Tobacco Lawsuits

[Leader Circle]

The SCC has decided to allow BC to sue tobacco companies for healthcare costs and this is going to spread like wildfire through the provinces.

Supreme Court ruling

This is getting way out of hand. I can see them not being able to advertise to teens and having to sell to people over 18 or 19, but why not sue McDonalds for making people fat? Poor eating habits, kills many more people per year than smoking does. I am a smoker and I wish I wasn't, but how can I blame the tobacco companies if my health goes bad? I made the choice to start! A smoker is now a second class citizen in Canada and you are hardly able to smoke anywhere in public anymore! I pay more for health insurance because I smoke. You are limited to where you can smoke and although I understand the risks of second-hand smoke, it has gone out of control on banning smoking from everywhere.

What about the risks of alcohol? Can they be sued? I agree, smoking is bad, but whose fault is it?? People need to be more accountable for their actions. The Supreme Court of Canada is beginning to look more like the Supreme Joke of Canada!

[tml12]

The SCC has decided to allow BC to sue tobacco companies for healthcare costs and this is going to spread like wildfire through the provinces.

Supreme Court ruling

This is getting way out of hand. I can see them not being able to advertise to teens and having to sell to people over 18 or 19, but why not sue McDonalds for making people fat? Poor eating habits, kills many more people per year than smoking does. I am a smoker and I wish I wasn't, but how can I blame the tobacco companies if my health goes bad? I made the choice to start! A smoker is now a second class citizen in Canada and you are hardly able to smoke anywhere in public anymore! I pay more for health insurance because I smoke. You are limited to where you can smoke and although I understand the risks of second-hand smoke, it has gone out of control on banning smoking from everywhere.

What about the risks of alcohol? Can they be sued? I agree, smoking is bad, but whose fault is it?? People need to be more accountable for their actions. The Supreme Court of Canada is beginning to look more like the Supreme Joke of Canada!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Controversial a decision as it as, I am going to agree with you. I am a very casual smoker, only lighting up occasionally in the bar. We limit smoking to those who are 18 (or 19 in some jurisdictions). However, by the time an adult reaches that age, they are mature enough to make this decision. Health Canada makes the effects of smoking very clear on our packs of cigarettes. I don't understand why the tobacco companies should be held responsible for our decisions in THIS day and age.

[newbie]

A 1988 US Surgeon General's report stated that nicotine is as addictive as drugs such as heroin and cocaine

http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/8/1/42

Once a young person starts, it develops into a full fleged addiction by the time they reach adulthood, mostly by the manipulation of nicotine deliveries.

http://www.lawpublish.com/fdasum.html

To compare that to fast food is ridiculous. At least now the tobacco companies have labels on their packaging. But those who developed cancer prior to that have every right to sue these companies. The big cigarette makers knew full well that they were increasing addiction by the various chemicals added to their products (in some cases over 4000 additives). The responsible thing to do would be for them to fund addiction centres and cover medical costs to those who contracted cancer prior to public disclosure. As for other addictions, in Alberta we have AADAC for problem gamblers, alcoholics and drug abusers.

[tml12]

A 1988 US Surgeon General's report stated that nicotine is as addictive as drugs such as heroin and cocaine

http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/8/1/42

Once a young person starts, it develops into a full fleged addiction by the time they reach adulthood, mostly by the manipulation of nicotine deliveries.

http://www.lawpublish.com/fdasum.html

To compare that to fast food is ridiculous. At least now the tobacco companies have labels on their packaging. But those who developed cancer prior to that have every right to sue these companies. The big cigarette makers knew full well that they were increasing addiction by the various chemicals added to their products (in some cases over 4000 additives). The responsible thing to do would be for them to fund addiction centres and cover medical costs to those who contracted cancer prior to public disclosure. As for other addictions, in Alberta we have AADAC for problem gamblers, alcoholics and drug abusers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that those who were diagnosed with cancer prior to package warnings and government admissions deserve to be reimbursed. However, that is really the extent to which I would push it.

[August1991]

Can the government sue itself for the damage caused by casinos and video poker machines?

No dollar value has been put on the actual B.C. claim — which has yet to be heard — but some estimates have suggested that a figure of $10-billion would not be out of place.

Federal Health Minister Ujjal  Dosanjh applauded the ruling. In an interview with CTV Newsnet, he said it's "appropriate" and "valid" for the government to be able to sue tobacco companies. He estimated that the claim could go into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

G & M

The provincial governments could just tax the tobacco companies and get the money that way. Except. There's a limit to what the provincial governments can tax because of smuggling and Indian sales. So, I guess this Court decsion is a way to circumvent the tax-free Indian cigarettes.

BTW, there's a big difference between $10 billion and several hundred million.

