| 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: |
| It's About Damn Time Somebody Made It Clear!; Canadian article - but applies elsewhere | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 18 2005, 01:16 AM (103 Views) | |
| pentax | Oct 18 2005, 01:16 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Kamloops - BC Interior
|
Courtesy of Jose Rodriguez at the Calgary Sun: "Smoking is an ugly, vile vice. I should know, because I smoke. I am currently in between quitting and, God willing, one day I'll run out of excuses to light up. With that in mind, perhaps I have a tarnished view on the whole idea of allowing governments to sue tobacco companies to recoup health care costs. Because, the way I see it, smokers have already paid. Since 1970, federal and provincial governments have collected an estimated $150 billion in tobacco taxes. As much as 75% of the price of a pack of smokes goes directly to some form of government. The federal Health Department estimates the cost of treating tobacco-related disease at $4 billion a year. [Edit:"straight-line Math" would make that 140 Billion, btw, and that doesn't take into account Inflation and Increases in HealthCare costs - I'm Damn sure it wasn't 4 Billion in 1970....] So, if you do the math, smokers pay for their expanded health needs and still drop an extra $285 million a year in taxes into government bank accounts. [Further edit: so, BITE ME! - anyone who says smokers should pay extra for Health Insurance, or have limited coverage!] For governments, suing tobacco companies isn't so much about recovering health costs, but rather washing their own hands. It's a convenient way for politicos to sweep aside their own complicity in the health fallout from smoking. If tobacco companies prosper, which they obviously do, they do so because Canadian parliamentarians and lawmakers have created an environment in which they can operate. Not once did any governments say "this product is deadly, and based on our principles, we refuse to take any blood money in the way of taxes." Not once did governments move to outlaw smoking. Instead, they choose to continually hike taxes and take a bigger chunk of the profits. Call it the political equivalent of a guilty pleasure. It's a bit like allowing your kids to play on a playground of broken glass and then acting surprised when they cut themselves. It's irresponsible and hypocritical. And the precedent set with any successful lawsuit against tobacco companies will only open the floodgates for a bunch of other don't-blame-me-style actions. Who do we sue next? Fast-food joints for our clogged arteries, cottage cheese thighs and fat children? Breweries for creating alcoholics, drunk drivers and regrettable one night stands? Perhaps it'll be motorcycle makers who produce vehicles that have proven unsafe in collisions with semi trailers and trains. For anyone willing to shirk responsibility for their own actions, the opportunities are endless. If you look hard enough, you'll always find someone else to blame for your poor decisions. Now, I am not an apologist for big tobacco. They have a long list of well-paid, well-placed lobbyists to do that. And this column is not in any way meant to garner sympathy for smokers -- we have no one to blame for our addiction but ourselves. But if tobacco companies are to blame for smoking deaths, then governments are at the very least equal accomplices. The overwhelming responsibility for a smoking-related illnesses, however, rests with smokers. To butcher a line from the U.S. gun lobby: Tobacco companies don't kill people, people kill people. So if I die, don't blame the tobacco companies, don't blame the government and please don't launch a lawsuit in my memory. I've already paid my tab. If I die a smoker, blame me." YUP! If I stand at the top rung of a Step-Ladder, that's my problem, not the Ladder's - and if I am willing to pay a huge chunk of money to mitigate such Foolishness, and someone willingly takes it...... ???? |
![]() (thumbnail) ![]() "Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!" | |
![]() |
|
| passinthru | Oct 18 2005, 03:29 AM Post #2 |
![]()
John - Gainesville, FL
|
I agree Mur, too many people looking for reasons to blame others. Even ciragettes have had warning labels for nearly 40 years, but it has had little effect on people either starting or continuing to smoke. We just bought a new vacuum cleaner, generally not considered addicting; there is a list of 23 warnings and one more telling you not to modify the polarized plug (one side bigger than the other). All are prefaced with this statement: "When using an electrical appliance, basic precautions should always be followed, including the following:" basic precautions... the list is mostly things that you would think would not need to be mentioned, but the legal climate that we live in makes it necessary. #2 says: "do not use outdoors or on wet surfaces or to vacuumwater or other liquids -- electric shock and personal injury could occur." Then later #20 says: "do not use to pick up flammable or combustible liquids, such as gasoline, or use in areas where they may be present." You wouldn't think that such a warning would be necessary. #13 say to keep hair, loose clothing, fingers and all parts of the body (i digress ) away from opening in the machine and move parts such as the brushbar. Another warning: " do not allow to be used as a toy. Close attention is necessary when used by or near children." I'm sure the legal department is busy adding new warnings all the time as consumers become more creative. The list on the iron my wife bought was just as interesting; one I remember was not to iron clothes while wearing them . What idiot did that and then sued the company because it didn't warn them they could be injured if they did it. I heard on TV, the reason flu vaccine is not manufactured in the US is because of legal ramifications as there is some risk in using the vaccine. The same is true of motorcycle helmets. It will get worse; the attendance at law schools is not going down... gotta make a live somehow. |
| Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money... | |
![]() |
|
| puli-one | Oct 18 2005, 09:33 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Member
|
Mur: Many is the time that the query has come " why not use tobacco tax dollars to fund our health care shortfall" - the response is either a blank look, or " if you removed the tobacco tax's from the general budget you would have serious shortfalls" - go figure. I guess it is easier to collect the taxes, and also sue the companies making the product to allow you to collect taxes than it is to use common sense. |
|
Don & Donna Puli Pup - Kelly | |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Oct 18 2005, 11:26 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
|
Should we forget that tobaco companies conducted research that clearly linked tobaco use to cancer while they publically stated otherwise? Should we forget that tobaco companies have condicted marketing campaigns directed at youths hoping to get them hooked for life? Should we use fuel taxes on healthcare for asthma sufferers and other polution related diseases? |
|
ImaHeadaU Vancouver, B.C., Canada | |
![]() |
|
| DanHouck | Oct 18 2005, 11:55 AM Post #5 |
|
Land of Enchantment NM
|
Ten, this is what happens when a legal system is totally out of control and exists mainly to support in grand style the predatory trial bar. Ima's response is a good explanation of why that is so. Billions of dollars and thousands of law suits later, the left is still not satisfied and never will be. You're absolutely right BTW. Now quit smoking!
|
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |










(i digress
) away from opening in the machine and move parts such as the brushbar. Another warning: " do not allow to be used as a toy. Close attention is necessary when used by or near children." I'm sure the legal department is busy adding new warnings all the time as consumers become more creative. The list on the iron my wife bought was just as interesting; one I remember was not to iron clothes while wearing them 

10:34 AM Jul 13