Ontario Launches $50 Billion Tobacco Lawsuit

[Dave_ON]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...nt-tobacco.html

The Ontario government is the third province to take legal actions on this matter, and likely the rest of the other provinces won't be far behind.

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue.

On the one hand I'm inclined to believe that everyone is responsible for the choices they make, and if someone chooses to smoke despite the clear and well published health risks it's their choice and they have to live with the consequences. That includes any associated health costs. IMV the tobacco industry shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of their customers.

OTOH we do in fact have a universal health system which all Canadians who have any illness are able to use. As this is publically funded it essentially means that as a non-smoker I'm paying for someone else’s poor habits. Should we then exclude smokers from coverage on any smoking related illnesses? If we take that approach where do we draw the line? Should those people who are overweight due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise who go in for heart problems, type 2 diabetes or other weight related health issues not be covered? Same applies to alcohol and other substance health issues. Where do we draw the line and is that a can of worms we really want to open?

Should the government be allowed to sue the tobacco companies? Is it really their fault? The Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act states they can in fact do this, but I guess I'm more inclined to make the smokers foot the bill rather than the tobacco companies.

Again I'm quite back and forth on the issue and I'd be interested to know where some of the rest of you stand.

[Topaz]

Just who is responsible? I think both provincial and Federal governments. The Feds know it causes cancer and they collect 9 Billion in taxes for selling it in Canada. The tobacco companies are also because they ADDED toxins to the tobacco to keep,people hooked. Anyone who has started smoking in that last 15-20 years knew the hazards of smoking. Then there are the farmers that grow it. I will say that they tried in last year, to get the government to help them get out of growing it for something else and the government said no.

[eyeball]

Again I'm quite back and forth on the issue and I'd be interested to know where some of the rest of you stand.

As I see it the government has violated the section 15 Charter Rights (to equal protection) of any Canadian that has been harmed by tobacco addiction. The government has protected millions of Canadians with laws that prohibit other deadly addictive substances but they have not only failed to use these laws to protect Canadians from tobacco (and alcohol too), they have actually gone out of their way to legislate other laws to enable the use of tobacco (and alcohol).

I'd like to know when someone is finally going to go after the government for violating the charter rights of millions of addicted, sick and dead Canadians.

[OddSox]

Hmm, I'm pretty sure the government makes a lot more money on a package of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do...

And on the subject of costs, I smoked a pack a day for almost 35 years before I quit - that's the equivalent of something approaching $100,000 in taxes at today's rates. I believe it has also been shown that most smokers cost less in health care than non-smokers because they die younger.

Edited September 29, 2009 by OddSox

[Alex Moore]

i'm biased on this issue I like to smoke. Not a pack a day. At the most maybe a pack a week. But every time I light one its a choice. I respect the well being of others by only smoking outside and around other smokers. I am also fully aware that this most likely will kill me when when i'm 65ish. That said I make the decision to smoke. Why are the companies being sued for my decision I can't really understand. They have in the past done some dirty tricks to maintain the illusion that cigarettes don't kill you. But todays public is aware of the harmful nature of cigarettes. I make my decision aware of the consequence I read it on every pack I buy. The part that I hate is that Ontario more than any other province has gone out of its way to do everything but ban cigarettes. Why don't they outright ban them: because they profit from them. I see this lawsuit as a another blow to tobacco companies without actually having the courage to outright ban them.

ps. section 15 can't be applied. it equal rights before the law. as our law sees it everyone has the right to smoke and drink. you also forget section 7 which insures the right to liberty such as the freedom to with our bodies as we please without interference.

[Wild Bill]

Just who is responsible? I think both provincial and Federal governments. The Feds know it causes cancer and they collect 9 Billion in taxes for selling it in Canada. The tobacco companies are also because they ADDED toxins to the tobacco to keep,people hooked. Anyone who has started smoking in that last 15-20 years knew the hazards of smoking. Then there are the farmers that grow it. I will say that they tried in last year, to get the government to help them get out of growing it for something else and the government said no.

"...the last 15-20 years"? Topaz, people have ALWAYS known smoking was an unhealthy habit!

I'm 57 and can vividly remember how when I became a teenager everyone knew it was a bad habit. No one thought it was as dangerous as we are being told today but to be fair, today's anti-tobacco zealots tend to inflate the figures themselves.

Whatever, it was common knowledge that the habit wasn't good for you. Any athletic coach would lecture his students against smoking.

What's more, I've talked to my parents and grandparents and they also recall how tobacco was always considered an unhealthy vice. Then again, so was alcohol and many other things. That would take us back nearly 100 years to show people generally knew tobacco wasn't good for you.

