you don’t have to go smoke free, you can go smokeless 
wring, given your feelings, is there any reason that tobacco shouldn’t be taxed out of business?
Is there any reason that alcohol manufacturers shouldn’t be sued in a similar manner?
I also wonder if cocaine users can’t file suite against Columbia.
Alcohol Manufacturers don’t intentionally taget minors (or at least haven’t been shown to). And cocaine users, well, you gonna come forward and say “yeah, I use it, and I want your money now”? Of course, I don’t believe that the companies should be taxed out of existence (see previous posts).
Wow, it must be beautiful in a smoker’s world. A) You get the good feeling of smoking (There must be something there, right) B)It’s your RIGHT to smoke, and pollute the air with your second-hand smoke (Don’t post the Cecil article. Some of us ARE allergic. I get ear infections for some reason) and C) When you are finished being stupid, you don’t have to have responsibility!
Does this apply to other areas of your life, or just cigarettes?
>>>snort<<<
Whoops. Pardon me, I’m just choking on my tongue.
Yeah, happen to have some allergic friends myself–we’re pretty fierce about not letting people smoke in the non-smoking dorm. GRAAHHH!!!
However, pepperlandgirl, you still do not seem to be adressing the issue that we’re not saying the companies bear the full brunt of responsibility. We’re saying the responsibility is shared, and based on that, there is a right to sue (depending on your state, apparently).
You bear responsibility for your own actions, but if somebody encourages you with the intention of you doing yourself harm, they bear some responsibility. I hate to take it to such an extreme example, but I think I have to:
Say you have a friend who has decided to kill themselves.
They will probably do it if you don’t interfere.
Well, now let’s say that it turns out you’re a real bastard and not a friend at all.
Let’s say you also own a gun shop. So you sell them a gun–knowing they will likely use it to kill themselves. Now, a gun is a legal product. Heck, the 2nd Amendment even protects their right to own one. And they could have bought it elsewhere anyway.
At this point, most people would still say that you have some responsibility in their death. Some wouldn’t. But that doesn’t matter, because you go further:
You encourage them to kill themselves. You tell them how things will be better when they’re dead, and how it’s ok, and in fact good to use it that way. You show them pictures of happy people putting a gun up to their head.
Sure enough, your friend shoots him/herself.
Now bear in mind that this person bears full responsibility for their action–they knew guns can kill you (everybody knows that). It may have even come with a warning label (this thing shoots metal really hard and can kill you, don’t point it at yourself). Do you, as a person who sold them the gun and encouraged them to use it–while pointed at their head–bear ** partial ** responsibility for their death?
This is the exact equivalent of what the tobacco companies are doing–giving you something to kill yourself with and encouraging you to use it. What they should be doing is the equivalent (in my example) of selling them the gun (assuming they have a right to buy one–let’s not start that debate in here), and calling the cops right away to say “hey, there’s a guy who wants to commit suicide” so it can be prevented or delayed. If you’re curious about how the companies could do this–here’s my $.02
Stop marketing to minors (they have, in fact done this, but only since losing said lawsuits).
Use any and/or all of the means to make cigarettes less dangerous (as I said, a very quick search showed something like 30 different ways of doing this).
So, what’s the verdict?
no, those chicks in bikinis never appealed to me when I was 13.
But that aside, I don’t think that you are saying that alcohol manufacturers shouldn’t be sued merely because they do flagrantly sell to minors, right? I don’t see where this makes much of a difference…
…unless you aregument is that tobacco companies are evil and get what they deserve.
pldennison: that’s why I’ve added the comment in parenthesis. Heck, I’m underage, and I drink the stuff.
The point is that we don’t have nice good evidence that they do (internal memos, that sort of thing). That’s not to say it isn’t obvious to the rest of us, but in terms of ability to make them stop…well…it makes a difference.
It’s much harder to go to court and say “they’re targeting minors. Everybody knows it. C’mon”
than “they’re targeting minors. We have them on record as intentionally doing it. here’s the documents. WHUMP”
See what I was getting at?
Myrr, cigarette companies are NOT equivilant to someone encouraging their friend to commit suicide.
They may sell the “gun”, but that’s their right since we live in a capitalistic country. The consumer still BOUGHT the “gun”.
