Logically defending Big Tobacco!

Great Debates
21

Go to this site and play “spot the Surgeon General’s warning.” I couldn’t. Heck, it’s not even there under their “Legal notices” section.

I suppose it may be hidden away somewhere, but still.
I agree that people should think for themselves. Anybody who eats rat poison is an idiot, even if the box said you should do it. But does that person deserve compensation? yes–they were harmed by a dangerous product used in the manner advocated by the company (I’m assuming that they saw an ad with people happily munching away on a bar of the stuff). Just because what someone did was stupid doesn’t make the company any less liable if they used the product the way they were told to.

Look at it this way: say I were to build small bombs and put posters all over town with photos of people cheerfully playing catch with them, then stick a dinky little warning label on there that says “warning: explosive, may cause injury or death” and then sell them as toys to play ball with. When people start getting blown up:

  1. Are they stupid? yes–they played catch with a friggin bomb
  2. Am I liable legally? Damn straight I am–I sold people bombs and told them to play catch with them. Not a court in the land that would side with me on this one
  3. Am I liable ethically? A little trickier (obviously), but I woul say yes. I would be a dirty SOB who sold a friggin explosive as a fun little toy.

Sounds like the same thing to me–sell a deadly product with a small warning to be used in a manner extremely damaging to the people who purchase it.
I’m not saying the stuff should be banned–i just don’t think they should be allowed to advertise their product as something fun to smoke, and it should have larger, more obvious warning labels.

22

The tobacco corpse makers had several ways to avoid the lawsuits. They could have made them non-addictive. They could have made the cigarettes without the harmful additives, just like what they do in Canada. The non-“Smoking Man” William B. Davis smokes an herbal brand when he performs on X-Files. They could have stopped the Camel ads and the Newport “sporting life” ads. They could have admitted to Congress that tobacco is dangerous if used correctly or incorrectly, and announce that they are making efforts to develop new, non-lethal tobacco products.
The alcohol companies did all of the above (well, except for the commercials).

23

I’m in high school right now. I am surrounded by kids who smoke. Ok, now here’s the kicker: They KNOW it’s dangerous. Isn’t that amazing? They know how deadly it is, and yet they STILL do it. So you think, “Yeah. They’re kids, obviously they are not very bright.” One must ask oneself “Why do these kids smoke?” Well, I think it’s because of peer pressure, and the desire to look cool. No, it’s not because of advertisements. No, it’s not becaues of “big tobacco”. It’s because a friend of there’s says “Here, try this.” Kids start smoking, and it has nothing to do with big tobacco. They grow up, they are still hooked. They still know the danger. They eventually get sick. This entire time, they are spouting off the whole “I have the right to smoke!” crap. But after they get sick, it’s everybody’s fault but their own.
What? Did anybody force them to smoke? No. Did “big tobacco” show up at their front door and put a gun to their head? No. So who got them started? Their “friends”. Who made them continue to smoke? Well, nobody made them. They chose to not to quit. Hmmm, and all this adds up to “Big tobacco is the devil!”

It must be nice to live in a smoker’s world. No personal responsibility needed. They can smoke however much they want, and then have a fall back plan when they get sick. “But I was addicted! I was addicted cuz they tampered with the nictotine! I was addicted because of the advertisements! I was addicted because I didn’t know any better!” Bullshit.

The smokers are at fault here, not the cigarette companies. They turn out a legal product, and YOU have the right to decide whether or not to use it. It’s really easy to never start. Really, it is. I know lots of people who never started. It’s not a law that you have to start. Nobody forces you too. So, all you smokers in the world can suck it up and deal with it. You fucked up, not the tobacco industry.

Oh, and before someone attacks me for “Not knowing what it’s like”, my dad is a smoker, and both of grandparents smoked. Fortunately the grandparents stopped, and my dad has drastically cut back. But I have zero sympathy for my father, and have already told him that I will not take care of him when he’s sick with a smoking related illness, and he will NOT be allowed to be around my children while smoking. I have very little tolerance for stupid people. And people who start smoking after knowing the risks, and people who refuse to stop smoking after knowing the risks, are AFAIC, stupid.

24

Hey pepper, who told the new smokers to “try this”? And why don’t you see that person again? That’s the tobacco salesman at work, lady.