My understanding, although I don't have evidence readily at hand, is that Ontario cigarette smokers, through tobacco taxes, now pay for all the health costs they incur by smoking.

[Riverwind]

Except. There's a limit to what the provincial governments can tax because of smuggling and Indian sales.  So, I guess this Court decsion is a way to circumvent the tax-free Indian cigarettes.

If a drug company released a product as dangerous as tobacco today they would have been sued out of business years ago. Look at how much Merck may have to pay because of side effects caused by a drug that provides nothing but benefits to the vast majority of of users:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/19/news/fortu.../vioxx/?cnn=yes

Tobacco is not a legitimate product and the companies that make money of it are not legitimate businesses. Suing them in unprofitability is preferable than the alternative of banning the product altogether (just like we ban most drugs with serious side effects - side effects that are often less deadly than tabacco).

[August1991]

Except. There's a limit to what the provincial governments can tax because of smuggling and Indian sales.  So, I guess this Court decsion is a way to circumvent the tax-free Indian cigarettes.

If a durg company released a product as dangerous as tobacco today they would have been sued out of business years ago. Look at how much Merck may have to pay because of side effects caused by a drug that provides nothing but benefits to the vast majority of of users:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/19/news/fortu.../vioxx/?cnn=yes

Tobacco is not a legitimate product and the companies that make money of it are not legitimate businesses. Suing them in unprofitability is preferable than the alternative of banning the product altogether (just like we ban most drugs with serious side effects).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

C'mon, Sparhawk. We have a thread all about legalizing drugs. Now, you want to prohibit cigarettes.

If people kill themselves in car accidents, should we prohibit cars? Should car companies be liable for the deaths? Well, maybe. It depends.

My point was not to debate the question of liability. Rather, I took another route and wondered why provincial governments are suing tobacco companies when they are perfectly free to tax them anyway. The answer, of course, is that provincial governments cannot tax cigarettes sold to Indians.

Depending on the settlement, this will amount to a tax on Indians, and in particular Indians who sell cigarettes to non-Indians.

Oh, and also, if I go by the massive liability case when some American states took tobacco comapnies to court in the US, some Canadian lawyers are going to make Dingwall look like a nickle-and-dime grifter.

[I Miss Trudeau]

If people kill themselves in car accidents, should we prohibit cars?  Should car companies be liable for the deaths?  Well, maybe.  It depends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the sole purpose of the car is to give the driver a short thrill and then blow up into a million pieces, yes they ought to be liable.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

C'mon, Sparhawk. We have a thread all about legalizing drugs. Now, you want to prohibit cigarettes.

Sparhawk is quite right, though, no other company could sell something as harmful and get away with it. If 'cornflakes' were practically guaranteed to kill you, but they were allowed to instill additives to make you addicted, how long would they be on the market? (and not just from consumer demand dropping, but from the gov't and health authorities)

[Riverwind]

C'mon, Sparhawk. We have a thread all about legalizing drugs.  Now, you want to prohibit cigarettes.

I never said we should prohibit cigarrettes. I just pointed out that we, as a society, do not seem to hold the tobacco companies to the same standard that we hold other companies when it comes to product liability.

[cybercoma]

If tobacco and cigarettes is such a problem, the government of BC should move ban it. That'll be the day... they'd lose tax revenues from a horribly addictive product. This is nothing more than theatrics.

[Riverwind]

If tobacco and cigarettes is such a problem, the government of BC should move ban it.  That'll be the day... they'd lose tax revenues from a horribly addictive product.  This is nothing more than theatrics.

We know that prohibitions of substances are usually ineffective. But punitive taxes and never ending harassments with regulations and lawsuits could accomplish what a prohibition could not.

[cybercoma]

If tobacco and cigarettes is such a problem, the government of BC should move ban it.  That'll be the day... they'd lose tax revenues from a horribly addictive product.  This is nothing more than theatrics.

We know that prohibitions of substances are usually ineffective. But punitive taxes and never ending harassments with regulations and lawsuits could accomplish what a prohibition could not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why not legalize marijuana...hell why not legalize all narcotics then? I mean, we could put "punitive taxes" (WTF?) on them and "harassing regulations and lawsuits" to keep them in check.

[Leader Circle]

Dear August1991,

C'mon, Sparhawk. We have a thread all about legalizing drugs. Now, you want to prohibit cigarettes.

Sparhawk is quite right, though, no other company could sell something as harmful and get away with it. If 'cornflakes' were practically guaranteed to kill you, but they were allowed to instill additives to make you addicted, how long would they be on the market? (and not just from consumer demand dropping, but from the gov't and health authorities)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lonius,

Do you think McDonalds has some additives that make their food addictive?

If it's ok to sue tobacco companies, couldn't a case be made for suing McDonalds?