They may advertise what a great thing smoking is. Of course they are going to advertise. Remember, they are trying to make money. But that’s far from encouragement. I don’t see the Marlboro cowboy, and run off to buy a pack. They just want name recgonition, the same way Budweiser does. Seeing beautiful babes in bikinis aren’t going to make me run out and buy a six pack. But IF I ever decide it’s the thing to do, I’ll have an idea of what to buy. Name recgonition does not equal encouragement.
Finally, in your suicide analogy, the supplier did NOT pull the trigger. Ultimately he provided the means, but he did NOT pull the trigger. In the end, the person had the right to choose what he would do, and he made his choice.
My point is, if we are going to live in a free country where everybody is free to buy or sell anything that is legal, the responsibility of the supplier has to be absolved at one point. I think that point is when goods and money exchange hands.
Well, let’s separate this along the logical divisions. You’re (and me too, for that matter)arguing two separate points here, at the same time.
Are the companies legally responsible?
Are the companies morally/ethically responsible–which also leads to the question of * should * they be legally responsible?
Yes. No argument here. It’s a fact. The courts have ruled it. Unless it is overturned, they are. On to the more difficult point number two…
You’re telling me that you wouldn’t feel partially responsible selling a gun to a suicide (I’m not talking legally here)? I would feel guilty even if I didn’t know they were suicidal, to say nothing if I knew and failed to prevent it.
And yes, advertising is exactly the same as telling them to do it. You’re advertising for suicide. They’re advertising for tobacco. What’s the difference?
Finally, to the points that I want you to respond to most:
If they are targeting minors, they are taking advantage of minor’s (presumed) reduced judgement. Again, I know this is a bad presumption, but–as noted earlier–there is some reason behind it (incidentally, any ideas on a better way to go about this?). The reason you can’t buy cigs until 18 is to protect minors. If they have been shown to intentionally ** break the law ** to target minors, how can they not be responsible? The people I have the least sympathy for, and who I don’t find particularly deserving of any compensation, is people who began smoking as adults but after the warning labels were put on.
The other point being, in any other industry, if you have an inherently dangerous product, you are required to take steps to minimize the danger. Tobacco Co. clearly have the means to do that (previous cites; as noted, I can get many more). So why should they be exempt? If I try to sell a lawnmower without a blade-guard, I will get sued. If I try to sell an electric device without insulating the wires, I will get sued. If I try to sell a fencing mask made from cloth, I will get sued. Why is it that if I try to sell cigarettes without reducing the free-radicals in it, I shouldn’t get sued?
Anybody can tell that the lawnmower’s blade can and will cut you up. Anybody can tell that the exposed wiring is dangerous. Anybody can tell that a cloth mask is no protection from a metal foil. Anybody can tell that a cigarette screws up your lungs.
So is there a difference here, or should I be allowed to sell a lawnmower without a blade-guard?
Obviously, we have many ridiculous lawsuits today. People who pick up a lawnmower (that has a blade-guard) and sick their hand under it don’t deserve compensation. That’s not in question here.
Call me a cold, heartless bastard, but no, I wouldn’t feel guilty. If I’m a gun vendor, I sell guns. What happens after the gun leaves the store is of no concern to me. Guns are used to kill living things. That’s the only reason you have a gun. If I sell guns, I would be prepared for the fact that a product I sell can, and maybe even will, take a life.
I don’t know if you noticed this or not, but ALL advertisements are geared towards teenagers and young adults. Every single commercial, whether it be for Burger King or Budweiser. That’s the way the game is played. Do you run out and buy every single thing that you see advertised? Did you when you were a child? A teenager?
The point is, if cigarettes manu. are responsible for marketing teenagers, so is Budweiser, (teenager have been known to be killed after driving drunk.) How about Burger King (There are a lot of lil butterballs running around)? Advertisements do NOT equal mind control.
It’s like this, cigarette companies sell what smokers want. If consumers don’t want dangerous lawn mowers, they would not buy them, and dangerous lawn mowers would not be produced and marketed. If smokers didn’t want “dangerous cigarettes” (Oxymoron anybody?) they would not buy them. There are many different types of cigarettes, as already been pointed out. The consumer already has choices in that area. If the smoking public wants cigarette mans. to change their product, you can bet Phillip Morris will but their hump to make changes.
You guys seem to be communicating, even if you’re not agreeing, and I hate to stick my nose in. But maybe this will make the analogy you’re debating easier.