25

Hmmm, so Bob’s friend Terry is really a secret, undercover agent man sent by Big tobacco to get sweet innocent children to start smoking?
Or Nicole is really getting paid a commision by Phillip Morris for every 14 year old she gets hooked?
I don’t think so. It’s NOT big tobacco at work. It’s a bunch of stupid kids who know better, but are trying to rebel. These same kids are often seen smoking a joint too. Ahhh, but who is to blame when they do that? The pot farmers? Because surely these angels who never would have tried a cigarette without the prodding by Phillip Morris also wouldn’t dream of having a joint without the prodding of some huge corporation right?
The point is this:
Government allows tobacco to be sold=cigarettes=“These are bad for you, don’t do it”=every rebellious kid intent on proving that they can do whatever they want and are indestructable. If anything the fact that smoking is bad for you contributes to the “coolness factor”.
An otherwise “good kid” is not going to see a random advertisment for Camels and run out and buy a pack. Get a grip. “Big tobacco” might have got the ball rolling in the very beginning, but now it’s spun out of even their control.
And the fact that smokers don’t have to be held responsible for their actions doesn’t help the anti-tobacco crusade.

26

First off pepperlandgirl(damn, there I go again, I need to find another way to start a post), I don’t think anybody’ll attack you for “not knowing what it’s like”. Anybody who doesn’t have lots of exposure to smokers and isn’t one themselves has been hanging around the Straight Edgers way too much.

I also realize that there is to some extent a distorted sense of personal responsibility, given the media at the moment.

However, this has not always been the case–I very clearly remember a time when ther ewas not a media frenzy blaming “big tobacco”, and I’m not much older than you are. On top of that, what about the older people who pick up smoking? Granted, they’re not immune to “peer pressure”, but certainly a good bit more resistant.

Moreover, while smokers may have made a pretty stupid mistake when they started–at least those aware of the risks (we have many different age groups in the mix here, and that should be recognized)–there is a burden on the company to sell a safe product and minimize the dangers.

capacitor’s point is well-taken; the alcohol industry, which also sells a lethal product, has taken steps to act in a decent fashion, and in the process insulate themselves against lawsuits. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but their actions–anti-drunk driving ads, for example–reduce, if not eliminate, the ability of someone with a wrecked liver to sue them. The simple fact is that the tobacco companies haven’t, and that was stupid.

As the son of a former tobacco-shop employee, I had a fair amount of exposure to good European/Canadian tobacco–which does not contain the 8 million additives American cigarettes do. It smells better, tastes better, and kills you much less quickly. Do you know that American cigarette paper contains additives so that it will burn even when you’re not smoking it? Most foreign cigs don’t. That’s because if it burns while you aren’t smoking it, you might have to light up two where you’d normally only smoke one.
That sounds just a wee bit manipulative to me.
Same with artificially altering nicotine levels.
Same with adding assorted other toxins.

I mean, what other industry has been allowed to lie to the government and consumers on such a large scale for so long?

As a point of note–there are some tobacco farmers in Maryland–and I’m sure elsewhere too–who are working to develop better product that are less deadly, and who don’t lie and cheat about it. I support these people (I won’t pick up smoking for their sake). They are honest working individuals who have seen their industry ruined by large companies, and are trying to do something about it. If anybody sues them, you can be damn sure I’ll take their side.

27

Seriously, pepperlandgirl, you do bring up a point about what I call the “forbidden fruit syndrome” that is related to drugs, including tobacco and alcohol. Oh well, I cannot say much for them. I was though serious about big tobacco having a hand in this sharing a smoke for the rebellion thing.

I was surrounded in a smoking haze every day for the first thirteen years of my life. Just about everyone in the entire apartment building smoked. I still got repulsed by the smoking and what the smokers became because of it. I am surprised that people, who are in general more vain about their looks than I will ever be, are not repulsed by the staining and smelling properties of tobacco residue.

You are right again, pepper (can I call you that?), in that people are ultimately responsible for their actions. The juries in these cases do find that the plantiff smokers were somewhat liable for the consenquences they suffered. However, the companies are not supposed to enable them to keep on doing wrong, neither by using enticing ads, nor by telling outright lies about the dangers, or lack of danger, related to their product.

If I had the tools, I would shut cigarettsforsale.com down.

28

Of course you can, especially when “you are right” is in the same sentence. :slight_smile: Seriously, anything but Pippi is good.

I am willing to concede it has a small part. But I don’t think it has a significat part in teen smoking, or new smokers in general.

Myrr21 said

I honestly can’t say anything about older smokers. For two reasons, one it seems that the majority of new smokers are teenagers, and two, I have personal experiences with teen smokers, however I don’t really know too much about older ones. Though, it seems people who start smoking in their 20’s or 30’s are even more dense than the people who begin at 15.

