, you can quit. My mom smoked from age eight until she got pregnant with me at age 29. That’s 21 years of smoking and getting nicotine into your system. After over two decades of smoking, she quit cold turkey because she didn’t want me to be rasied in a smoke-filled home. She decided to quit and she did.
I feel compelled to reitterate what was already mentioned: the issue at hand has little to do with personal repsonsibility, but rather the blatant duplicity of the tobacco companies. They knew before anyone else the health risks of their product yet told no one. Even afterwards, when everyone knew the health risks of their product, they continued to shout their innocence at the top of their lungs – claims that flew in the face of their own research. The tobacco companies are absolutely responsible to those who began smoking before the government’s warnings were released, and only slightly less responsible to those who began smoking when only tobacco companies insisted that smoking was harmless. Their actions of the past half century represent little more than fraud, and only slightly less than negligent homicide.
I don’t think there’s any way to have a debate about “Big Tobacco” (a term I hate and try not to use) without it falling into a “it killed people - they could have stopped anytime” argument…
$145 billion is too much money. But should they be penalized? I believe so.
I believe I should point out that the $145 billion penalty is being divided between five different companies… I don’t have the exact numbers for which company is being penalized what (I don’t feel like digging for a copy of Time at 2:27 AM). Does this make the penalty any less excessive? Not in my opinion.
Mr. Zambezi has firmly stated that “people knew that cigarettes killed”. That’s very debatable. Just because the Surgeon General said that cigs were harmful way back in the '60s doesn’t mean that the cig companies were honest about it. From a logical standpoint, it would stand to reason that the “findings” of the cig manufacturers would overshadow the findings of the Surgeon General, based solely on the fact that Marlboro and Co. have more money to throw behind their propaganda.
It goes like this: Hundreds of commercials, billboards, and advertisements saying that cigarettes not only aren’t harmful, but cool, too… vs. a two-paragraph blurb in the New York Times. Which side do you think people will believe?
Sure, a lot of people are gullible. But a lot of people just didn’t get the information that’s widely available today. Why? 'Cuz in the '60s, people didn’t care.
So cigarette companies lied, and people died (hey, that rhymes! Woo-hoo!). I believe that they deserve a good spankin’.
i have a friend that smokes. he insists that cigarettes are not harmful to one’s health. here’s my guess as to why he thinks so:
1] he doesn’t trust the government. they lie about all kinds of things.
2] the media hypes and overstates in all it’s reporting, so he doesn’t believe them either.
that leaves the tobacco companies, which may not bold-facedly lie about the effects of it’s products, but instead uses half-truths and innuendo. for reasons unknown to me, he believes them.
no matter the cause, he does not believe that cigarettes are harmful to his health. he is not the only one.
Anyone who started smoking in the last… Oh, let’s say damn near 40 years now, and didn’t know that they were probably not very good for you were living in a cave.
And anyone who started before then had a long time to quit. Which, while not easy, is also far from impossible as my sig shows. And I was formerly a 2-packs-a-day smoker.
Satan: I truly respect your willpower in this area.
But let’s face it, some people have less willpower and more addictive personalities than others. My father quit smoking after many years when he realized it interfered with his ability to go running. On the other hand, my family has a long history of addictive personalities (including cigarettes and alcohol), and I know from personal experience that this is the case for me.
I can tell you with complete confidence that if i were to begin smoking today, and keep at it for even a short period of time, it would be damn near impossible to stop. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, especially with the new means that are available, but I can guarantee you that at best I would be one of those people who relapses frequently.
As for the issue of free will, etc. Advertising is * very * effective–that’s why companies will spend so much money on it. Even a relatively small company will often spend more money to promote a product than I will likely see in my entire life. If it didn’t work, they’d just be throwing their money away, and we all know how much corperations hate that.
Besides, have you ever seen some of the older ads where tobacco is actually said to have numerous health benefits? I mean, I take ibuprofen blindly believing it helps me becaus a lot f people I know use it, and the munufacturer says it will help me. If it turns out tomorrow that a company making it knows there’s a poison in it that’s slowly killing me, am I at fault? I don’t really have the time to do research on every single thing that goes into my body, so when a company tells me it’s good for me, I tend to believe them. I won’t believe them blindly, but it does carry a lot of weight.
What company in their right mind would sell me poison and tell me to eat it? That would be risking a major lawsuit, wouldn’t it?
I have yet to see an advertisement that convinced me to purchase a product I didn’t want. That isn’t to say I’ve never been influenced by any commercial. I have seen ads for various things and thought to myself “Sure, I’ll give that a try.”
