Ontario suing big tobacco....is that right?

[Ganoderma]

below is an article on msn about Ontario (a canadian province) suing tobacco companies for health care costs of past years.

 

I am more or less anti-smoking but i am for sure pro choice. That meaning, i think anyone should have the right to choose to smoke if they so feel the need to do so, as i feel with otehr plant narcotics as well. But the thing i guess i am missing is how can someone sue a company for health costs when the company did not flat out force someone to take the the drug?

 

By this standard it seems logical that the province could also sue car companies for health care costs of motor vehicle accidents. Tobacco may be addictive, but car companies could also be said to have forced the population to use its mode of transportation (cause we need to get around)....i don't know, im just spewing out thoughts.

 

i am just curious what happened to buyer beware and user responsibility. if i got all messed up on a drinking binge, should i be allowed to sue molson? Do we really not need to have any responsibility anymore? I am in favor of the "if you drink and/or smoke, pay your own bills". i like the socialist way of medicare, but if people knowingly harm their body, let them accept the risks they know.

 

or am i missing something seemingly painfully obvious :confused:

 

Ont. launches $50B tobacco lawsuit -  News - MSN CA

 

Ont. launches $50B tobacco lawsuit

 

Ontario says it is going to sue the big tobacco companies — for $50 billion.

 

The province said in a news release it is seeking damages "for past and ongoing health-care costs linked to tobacco-related illness."

[C1ay]

IMO, if the legislative body of Ontario did not outlaw smoking it should not now sue over an activity it allowed.

[Donk]

If it could be proved that the tobacco companies lied about the health risks, suppressed research saying otherwise, and/or bribed decision-makers, then there might be a case.

 

I'm pretty sure that they did all of those things - but proving it in court might be difficult. The best justice money can buy... :confused:

[Cedars]

or am i missing something seemingly painfully obvious

The painfully obvious, money.

 

Minnesota:

Tobacco Generated Revenue (FY2009) $596.0 million (includes the yearly tobacco settlement money).

 

Actual Spending on Tobacco Prevention (FY2009) $21.5 million (thats 3.6% of the tobacco money).

 

Tobacco State Settlement: Minnesota

 

Note: I believe this lawsuit prevents people in the states who participated from suing tobacco for damages.

Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Zythryn]

I second Donk's post.

When you get in a car, you know the risks.

NOW when you smoke, you know the risks (unless you are in denial).

However, in the past, if the cigarette companies lied about the risks, then I think they should be held responsible.

[C1ay]

If it could be proved that the tobacco companies lied about the health risks, suppressed research saying otherwise, and/or bribed decision-makers, then there might be a case.

 

"If" is the operative word there. OTOH I'm sure it could be proved that the surgeon general declared cigarettes a health risk long long ago. If the legislature decided to tacitly condone the very products the surgeon general felt were a health risk then that legislature should be held accountable for allowing the products on the market. It doesn't take them anytime at all to draft laws against other dangerous products. The only reason they treated tobacco differently is the huge tax revenue it generates. Me thinks the government simply wants to milk the tobacco company now that it's milked the citizens to death via taxes it collected on a product it knew was dangerous..

[GAHD]

That is an interesting and very funny bit of news, considering they TAX tobacco products several hundred percent SPECIFICALLY FOR THE HEALTHCARE RISKS THEY PRODUCE.

 

I pay $12-13 per 25 pack of smokes BECAUSE of the healthcare costs allegedly associated with it. Them trying to run a lawsuit is just another money-grab, and makes me even more pissed off with the liberal party's consistent attempts to further line their pockets. This is exactly the reason I vote NDP.

[Ganoderma]

IMO, if the legislative body of Ontario did not outlaw smoking it should not now sue over an activity it allowed.

 

It doesn't take them anytime at all to draft laws against other dangerous products. The only reason they treated tobacco differently is the huge tax revenue it generates. Me thinks the government simply wants to milk the tobacco company now that it's milked the citizens to death via taxes it collected on a product it knew was dangerous..

 

exactly. which makes it painfully obvious how the government thinks of its population compared to $.

 

 

so it seems we are all more or less on the same page....it angers me a lot when i see the government is so incredibly hypocritical in so many ways....not that i support the tobacco companies, but i certainly think the gov should be the bigger people and think things out a little more clearly and use some logic other than "i can now sue people to get what i want" lol. its the mcdonalds coffee case all over again haha.

 

 

That is an interesting and very funny bit of news, considering they TAX tobacco products several hundred percent SPECIFICALLY FOR THE HEALTHCARE RISKS THEY PRODUCE.

 

I pay $12-13 per 25 pack of smokes BECAUSE of the healthcare costs allegedly associated with it.

 

another well worded quote...completely agree!

 

 

the only way i can see a case is if they were proved to LIE about their product NOT being unhealthy. its easy to claim ignorance and say they didn't know at the time.....take a lot to prove them wrong, i hope they got their files in order.... like clay says -IF- is the word.

[Zythryn]

so it seems we are all more or less on the same page....it angers me a lot when i see the government is so incredibly hypocritical in so many ways....

 

You see agreement in funny places.

I disagree that the gov is being hypocrtical and that this action supports the idea that the gov just sees us as sheep to fleece.

The US government sues many companies for dangerous products which they don't outright ban. I am guessing the Canadian government has as well?