True, however, anybody who has been around since the early 60s should know better than to start in the first place. And everybody else should have enough common sense to quit.

29

The majority of people who smoke began smoking when they were teenagers (IIRC somewhere in the neighborhood of 80%)and, one might suggest, not at their full powers of judgement as regards corporate willingness to kill people for profit.

My mother was one of the most intelligent people I ever knew. She was not especially gullible nor was she weak willed, and anyone who suggests otherwise because she smoked has their head up their ass. She began smoking in the late fifties, while still a teenager; this is before the surgeon general’s warning appeared on packs but not, importantly, before there was evidence of tobacco’s danger - some of it found but suppressed by the industry itself. She became addicted to cigarettes. And addiction is different for different people, just as alcohol can affect two people in very different ways, so can nicotine. So the fact that you managed to quit doesn’t mean shit. Good for you. She was diagnosed with cancer when I was seventeen and had a long, slow, painful, wasting death spread out over the following year. I got to watch.

Do you think that because she died twenty years ago that some sort of statute of limitations has expired? Do you people really think the poor tobacco companies have paid their dues? Do you really think the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands is not on their heads in any way? They are still selling this product, people.

Even if you think smokers bear some responsibility, and they do of course, the willingness to completely absolve the cigarette pushers is just beyond understanding. Is a three card monte dealer NOT a crook because his mark is stupid and greedy? Should the cops not interfere and shut him down?

30

**

Tobacco was smoked long before any of these companies existed. I think the tobacco companies have in fact paid their dues to society for lying about their product. They made an agreement with the government to cease certain types of behavior and agreed to pay X amount of dollars over a certain period of time. Problem solved.

Yes I understand that they still sell their products. So what? We all understand the risks associated with using their product. I don’t think the government should be in the business of protecting people from themselves.

As I said tobacco has been smoked for a long time. And it is every bit a part of our culture as alcohol. I think smokers bear the lions share of the responsibility when it comes to their addictions.

Marc

31

I’ve never known anyone to start smoking because of avertisements. Most of them started to smoke because their peers smoked or their parents smoked. I don’t think advertisement was effective at getting people to start smoking instead it only got people to smoke a particular brand. Most smokers cannot tell the difference between tobacco brands and the companies certainly knew that. Marlborough used to be marketed to women before it became the #1 cigarette worldwide.

Oh, and I came from a family where everyone but me smoked. My father’s life ended prematurely partly because he smoked. My mother’s life will probably end before it should and the same goes for my sister. I blame them for the choice they made not the tobacco companies.

Marc

32

My dad quit smoking for 9 years, after my little sister was born. He made it no secret that he was still addicted to the stuff, and he could start smoking again in a flash. He had always been addicted, he was practically born with a cigarette in his mouth. His mother smoked the entire time she was pregnant with him. But he didn’t start again, because there was something bigger than himself he was worried about. His three daughters. Of course, the last year was very stressful for him, and he started smoking again. Satan has quit smoking, and it seems one of his biggest reasons was his love for his fiance. I bet if you ask him, he’ll still admit to being addicted to the things. The point is, people can do quit all of the time. And if cigarettes endanger your health, and you know it, maybe you should use your pea-brain and stop smoking. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult.
Look, if I see a 3 monte dealer, and I choose to play, why, oh why, is it someone else’s responsibility when I lose? If you see a cigarette and decide to start smoking, why oh why, is it someone else’s responsibility when you get sick?
Blaming someone else for your stupidity is not justice, it’s selfishness.

And personally, I feel if you are weak willed enough to let the cigarette companies lure you into smoking via advertisements, than you deserve each other.

33

Person A can have a drink every night and is not an alcoholic. Person B cannot have a drink every night and NOT be an alcoholic. Addiction is a complex process, and it is downright foolish to point to the way a drug acts on person A and insist that if it acts on person B differently it must be some character failing of person B. I really believe quitting smoking is MUCH more difficult for some people than for others, because their predisposition to that addiciton is different.

And really, now. If someone sets up a situation where you can do something stupid, and does everything in their power to get you to do so, and targets their efforts at you while you’re a teenager, are they really blameless when you succumb? Can you absolve drug dealers (I mean the ordinary kind), pimps, con-men and swindlers, and all the others who prey on people by luring them into complicity in a dangerous behavior? Do you support the continued operation of such people because their victims “should know better”? I find that an odd and twisted ethics. And applying this point to tobacco has nothing to do with advocating a police state! It is a legitimate role of the government to prevent its citizens from actually killing each other.