**
I can only think of two off hand. One of them said that filtered cigarettes were what doctors used because it was healthier. So that tends to show me that a lot of concerns were already raised about the safety of smoking even back then.
The other ad was one that said smoking would keep you thin. I think it went along the lines of “put a cigarette in your mouth intead of a snack.” Ironically enough this may be a valid claim. More people are fat these days and less of them smoke.
For the sake of arguement if the company was honest about their product would anyone have a reason to sue?
The same people who want "big tobacco"to pay now would have been up in arms if the government would have tried to outlaw tobacco. You can’t have it both ways. To me this would make sense if tobacco was immediately outlawed.
If your friend believes everybody including the government is lying to him when they say smoking is bad for you that is up to him. He is free to be an idiot but I can’t see why anybody else should pay for his idiocy.
It seems everybody wants freedom to do as they please and then someone else to pay the bill.
Thanks, but it’s easy when you are sick of spending the money and you have someone in your life you want to live forever for.
**
And if they never started smoking in the first place, it wouln’t matter. Sure, you argument might hold water with people who started smoking before the information was available, but even they had ample time to quit and though difficult, this is not impossible - especially when they found out they could die!
But noboy was born with an addiction to tobacco and nicotine, and nobody made them start smoking.
**
And you know how long tobacco has had major restrictions on how it could advertise? When was the last TV commercial you saw in this country with the Marloboro Man? And every move tobacco companies make is scrutinized beyond belief… Bet you won’t ever see a cartoon character promote Camels again, no mattr how “adult” it is. And when the tobacco companies are shown to be marketing certain brands to minorities, they arre reviled even though this is a standard advertising technique of reaching to the consumer demographic you most want to reach - Malt Liquor companies also came under fire about this as well.
**
OLDER being the key word here. All I know is that I am 31 and I barely remember ANY tobacco ads on TV and I never recall a day when warnings were no on the packs and print ads.
While some people older than myself might be more sympathetic characters (in spite of their ample time to quit), the fact is that they thought that X-Ray machines in shoe stores were not harmful and when they learned otherwise, they were removed. In the case of tobacco, the companys involved in it manufacture have paid billions of dollars already, made many reparations, and are taxed higher than any other poduct in this county by far.
Actually, there are ads that claim that smoking actually helps clear up your throat and aids in breathing. These of course, they could never get away with now, but that wasn’t always the case. I’ll poke around and see if I can find a link to one.
MGibson:
Sure sounds to me like the ad worked. The point is that obviously no ad will convince somebody who * really * doesn’t want a cigarette. It will convince somebody who doesn’t know the dangers, doesn’t fully understand the dangers, has an invincibility complex (which is just about any teen–hell, I still do), and so on.
Things we take for granted as common knowledge really aren’t always. For example, I have plenty of friends who don’t understand that ice can be below 0 degrees. You say what’s the temp of ice, and they say “o degrees celcius”. You say, even in Anartica?, they say, “sure”. And these are very intelligent college-educated people. Many people are not taught science well, or had a little trouble with it, and acquired the all-too-popular “science is hard, I don’t understand it. I can’t do it. I’ll just go on my intuition and what I hear on the TV” attitude.
On the issue of poison–of course if they were honest about their product, people shouldn’t have the right to sue. No company in the world will tell you to eat rat poison, They tell you to use it to kill rats. If it also emits toxic fumes that harm you whil it kills the rats, they’re liable. Same applies here. If the tobacco companies didn’t show these glamorized photos and (until VERY recently) deny that it hurt you, I wouldn’t have an issue with them.
The warning labels on tobacco products are small and ineffective–worded pretty vaguely to avoid pissing off such big companies. The ones on billboards are often nearly illegible. If a pack of cigarettes came with a big red label that said, “this product causes lung cancer, emphasyma (spelling?), amd other problems (which are too long to list right now)”, I would have no problem with it. Then, anybody who picks up the thing and smokes it anyway knows they’re going to pay up the ass for it.
People, nobody’s going to think for you. Living on Earth requires a minimum of thought, actually, which is why we have six billion people alive right now. But if you refuse to put forth some effort in the direction of self-preservation, you will get hurt. For a while now, there have been Surgeon General’s Warnings on every pack of cigs, cigars, chew, and snuff. And on every ad hyping the same. If you don’t read sometimes, that’s your problem. Don’t expect a legitimate company to lose profits, or sleep, over that.
