Are tobacco companies morally responsible?
- Thread starter Pia
- Start date
dobberx
New member
- May 29, 2009
- 25
- 0
- 1
Gee, let's see....
You manufacture and sell an addictive product which, when used as intended, will harm and even kill people.
Going way out on a limb here.... YES.
How are the tobacco companies any different than hard drug dealers?
You manufacture and sell an addictive product which, when used as intended, will harm and even kill people.
Going way out on a limb here.... YES.
How are the tobacco companies any different than hard drug dealers?
Mathsorcerer
New member
- May 31, 2010
- 2
- 0
- 1
The people who believe that tobacco companies are morally responsible for the health of their customers need to follow that logic to its conclusion.
Soft drink and candy manufacturers are morally responsible for the health of their customers; therefore, your Type II diabetes is not your fault and you can sue Coca Cola and Hershey's.
Alcohol manufacturers are morally responsible for the actions and health of their customers, so when you drink too many Bud Lights and get in a wreck you may sue Budweiser for your medical bills. If they hadn't made such an addictive product you wouldn't be an alcoholic.
Automobile manufacturers are morally responsible for the health of their customers. If Ford and Chevrolet didn't make such dangerous products--thousands of people die each year in auto crashes--then some of their former customers would still be alive.
Hot dog manufacturers are morally responsible for the deaths of the children who choked on their products, therefore Oscar Meyer should be sued for every penny.
*************
The point I am trying to make is this: this kind of illogical thinking absolves people of personal responsibility. If people are absolved of personal responsibility for their minor choices--what kind of food to eat, whether or not to smoke, whether or not to drink too much, etc--then they *must* be absolved of personal responsibility for *all* their own choices, including what kind of car they may drive, what kind of clothing they may wear, where they will live, what job they will hold, who they will marry, etc.
In short, this line of thinking is designed specifically to turn adults back into little children.
Do *you* want to be treated like a little child for your entire life?
Soft drink and candy manufacturers are morally responsible for the health of their customers; therefore, your Type II diabetes is not your fault and you can sue Coca Cola and Hershey's.
Alcohol manufacturers are morally responsible for the actions and health of their customers, so when you drink too many Bud Lights and get in a wreck you may sue Budweiser for your medical bills. If they hadn't made such an addictive product you wouldn't be an alcoholic.
Automobile manufacturers are morally responsible for the health of their customers. If Ford and Chevrolet didn't make such dangerous products--thousands of people die each year in auto crashes--then some of their former customers would still be alive.
Hot dog manufacturers are morally responsible for the deaths of the children who choked on their products, therefore Oscar Meyer should be sued for every penny.
*************
The point I am trying to make is this: this kind of illogical thinking absolves people of personal responsibility. If people are absolved of personal responsibility for their minor choices--what kind of food to eat, whether or not to smoke, whether or not to drink too much, etc--then they *must* be absolved of personal responsibility for *all* their own choices, including what kind of car they may drive, what kind of clothing they may wear, where they will live, what job they will hold, who they will marry, etc.
In short, this line of thinking is designed specifically to turn adults back into little children.
Do *you* want to be treated like a little child for your entire life?
SOME tobacco companies lied for years about the dangers of smoking. They were known as the Big Five, but are now down to the Big Three. That is Phillip Morris (Marlboro cigarettes) RJ Reynolds (Camel cigarettes) and Lorillard (Newport cigarettes). Those three companies together have nearly 90% of the cigarette market. Marlboro alone has over 50% of the market.
Each tobacco companies has had to pay money to either the states in which they sell their product, or maintain and add to a sum of money in an escrow account depending on where and how much the sell, since the passage of the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998.
So now, the states have become dependent on tobacco dollars, as well as on tobacco tax dollars.
If you want to talk morals, we should also consider these states that get 100 million a year from tobacco companies and spend not one penny educating their youth about smoking, or helping their citizens break the habit. Tennessee has literally not spent one dime of the tobacco dollars toward lessening smoking.
So now, it is in the best interests of the states and of the federal government to keep people smoking. That should be your moral question.
SCHIP is entirely funded off tobacco taxes. Yes, tobacco pays for children's health insurance.
The farmers buyout is entirely funded off added tobacco taxes. Yes, tobacco pays for farmers to NOT grow tobacco so the manufacturers have to buy the bulk of their tobacco from overseas.
I could go on forever, but what it all boils down to is that smoking is a personal, adult choice.
The surgeon general declared smoking hazardous to your health in 1964. That is 46 years ago. If anyone out there doesn't know the risks of smoking, they likely don't have the brain power to smoke anyway.
Finally, there are no advertisements making smoking look glamorous. Cigarette advertising of that sort has been banned since the 70's.
Each tobacco companies has had to pay money to either the states in which they sell their product, or maintain and add to a sum of money in an escrow account depending on where and how much the sell, since the passage of the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998.
So now, the states have become dependent on tobacco dollars, as well as on tobacco tax dollars.
If you want to talk morals, we should also consider these states that get 100 million a year from tobacco companies and spend not one penny educating their youth about smoking, or helping their citizens break the habit. Tennessee has literally not spent one dime of the tobacco dollars toward lessening smoking.
So now, it is in the best interests of the states and of the federal government to keep people smoking. That should be your moral question.
SCHIP is entirely funded off tobacco taxes. Yes, tobacco pays for children's health insurance.
The farmers buyout is entirely funded off added tobacco taxes. Yes, tobacco pays for farmers to NOT grow tobacco so the manufacturers have to buy the bulk of their tobacco from overseas.
I could go on forever, but what it all boils down to is that smoking is a personal, adult choice.
The surgeon general declared smoking hazardous to your health in 1964. That is 46 years ago. If anyone out there doesn't know the risks of smoking, they likely don't have the brain power to smoke anyway.
Finally, there are no advertisements making smoking look glamorous. Cigarette advertising of that sort has been banned since the 70's.
IMO they are to the extent that they fool people into using them. Which they do and have always done. The lied about their products and continue to lie every time they run an ad that makes smoking look glamorous without an image that portrays the negative health effects.
vickyringer
New member
- Jun 5, 2010
- 4
- 0
- 1
No, it's a choice that people make to smoke or not to smoke.