The difference was that back then people believed in individual responsibility. You had the right to "go to hell your own way". If you hurt yourself, it was no one's fault but your own. You were responsible for your own health and if you chose to partake of some vices it was you who took the responsibility.

Somehow the anti-smoking people have twisted history for their own ends. They would have us believe that everyone always thought that tobacco was harmless and succumbed blindly to the advertisements of smoking being 'cool' and 'fun'! We were not irresponsible but rather we were victims, exploited by evil tobacco companies!

Socialized medicine, which has been rocketing into runaway bankruptcy for the past decade or two, seizes on this idea of martyrdom as a tool to harass and hopefully bankrupt tobacco companies.

From a strictly logical standpoint, the very idea of suing tobacco companies on this point is absurd. First off, to take as gospel that no one back then knew it was unhealthy is false. Moreover, governments have let the product be legal and have taken far more TRILLIONS of dollars in taxes than the tobacco companies ever made as profit!

Still, I would not be at all surprised if the government WON their suit! Why? We are dealing in politics here, not ethics. The two are not the same at all. To the anti-smoking movement, any tactic is justified to achieve their ends. It doesn't matter what is true. To them, they are saving people from themselves and if they have to bend the law to win so what? They're on the side of the angels!

None of them are thinking of the precedent being set. You can use the idea of people being "tricked" into unhealthy lifestyles to justify more than just smoking. Too much food, the wrong kinds of food, alcohol, dangerous sports...the list is endless. Once you've set the legal precedent that we are NOT responsible for what we do to ourselves you can sue for anything!

The government has dollars in their eyes. 50 Billion is a lot of money! Of course, I'm not sure where they would replace the lost tax revenue from if they succeeded in putting legal tobacco companies out of business. Or how they think this would even help discourage smoking!

After all, figures quoted in the media have stated that up to at least 50% of the cigarettes smoked here in Ontario are illegal product from First Nations factories. It would not be hard to envision ALL cigarettes coming from this source if the legal factories went under from lawsuits!

We would still have just as many cigarettes smoked. The only difference would be that there would be ZERO tax money for the province and the feds!

We have already been shown that governments have decided to do NOTHING against this native tobacco industry! They are afraid of the repercussions.

Perhaps as with so many other things the government has not thought all the way through the ramifications of their law suit.

[Dave_ON]

I'm in complete agreement Wild Bill; we are all responsible for the choices we make regardless of the ramifications. It all comes down to choice and I don't believe the government should ban tobacco or alcohol. If anything I'm a firm believer in lifting more bans in society and taxing them. As you said people have the right to go to hell their own way, and they will do so regardless of the illegality of it.

Sadly the legal precedent has already been set. BC and NB were both successful in their suits if I'm not mistaken. It's only a matter of time before all provinces do the same.

It unfortunate that they are suing the tobacco companies considering they tax tobacco so heavily, to me this is little more than double dipping for revenue. You've already taxed the consumer and the company, so let's hit the company up again.

[eyeball]

ps. section 15 can't be applied. it equal rights before the law. as our law sees it everyone has the right to smoke and drink. you also forget section 7 which insures the right to liberty such as the freedom to with our bodies as we please without interference.

What about the right to equal protection before the law? Prohibition protects people from other drugs but not tobacco or booze. Further to that if there was ever a justification to be made for establishing fetal rights in this country I would say the prevention of FAS qualifies due to the danger to the fetus not to mention other Canadians in the event the FAS leads to criminal behaviour.

I agree that section 7 should apply too but in the context of the fundamentals of justice it speaks to. I would think that a fundamental of justice would have to include incontrovertible evidence. In terms of actual quantifiable danger you can die from an overdose of alcohol but not pot. Which danger justifies the suspension of civil liberties should be obvious.

The problem is that we don't have any policy that addresses what it is that most people do with drugs which is recreationally alter their minds. If this is what the state is trying to prevent it should just say so and prohibit any substance that does that. Otherwise it looks like the law as it stands now is based on groundless discrimination.

[ToadBrother]

Should the government be allowed to sue the tobacco companies? Is it really their fault? The Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act states they can in fact do this, but I guess I'm more inclined to make the smokers foot the bill rather than the tobacco companies.

Again I'm quite back and forth on the issue and I'd be interested to know where some of the rest of you stand.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but the tobacco companies put their noses out there. The history of their interference in sciences, politics, public policy, advertising, product alterations and so forth means if any evil corporate entity deserves to be bankrupted, it's these guys. They were bad, very bad, so bad it's hard to imagine how they could go to sleep at night.