Also,

is too short a sentence. Tide Detergent lies about their product when they say it is “new and improved”. Universal Studios lies about their product when they claim that Battlefield Earth is “a masterpiece”. But the sentence above should read “the tobacco companies have in fact paid their dues to society for lying about their product,* knowing it would kill people on a grand scale as a result *.” I feel you are far too facile in minimizing the responsibility of the cig manufacturers and writing off the value of a human life.

34

The tobacco companies are legitimate companies that sell a legal product. As long as the product is legal, they are supplying a demand. Why isn’t Mars, Inc. hit with lawsuits from obese people wanting to get compensation because Mars’ candy bars taste so good they couldn’t stop eating them? Mars, Inc. never said that its product was harmful to anyone’s health. In fact, they sold their product as being the choice of young, healthy people. Never once would you see a fat person in one of their ads. Yet it is now widely accepted (among those not affiliated with Big Candy) that eating chocolate and the like is harmful. Why, then, are our courts not bursting with the overweight suing the candyman? Big Candy obviously targeted their advertising at the young. Hell, they co-opted a whole holiday to increase revenue! Halloween is simply Big Candy’s marketing divisions swinging into high gear. Yet nobody seems to be complaining. Heart disease is the biggest killer in America and nobody points the finger at anybody…except those who keep filling their own faces. Personal responsibility, people. Personal responsibility. Without it you’re living under somebody’s thumb.

35

How about reading my previous bomb example and telling me * how in heck I can sell a bomb as a toy, and not be responsible? * I don’t see any difference between that and the actions of tobaccco companies.
I can, however, deal with the Mars candy bars example.

  1. This is a product that is bad for you, but not addictive, and not a direct cause of death. You can eat candy bars all your life and still be perfectly healthy–if you take care of yourself.
  2. If you see anybody who smokes all their life, and never has any medical problem resulting from it (this is, of course, excluding people who die prematurely from other causes), I’d like to meet them.

Smoking==> Kills you directly even if used properly

Candy Bar==> Kills you indirectly (if eating a candy bar once in a while is the only unhealthy thing you do, my guess is you’ll be fine), and only if used improperly (that is, eating 3 of them a day. Eating just about anything excessively is deadly, the point is that normalized consumption of it isn’t.

Again, I would like to reiterate the point that addiction is different for different people. By definition, I am an alcoholic even though I almost never drink–my parents were, and it’s partly hereditary. Other people can down shot after shot and never have a problem with it–see what I’m getting at here?

Then there’s the issue of “they’re selling a legal product”. If sell you a box of rat poison and say “hey, this stuff tastes great”, I’m selling you a legal product. I’m also liable to have my ass sued off. The point to make here is that companies are liable for the products they sell, even if stupidity on the part of the user causes the damage (that is, unless the label directly tells you not to do it). What makes these cases even more clear-cut is that they were using the product in the way that they’re supposed to. Somebody recently sued because coffee burned his leg (a new case, not the celebrated McD case) and the container wasn’t marked, “contents may be hot”. He lost–because you’re not supposed to pour coffee on your bloody leg. If they handed him a cup of boiling coffee, and it scalded his throat, you can bet he would have won. Moreover,. note that if the cup had been labeled (as most are), there would never have even been a case. This has been upheld time and time again in our legal system…

Whether you like it or not, companies have a responsibility to sell safe products–or to label dangerous ones so as not to be used in a manner that causes harm. Tobacco companies sell a dangerous product and tell you that you should put it in your mouth and light it.

As for the advertizing thing, I don’t understand how you can write it off so easily. They don’t advertise just for personal amusement; they advertise because it is strikingly effective. Do you think these guys are fools who just throw money away, knowing that they will not recoup it in increased sales? Of course they didn’t hold a gun to anybody’s head, but they did take advantage of people’s naiivite (oh spelling gods, please forgive me).

They targeted their product at minors, they lied to the government, they manipulated their product to make it more addictive and in the process, more deadly. That’s all flat out illegal, and now they’re paying for it. The only reason it took so long is because they are a large political force, so until public opinion was largely against them, nobody in their right mind would take them on.

I have sympathy for small tobacco growers and companies who run an honest business. As I said, I won’t use their product, but that’s a personal choice. I have no sympathy for the companies that run an illegal business, then whine when they get called on it.