Imagine that we are gun makers and are manufacturing a handgun designed in such a way that it fires only one time out of six, and WHICH time is randomly determined within the mechanism with no indicator for the gun’s user. You can’t reliably defend yourself with it, you can’t make much use of it at the range, you can’t hunt with it. The only conceivable use is Russian Roulette, and let’s say we market it heavily for the specific purpose of Russian Roulette. Market research shows us that people are actually using the gun for RR, and one out of six them die as a result.
[Note: From the user’s point of view, they have a one-in six chance of dying, but from our point of view the chances that one in six of our market will die is a virtual certainty.]
Let’s go further and say we’ve *improved the very game * of Russian Roulette by putting a dial on the handle so the user can choose whether the thing fires one time out of six, seven, eight, or nine. Cool! A leg up on those bastards at Smith&Wesson.
Part I: Do we have any moral responsibility for deaths that occur by this product’s use?
Part II: We find we can increase sales by putting a spring-loaded needle in the handle that injects the gun’s user with a dilute dose of laudanum, but only if the gun is held with the nuzzle to a 98.6 degree, hair-covered surface. (Okay, the hypothetical technology is getting away from me a bit, I admit, but you see what I’m getting at I hope). Since we are gun manufacturers, and have a large lobby, this turns out to be somehow legal. NOW do we bear any moral responsibility?
You may think this is a needless complication, and ignore it if you don’t think it adds anything.
Why should they? It’s addictive. They don’t have to worry about losing unsatisfied customers (not on any appreciable scale, anyway). What actually astounds me is that they don’t implemennt the means that they have to make their product safer voluntarily. Their customer base would live a lot longer. And they’d avoid at least part of the lawsuits brought against them.
For the last time, not one single person here said advertising=mind control.
Advertising tobacco to minors intentionally=illegal.
Advertising alcohol to minors intentionally=illegal.
If someone can pull up a company memo or something of the sort indicating that alcohol companies are intending to target minors, they damn well should be sued too.
Advertising Big Macs to minors=not illegal.
Why? Because minors can legally buy a big mac.
Advertising shotguns to minors=illegal.
They can’t buy one. You can’t target them. Fortunately, the gun industry has thought this far ahead and has managed to avoid some frivolous lawsuits. They still get their share, but they win more of them.
Just a minor nitpick:
I don’t think it is illegal to advertise to or even target minors with firearms advertising in America. At least not anymore than advertising cars to minors is illegal. As anecdotal evidence, I have a large stack of American Rifleman magazines here that clearly have ads targeting minors with firearms designed solely for use by minors. (boy, that last sentence would sound funny taken out of context, wouldn’t it?) In most states of the US, minors can legally possess and use firearms, they just cannot make the actual purchase of the firearm (and in many states they also cannot purchase the ammunition).
Not related to the topic at hand directly.
I think shotguns are much more heavily controlled, though…at least, that’s what my “gun nut” friends tell me. Could be a state-by-state thing too. Point taken, but it doesn’t invalidate the post as a whole.
Not if we warn the consumer that there is a high risk of injury or death by using the product.
I don’t know how this is necessarily different from the first case.
Here is the test I am trying to apply to these cases. I don’t know if I am right necessairly, but please read what I have as some possible answers and counter-questions:
Is the consumer forced to buy the product, or is purchase of it a free-will decision? I’d say, no, they are free to take it or leave it. Now, the counterpoint is that the advertising may have caused an undue influence on their decision-making process, but I don’t think enough to reduce the exercise of free will.
Does the consumer know of the risks? Well, for decades now the consumer has been informed of the risks in every form of media, the device itself has a warning label informing of the risks, and anecdotally in the popular culture it is known that this is risky behavior that can result in death or injury. Has the consumer been informed of the exact risks? No. But are the risks even known by the manufacturer or the government? Maybe just in a general sense.
Can the consumer stop using the product? I have to back down and qualify it, with a yes, but it can be very difficult to due to the addictive properties of the product.
Is the product inherrently defective? Well, that seems to be a very arguable point. Let me ask this - if tobacco was mass-produced that was entirely organically grown, not chemically treated or genetically engineered in any way (barring normal plant breeding, which has been done for thousands of years) - would this reduce the perceived liability of the tobacco makers? Seriously, would it? Then no one could claim that it was anything but a natural product. And if so, can a natural product be defective by any definition, and can a person who sells a completely natural product be accused of producing a “dangerous” or “deadly” product? Would the debate change somewhat?