The history of suing tobacco companies (at least in North America) doesn't exactly hold much hope that these guys will get what's coming to them, but one can always dream.

[Wild Bill]

I'm all for personal responsibility, but the tobacco companies put their noses out there. The history of their interference in sciences, politics, public policy, advertising, product alterations and so forth means if any evil corporate entity deserves to be bankrupted, it's these guys. They were bad, very bad, so bad it's hard to imagine how they could go to sleep at night.

The history of suing tobacco companies (at least in North America) doesn't exactly hold much hope that these guys will get what's coming to them, but one can always dream.

This attitude is exactly why I think the government might win their lawsuit! It is entirely emotional. Essentially, you have demonized the tobacco industry and therefore found them deserving of revenge. I don't happen to approve of many things they did over the years either but that doesn't mean the law should be twisted to serve a politically correct agenda.

Revenge supposedly has nothing to do with justice. At least, that's what we constantly are told whenever the issue of capital punishment comes up. Many times we have heard that victims are too close emotionally to the crime; that they are just thinking in terms of revenge.

It reduces justice to a simplistic idea of who you like and who you don't! As I had said, the ends justify the means.

If justice is simply a popularity contest then we are ALL in BIG trouble!

[madmax]

Smoke em if you got em.

[ToadBrother]

This attitude is exactly why I think the government might win their lawsuit! It is entirely emotional. Essentially, you have demonized the tobacco industry and therefore found them deserving of revenge. I don't happen to approve of many things they did over the years either but that doesn't mean the law should be twisted to serve a politically correct agenda.

How can you demonize an industry that basically knowingly found ways to enhance the addictiveness of a product they knew full well had extraordinarily serious health risks? How can you demonize companies that had scientists-for-hire to fill volumes full of pure B.S. about the dangers of smoking?

Perhaps the better exercise would be to go through every appearance before a US or Canadian health body, inquiry or hearing, find where they lied or distorted, and then go after them for perjury. As well, gather up every faux-study their scientists-for-hire wrote, have these turkeys charged with professional misconduct and willful fraud. Would that be more satisfying?

Revenge supposedly has nothing to do with justice. At least, that's what we constantly are told whenever the issue of capital punishment comes up. Many times we have heard that victims are too close emotionally to the crime; that they are just thinking in terms of revenge.

It reduces justice to a simplistic idea of who you like and who you don't! As I had said, the ends justify the means.

If justice is simply a popularity contest then we are ALL in BIG trouble!

You may have a point, to a point, but these companies did a half century worth of bad things, and saying "Well, we're taxed a lot" hardly seems an appropriate punishment. Let's remember, they aren't the only companies that produce dangerous products, and sometimes justice is also about picking out a flagrant offender, throwing the book at them as an example of what happens when you do bad things.

[eyeball]

I still fail to see how a government that licences the production and sale of tobacco and that rakes in the lion's share of the revenues that addiction generates can sue the same industry its hip deep in. It's like suing yourself. Its surreal.

[Wild Bill]

You may have a point, to a point, but these companies did a half century worth of bad things, and saying "Well, we're taxed a lot" hardly seems an appropriate punishment. Let's remember, they aren't the only companies that produce dangerous products, and sometimes justice is also about picking out a flagrant offender, throwing the book at them as an example of what happens when you do bad things.

That's not what's happening in this example. If you want to throw the book at someone it should be a LEGAL book and a LEGAL throw!

What you describe is still twisting the law to suit your own preferences. If someone or some company is to be charged and possibly convicted, should it not be in a legal fashion?

Our law is based on precedent. If this lawsuit prevails, have you any idea what the ramifications will be? It will NOT stop with the tobacco companies!

[OddSox]

What about all the other things that are bad for you?

I suspect that the cost to society from alcohol far exceeds the health costs associated with smoking tobacco. Is the provincial government going to sue the LCBO for promoting the use of alcohol? If not, why not?

What about gambling addictions? It's been shown many times that the casinos operated by the Ontario government (and others) have no real interest in curbing problem gambling - that's where they make most of their money. They show lip service only to the promise of educating and/or treating those who are addicted.

Are we going to sue McDonald's next? After all, they promote obesity directly to children - and it can be argued that it is more dangerous to children than smoking.

[myata]

The Ontario government is the third province to take legal actions on this matter, and likely the rest of the other provinces won't be far behind.

I think the decision is the right one. We cannot abandon individual who may not be able to come up with a full cost of treatment to a near certain death. But we can recover the full cost to the society from the business that makes profit from this habit.

I do believe that if we want to be a healthy and sustainable society, this principle should be applied constistently and in utmost detail. Only in this way to encourage clean sustainable business that benefits both us and our environment.