[ConservativeJoe]

Yeah, that will be next. The list of possible targets is endless.

http://www.conservativejoe.com/#headline141

If that doesn't work, it's been moved to:

http://www.conservativejoe.com/arc/arc005.php#headline141

[B. Max]

From what i heard on a radio interview today, this was not about if the government could sue the tobacco companies, it always could, it was about the government not having to prove its case. They only have make the claim. A decision like this is something you would expect to come out of the old soviet union. In fact, the supreme idiots have thrown out one of the most basic of basics of english law. Socialism on its way to communisn and eventually a totalitarian state, just past another sign post.

[I Miss Trudeau]

From what i heard on a radio interview today, this was not about if the government could sue the tobacco companies, it always could, it was about the government not having to prove its case. They only have make the claim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I frankly don't see the difference with regards to this issue. The case has been proven in literally thousands of studies already.

[B. Max]

From what i heard on a radio interview today, this was not about if the government could sue the tobacco companies, it always could, it was about the government not having to prove its case. They only have make the claim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I frankly don't see the difference with regards to this issue. The case has been proven in literally thousands of studies already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What has been proven.

[I Miss Trudeau]

What has been proven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The negative effect that smoking has on health

The fact that the tobacco companies are literally poisoning people. In fact, not only do they know that theyre posioning people, they still try to pretend otherwise.

[August1991]

From what i heard on a radio interview today, this was not about if the government could sue the tobacco companies, it always could, it was about the government not having to prove its case. They only have make the claim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I frankly don't see the difference with regards to this issue. The case has been proven in literally thousands of studies already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So IMT, why do some people keep smoking? Because they are stupid and uninformed? Or because they are just stupid?

Or, do you think they are slaves to an uncontrollable addiction? If so, do you think it is the role of government to help people break addictions? IMT, is the government supposed to be a moral conscience, like, for example, the Catholic Church?

And, if addiction is the problem, why stop at smoking? Gambling is also an addiction, just as destructive. Should governments sue casinos (that they ironically own and operate)?

And finally, IMT, why do you accept to live in a democracy where some fellow citizens are so immature that they are subject to uncontrollable addictions?

IMT, have you ever thought that people who do things might know what they're doing and might prefer to deal with their actions their own way? As John Lennon said, Imagine.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Edited to avoid encouraging trolling.

[B. Max]

What has been proven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The negative effect that smoking has on health

The fact that the tobacco companies are literally poisoning people. In fact, not only do they know that theyre posioning people, they still try to pretend otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Besides that, they would also have to prove they spent the money on the people they said they did. Should be able to prove that one would think, but no, they passed legislation saying they didn't have to prove anything. Why? Could it be like the second hand smoke scam, there is no proof and this is just another shake down.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Could it be like the second hand smoke scam, there is no proof and this is just another shake down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Mmhmm. Thats right. You can file the health effects of tobacco under the same heading as global warming, second hand smoke, a spherical earth, a heliocentric solar system and evolution. Just be glad that your tin foil hat keeps you safe from such nonsense.

[August1991]

Could it be like the second hand smoke scam, there is no proof and this is just another shake down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Mmhmm. Thats right. You can file the health effects of tobacco under the same heading as global warming, second hand smoke, a spherical earth, a heliocentric solar system and evolution. Just be glad that your tin foil hat keeps you safe from such nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

File? No you can't.

Everyone has known about cigarette smoke since the 1950s. (You smoke, you take a risk... )

There is no comparison between automobile exhaust and second-hand smoke. (Cars disturb us all, smokers can be avoided.)

IMT, why this jihad against smokers but not against drivers? Are you a fundamentalist? Are you a, hmmm, vegetarian?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leader Circle,

Lonius,

Do you think McDonalds has some additives that make their food addictive?

If it's ok to sue tobacco companies, couldn't a case be made for suing McDonalds?

While greasy fast food may be addictive to some, grease it is not considered an 'additive to enhance addiction'. ('Rotten Ronnie's' always gives me a stomach ache...if I ever go there again perhaps that's what I'll ask for)

Were they to experiment with adding ammonia to enhance the 'kick' of the euphoric high from the grease, then they might be dancing in the lawsuit category...a link from a tobacco study...

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/additives.html

Changing the chemical form of nicotine increases the 'kick'

In a paper entitled, 'Cigarette concept to assure RJR a larger segment of the youth market' RJR talk about the 'kick' of nicotine:

"Still with an old style filter, any desired additional nicotine 'kick' could be easily obtained through pH regulation."20 (RJR 1973)

The pH also relates to the immediacy of the nicotine impact. As the pH increases, the nicotine changes its chemical form so that it is more rapidly absorbed by the body and more quickly gives a 'kick' to the smoker."21 (RJR 1976)