36

Maybe I was the only one raised with the idea of “agency” planted in my brain.
It’s really quite amazing. With this “agency” I can decide what to do. Yes, that’s right, I can make up my own mind. I can decide whether or not to smoke, eat candy, drink, watch R-rated movies, go to sleep at 12:00. Especially in a few months when I turn 18.
But with this “agency” thing comes responsibility. If I was a frightening movie, I should be prepared for the nightmares afterward. If I have bad dreams after watching the Exorcist, I don’t get to sue the movie makers because I couldn’t sleep and it eventually affected my job performance and get me fired. Why? Because I personally took the chance of watching a scary movie.
If I decide to buy a pack of smokes, I must take the responsibility of whatever happens after that.
Freedom of choice=responsibility=freedom of choice.
Blaming a big company is a cop out.

37

People do many, many things that they know are harmfull to them. Drinking, contact sports, eating a bad diet, not excercising, doing drugs…smoking…

People know that those things are harmful. But they enjoy them a lot and can remain in a state of denial. TO say that people are not responsible for themselves because there are no lables on things that are obviously harmful does NOT absolve the individual of responsibility.

38

ARRRGHHH! This is NOT what I’m saying. The point I’m making is that while people have a responsinbility in this area, so do companies.
People have a responsibility to take care of themselves.
Companies have a responsibilty * not * to sell a deadly product.

From an ethical sense, there is less culpability on the part of the companies, but still a good bit. I consider many of their actions completely unethical. If you think they’re just nice, honest businessmen, I’m not going to change your opinion, but i am going to question your sense of ethics.

From a legal sense, the company sure as heck is liable. Given the thousands of cases of precedent, there is no way that a company selling a dangerous product and advocating it’s use in a dangerous way could not be liable. That’s the way out law works. I don’t care how stupid the actions of the people who use the product are, our laws make it very clear that when you produce a product, tell people how to use it, and that means of using it kills them, you’re gonna pay.
Look at the recent thing w/ Fen-phen or whatever: they made a product. They told people it was ok to swallow the product. The product killed and injured people. They got sued.
There are numerous other cases like this * every year. * This is not coming out of nowhere; it’s just taken a long time because of the power of the tobacco lobbey.

Moreover, the courts have already determined that everything I’ve said above is true. That’s why the companies lost the suit.

39

Not only do I agree completely with mavpace and pepperlandgirl’s arguments, I really can’t think of much to add to them.

But, Myrr21 said:

Could we have a citation or be directed to a study that shows how European/Canadian tobacco “kills you much less quickly” than American tobacco does? I’ve never heard that one before.

As an engineer, I am sickened by our civil legal system. Exhorbitant awards for clearly negligent behavior on the parts of individuals. Six-figure awards for people who reach into the spinning blades of their lawnmower to get a toy. In school we had a class that covered product liability suits resulting from the absoultely unbelieveably negligent actions of individuals. One that comes to mind was a farmer who spent 2 days with a torch and air chisel to break off all of the safety devices on a hay baler, and then a year later was injured horribly when he reached into it. And he won! More than $200,000! Why? Because the jury thought (according to the foreman) the manufacturer “should have known people might use a torch and air tools to break all of the safety devices off.” If’s that’s our new standard of safe design, then we are all fucked.

The Audi “unintended acceleration” cases, which were quietly proven to be nothing but driver error, the “design flaws” of high-stting SUV’s that “cause” them to do nothing but roll over. Gun manufacturers being sued again and again and again because some fucking low-life decides to shoot someone with a legal, non-malfunctioning product. These are in my mind no different than tobacco lawsuits.

I see this as a slippery slope from which there is no return. Each tobacco lawsuit tells the American public “you have NO personal responsibility for your own actions or inactions”. Where does society ultimately end up as a result? A society where people can sue the weatherman for predicting sunshine and it rains on a wedding? A society where parents can sue teachers individually because their child can’t spell?

Lawyers like to say “oh, but those are extreme cases that surely would be laughed out of court.” Would they really? In todays corrupted American society? How about after 10 more years of sliding down that I’m-not-responsible-and-if-anything-happens-I’ll-just-sue-someone slope?

40

Good post Anthracite

No, they did not make a harmful product. They made a product for grossly overweight people. People who needed to lose more than 150 lbs. The people who got sick were the ones who wanted to lost 20 lbs. So again, another example of chronic stupidity running rampant in our country.

How much more responsibility do the tobacco companies have to take? They lied about it being addictive? Well anybody who doesn’t have their head up their asses KNOWS it’s addictive. They have warnings on the cigarettes now, it’s no longer a big secret.
You can’t sue McDonalds for hot coffee burns anymore, because their cups says “Warning HOT COFFEE!” Well, cigarettes have Surgeon General warnings, so what’s the difference?