I guess a counterpoint example would be the selling of Aminita (sp) Deathcap mushroom omelettes in a diner, where it is a seriously deadly product that is “all natural”. Yet, if the consumer knows that the mushrooms are poisonous, and is told that they are (but sooooo delicious!) does the omelette maker bear a responsiblity for their death?
Also, don’t tell me for a second that alcohol is not also marketed to minors. Tell the kids that go to school with “Budweiser” t-shirts, ballcaps, belt buckles, etc. that. My best friends 12-year old nephew has 3 beer posters on his bedroom walls at home with the “Bud frogs and lizards” on them, and can’t wait to start drinking his “favorite beer”.
Well, maybe I haven’t answered back very clearly on this issue. If so, please don’t judge the issue by my inability to make my point well. I’m not very good at explaining myself sometimes.
Maybe we have in fact reached an impasse on this issue. I have softened my position somewhat in a few areas, but overall am still having difficulty assigning a high level of responsibility to the tobacco makers.
** pepperlandgirl: ** I saw your rant here and something came to mind (incidentally, I am not questioning your reasoning there–that post was straight-on and well deserved).
But it was relevant to this discussion. In that post you clearly hold minors to a different level of responsility for their actions than adults. Why should that apply there and not here? I realize that they’re both charged subjects (the other more than this one), but–in my mind anyway–one should be consistent in this sort of thing.
I’m sure they must mean handguns. And it is a state-by-state thing, until very recently there were very few federal laws at all which dealt with minors possessing weapons. I used to hold an FFL and had to have a general knowledge of the laws for sale and possession in most states. Shotguns and rifles are almost always treated equally under the law, except for the so-called “assault rifles” in a few states.
And you are right, it didn’t invalidate your point. I just know firearms (and I’m much better prepared to debate that issue than tobacco )
No.
You see, we are just marketing it. We aren’t shoving it into people’s faces and forcing them to use it. They can exercise their free will to buy the product, and operate it. If they want to do something that stupid, it’s totally up to them.
Again, no. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy any product and use it in anyway.
It’s addictive to the people already using cigarettes. However, there is a whole market of people who haven’t started yet, and might very well start one day. If they were losing potential customers due to the danger risk, they would change their cigarettes.
Basically, every single alcohol/beer commerical is targeted towards minors, especially minor boys. I have yet to see a tobacco advertisement blatantly directed towards minors. Some would argue Joe Camel was too cartoony, therefore attractive to children/teenagers. However, they have been stopped from doing that, so what other advertisements are there? As a minor, I haven’t noticed any. And none of my friends have ever, ever said that their life was affected in anyway by the cigarette ads in back of magazines, or racing by them on billboard.
Oh, BTW, as a minor I can’t buy a gun, but I can own and shoot one. Well, I can in Utah anyway, where the legal hunting age is 14.
Anthracite and pepperlandgirl: we seem to be very much nearing an impasse in this…damn I hate arguing with intelligent people.
Anthracite: maybe you were responding specifically not to me, in which case ignore this bit here: As noted, I believe that if it can be shown that Budweiser intended to target kids, they should pay too. Though this could be tough–they’ve probably learned from the tobacco suits and aren’t sending any explicit memos around…
Anyeway, I would like to boil my opinions down as much as possible just for the sake of clarity:
I think that’s about it…for now. 
Myrr, there is a slight difference between forcing 16 year old girl to go down on you, and offering a 16 year old girl a smoke. But neither have anything to do with advertisements.
Personally, I don’t hold minors as responsible for their actions as I hold adults. I know minors, I am a minor. We have raging hormones, constantly change our minds over everything, self-esteem issues, sex on the brain, unsure where we fit in the world. For these reasons, minors are easy targets for sexual assaults. They are also easy targets for peer pressure. Therefore, they can be pressured by their friends to smoke, to “look cool”. Where do they get these ideas? Partially from the media in total, including the actors/models/musicians who have been seen smoking. And also from what I mentioned before, the “forbidden fruit” analogy. Also, if you want to fit in with the “in-crowd” and they smoke, than if you want it bad enough, you smoke too. And it goes on and on and on, exactly like that. It’s a huge vicious circle, that I don’t think cigarette mans even have control over anymore.
I am more affected by the beer advertisements byfar than I am by the ciggies, and I think the majority of the people I know feel the same way.