After all, Toy companies have been sued for dangerous products, but we don't ban Toys, do we?

This is certainly no where along the lines of the silly McDonald's suit. People have been harmed, and the companies in question did hide the danger of their products.

Yes, anyone NOW should know that cigarettes are bad for you. But in the 60's and 70's (and less so in the 80's) that wasn't generally accepted.

[C1ay]

The US government sues many companies for dangerous products which they don't outright ban. I am guessing the Canadian government has as well?

After all, Toy companies have been sued for dangerous products, but we don't ban Toys, do we?

 

And how many of those toys had a specific product taxation levied on them because of the healthcare costs they burdened the government with over the dangers they exposed the people to? Can you really not see the hypocrisy in the government allowing a dangerous product on the market, taxing it to cover it's increased health care exposure and then suing the product manufacturer for the very same reason they taxed the product in the first place, increased health care exposure? It looks to me like the government wants to have it's cake and eat it too.

[Ganoderma]

Yes, anyone NOW should know that cigarettes are bad for you. But in the 60's and 70's (and less so in the 80's) that wasn't generally accepted.

 

well there is a point there, but i think what C1ay has pointed out is that it was known to not be healthy...how else could it be taxed as such? perhaps the general public was not aware, but i am not sure how far one can fight ignorance in court. i know when i fought a speeding ticket in court and said there was no sign, i still had to pay for the ticket....ignorance seems to be a not so good excuse in the legal system.

 

i agree it sucks all the health risks that are had by smokers....but there has been information talking about its risks for many years.....whether people searched it out and/or believed it is another matter. the government sure seemed to know it was a health risk...

 

these companies have been given permission and paid high taxes on their products to sell their product. if anything i think the gov should be sued because they knowingly allow this dangerous product on the market, and they outright ban far less dangerous products for the very same reasons.

 

for me anyway, these things just dont seem to fit together quite right.

[Zythryn]

Ok, but would you ban children's swing sets?

They are known to be dangerous, yet the government doesn't ban them.

Or climbing gear? It is well known that mountain climbing can be deadly.

There is a line between protecting the public and banning everything that can be hazardous.

In the 60's there were scientists arguing smoking was good for you.

 

I am not saying ignorance is any defence. What I am saying is that when the manufacturer KNOWS of the consequences and LIES about it, they should be held responsible.

If the government LIED about the consequences I think they should be held responsible as well.

[C1ay]

Ok, but would you ban children's swing sets?

They are known to be dangerous, yet the government doesn't ban them.

 

You're still missing the point. Does the government TAX swing sets to cover the medical costs associated with the injuries they cause like they do tobacco?

[Zythryn]

CURRENTLY, I would say yes. Most cases I have seen come from people dying because of smoking PRIOR to those specific taxes or uncovering the lies from the cigarette companies.

IF the Ontario case is penalizing cigarette companies for harm caused NOW, then yes, I would agree that is unreasonable.

If it has been found that the health impact is worse than it was when the taxes were implimented, then I would say the taxes should be raised, don't know about the suit.

[Ganoderma]

They are suing for the damages from 1955 to now.

 

Ok, but would you ban children's swing sets?

They are known to be dangerous, yet the government doesn't ban them.

Or climbing gear? It is well known that mountain climbing can be deadly.

There is a line between protecting the public and banning everything that can be hazardous.

totally agree, but i also would not agree with suing the toy companies either. or the mountain where the people fall etc etc. that is exactly my point, we are not babies, we dont need to be protected, or at least forced to be protected, so i think personal responsibility comes into play.

 

 

What I am saying is that when the manufacturer KNOWS of the consequences and LIES about it, they should be held responsible.

 

to that I cannot disagree. but if it is so obvious they are lieing about anything, why does the government still allow the sale of, and profit largely from the sale of, such a product?

 

if they are going to sue for all these reasons, why do they continue to allow its sale?

 

i think the big point i wanted to make you showed:

In the 60's there were scientists arguing smoking was good for you.

 

as were some saying they were not....so the people have 2 sides of a story and they will have to make their own educated decision on what they want to do. the government, who are independant and hopefully larger in the sense of medical research, than the tobacco companies, must have known it was unhealthy, even in the 60's. any half *** study could prove smoke in the lungs is not good.

 

i agree if they did try to cover stuff up and lie (probably did) they should pay dearly. but i disagree with anyone, *especially* the government, allowing something and making buckets of money off it while it kills people, then (meanwhile continuing the sales) suing the company for the cost it has caused cause it kills/hurts so many people.

 

i also get angry when they are suing because they lost money, no mention of the deaths of human being was mentioned lol....greedy/heartless....they all get cut from the same mold i think.

[GAHD]

...If it has been found that the health impact is worse than it was when the taxes were implimented, then I would say the taxes should be raised, don't know about the suit.

The price of cigarettes (in my province) has increased $7 per 25 pack in 9 years, and people in the know(managers at the local stores) indicate it will increase another dollar within the next 5-6 months.

 

The profit margins per pack at the local stores have remained the same or have been lowered a small amount in that time.

 

The taxes are raised fairly regularly, very annoying for me when I want to have a smoke at the end of a stressful day.

[Ganoderma]

that's why i grow my own...cheaper and healthier...and i am not making either of the greedy groups any $.