| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Suing Big Tobacco | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 3 2005, 07:23 PM (506 Views) | |
| brewster | Oct 3 2005, 07:23 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
British Columbia is considering suing Tobacco for the costs of Medical Care, and is looking for other gov'ts in Canada to join in. I know the US was / is suing Big Tobacco as well. While there can be little doubt of the damage cause by smoking, it seems hypocritical for governments on either side of the border to sue, considering the big hit on taxes they collect. Can anyone tell me how they can justify it?
|
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| puli-one | Oct 3 2005, 07:36 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Member
|
Bruce: If a government spent every dollar they collected from the tobacco taxes on the health care treating tobacco related diseases, and there was still a short fall, I would say that they would have a decent claim against the producers. They haven't and therefore they shouldn't be able to justify such a claim. I look at it as a grandstand ploy, it is one of the largest cash cows that the government has, and now they are going to shoot it, if they are serious, make tobacco a illegal product, shut the manufacturers down, then treat the remaining casualties that you have in your system. With their line of thinking they should be on the blue side of the ledger in 5 years, but they again if they sue for a "Brazilian Dollars -bush's number"- pile that back into the general coffers, health care will get a bit, education will get a sniff, and infrastructure will get a taste, and come election time we will have a debt reduction and improvements all over the acreage and a rose in our lapel. |
|
Don & Donna Puli Pup - Kelly | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 3 2005, 07:40 PM Post #3 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Negligence on the part of tobacco companies. It's been shown, hasn't it, tobacco companies hid a lot from the public. On the other hand the public were informed. Smoke? It's your risk. Suing cuts revenues! Hadn't thought of that. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| jackd | Oct 3 2005, 07:47 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Member
|
I have very little sympathy if any for the tobacco industry, but I have an ''existential problem'' with the idea that the government, or any one, can sue anyone for damages,, pain or injuries received from the use of their product when the risk are widely known. Can someone sue McDonald's for having become obese with diabetes and heart problem after eating their greasy food for year? Can someone sue Coors Beer for having drunk two cases a day for 25 years and became alcoholic? This principle is a precedent no one knows where it will stop. And your point borders hypocrisy by the government. |
|
Walk in front of me, you lead me, Walk behind me, I lead you Walk beside me, you are a friend. | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Oct 3 2005, 07:51 PM Post #5 |
|
Member
|
It has been known for some time now that using tobacco is bad for your health. The sale of tobacco products is still legal with the warning label. For those afflicted before the warning labels, I would say they have a case. For those who smoke in spite of the labels, you made the choice to take the risk. Government, taxing tobacco products to pay for the increased medical costs makes sense. Suing for monetary compensation does not. Make it illegal, and just like pot, people will still use it. I have heard that Social Security would be in crisis much sooner if no one smoked. All those smokers who die young don't collect any or very little SS benefits. |
![]() |
|
| passinthru | Oct 3 2005, 08:31 PM Post #6 |
![]()
John - Gainesville, FL
|
Warning labels have been on cigarette packs for 35 years; seems like I see mostly young people smoking. When I was in college I remember people saying they will have a cure for cancer by the time I get it. That hasn't happened. I wonder what the current thought processes of young people are. |
| Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money... | |
![]() |
|
| pentax | Oct 3 2005, 08:34 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Kamloops - BC Interior
|
BOLLOCKS! Where do you think the money will come from - their vault in the basement? When car companies have to build in more Safety features, who pays for them? When homes have to be built with smoke alarms and sprinklers, who pays for them?
|
![]() (thumbnail) ![]() "Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!" | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 3 2005, 08:41 PM Post #8 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
I don't pay for anyone else's cigarettes. Tobacco, liguor and such have use taxes, if don't indulge I pay neither cost nor tax. Now that sounds Fair! |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| pentax | Oct 3 2005, 08:52 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Kamloops - BC Interior
|
Not my point, and I think you realize it - like any other Cost Of Doing Business, it comes from the consumers pockets, eventually....
|
![]() (thumbnail) ![]() "Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!" | |
![]() |
|
| DylansMom | Oct 3 2005, 08:58 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Jackie-Sioux Falls, SD (in Arizona for the moment)
|
Jack, I don't see it in the same light. Tobacco companies have known for a GOOD many years that their products are addictive DRUGS. And have hid it and denied it, until recently. I think that because they LIED and purposely hid studies, they should be sued. Greg has lost both his parents to smoking related illness, my mother has emphasima and my best friend in this world died recently from lung cancer. Perhaps if enough people sue, someone will get a clue and make this highly addictive and deadly DRUG as illegal as other equally addictive and deadly drugs. |
|
Greg, Dylan & Jasper too! 2005 F350 King Ranch PSD Crew Cab 4x4 Dually; 2005 Carriage Carri-lite KIQ View My Pictures Here
| |
![]() |
|
| corky52 | Oct 3 2005, 09:02 PM Post #11 |
|
Member
|
Jackie, That's the same day we should make booze illegal. I'll take smoking drivers over drinking drivers any day. Maybe if we can get the tobacco companies we can go after the bars and booze companies next. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 3 2005, 09:03 PM Post #12 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Guess I'm having a hard time seeing. If I smoke, sure, the tobacco companies charge more, I pay more. Perhaps in an indirect way if the tobacco company now makes or sells other products I do consume, I might pay more for those. But why would a business subsidize one product with another? I doubt I'd pay more for long. Keep in mind, this was Bruce's point, my comment was I hadn't thought of that. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| puli-one | Oct 3 2005, 09:04 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Member
|
We all suffer from the increased health costs that are associated with tobacco usage, those valuable health care dollars could be utilized in another direction in the health care sector. BC has raised the tax level on tobacco products at nearly every budget onset, but the annual tax intake from these products is not isolated in the direction of health care appropriation. As for the user, they have no case - for years now the dangers of tobacco use has been widely publicized - they use at their own risk - they have no recourse - you don't want to drown, don't keep your head under water! |
|
Don & Donna Puli Pup - Kelly | |
![]() |
|
| pentax | Oct 3 2005, 09:10 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Kamloops - BC Interior
|
Right ON! And where are Al Capone, Dutch Schultz, and Lucky Luciano - when we could really use them???
|
![]() (thumbnail) ![]() "Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!" | |
![]() |
|
| DylansMom | Oct 3 2005, 09:16 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Jackie-Sioux Falls, SD (in Arizona for the moment)
|
No, booze and tobacco are not the same. Just about everyone who smokes becomes addicted. PLUS second had smoke kills a whole lot of innocent people and creates a lot of health issues for kids exposed to it. I don't have any statistics on how many drinkers become alcoholics, but I bet it isn't many compared to how many people drink. As for drunk driving, that is another issue. But if I am sitting in a bar and the person next to me is drinking, it won't kill me. If they are smoking, it very well could. |
|
Greg, Dylan & Jasper too! 2005 F350 King Ranch PSD Crew Cab 4x4 Dually; 2005 Carriage Carri-lite KIQ View My Pictures Here
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |




My Favourite Campsite










1:04 PM Jul 11