Who's responsible for tobacco-related deaths?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I saw another one of the ads against the tobacco industry the other night, and I started thinking about who is really to blame for tobacco related deaths now.

Certainly, the tobacco industry bears an undeniable portion of guilt. They deliberately and methodically researched ways to make their product addictive. But the relatively new media of the television did a lot to reinforce the positive aspects of smoking in the 1950's. My parents grew up in that generation, and as one of my uncle's said, "Smoking was a way of life" during that time period. It was glamourized in movies, on TV shows, and in commercials. If you have an opportunity to watch any sitcoms from the 1960's, take note of how many characters (especially male leads) are also smokers.

So certainly there is some responsibility relegated to the tobacco industry for their advertising methods and the research to add addictive properties to their cigarettes during that time period.

However, I don't feel that same argument is applicable today. Every single member here has grown up being informed of the DANGERS of smoking as opposed to the glamor it represents. Cigarette ads were banned from TV in America in the 1970's, the Surgeon General warned of the dangers of cigarette smoking repeatedly throughout the 80's, and the 1990's brought the first real "anti-smoking" campaign to TV and other advertising media.

My point is this, NOBODY can claim to be ignorant of the dangers of smoking now. It is well documented and reinforced on an almost daily basis. So who bears the responsibility for new smokers who take up the habit despite being informed of the dangers it entails?

It is easy to blame the tobacco industry corporations. One of the current mantras used against them is that they are the only corporations that manufacture a product that will kill the customer when it is used correctly.

That is true to a degree, but cigarettes don't kill every person that smokes. And nobody forces new customers to start buying their products. In the end, the choice - and a large part of the responsibility - also has to lie with the smoker themselves.

So, what do you think? Is the tobacco industry completely at fault, or do smokers have to accept responsibility for thier own actions?

[Timber Loftis]

The only reason tobacco bears any guilt is that the companies HID evidence for years and manipulated levels of chemicals in cigarettes for the express purpose of keeping people addicted. That's why they got the old [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img]

For my part, I think anyone who began or continued smoking after the surgeon general's warnings (beginning in 1967 I think, but gaining prominence in the 70s and 80s) assumed the risk. If you know something is bad for you and you do it anyway, how can someone else be responsible?

Now, the products liability attorney would say "Wait a minute, when used the way they are intended to be used cigarettes cause cancer and other fatal diseases, and that is the specific and exact legal test for products liability."

Well, first, he's right, it is. However, "assumption of the risk" is an "affirmative defense," a rebuttal argument meant to defeat even a valid liability situation, if it can be proved. So, the cigerette company must prove the guy/gal knew of the risk and assumed it.

At the end of the day, the advertisements from TheTruth.com actually help the tobacco companies in a sense. By spreading the news that it's bad, they will have a legal shield when the next round of idiots awaiting new lungs come suing them.

Now, after that informative [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] I need a smoke. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

To continue, let me look at something else here: the "intended use." Note that I said the tobacco companies have a problem because "when used the way they are intended to be used cigarettes cause cancer and other fatal diseases."

Well, that's true. However, what if the "intended use" were redefined. In fact, I can't think of any liesure drug out there other than cigs that people "use" 20+ times a day, all day long. Alcohol is an accepted legal recreational drug -- but we all know not to drink all day everyday. Why is smoking so different? Shouldn't society redifine how it sees and uses this drug? If cigerettes were only occasionally used, if "smokers" only smoked on average a half a pack a week or a cigarette a day, I wonder how much better off their health would be. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Of course, for BigTobacoo.Co, telling us all "it's bad, it's bad" while continuing to sell us 7 packs a week is not only more lucritave, but the "it's bad" message will help prevent further law suits -- so they aren't about to go advocating "responsible tobacco usage."

[ 01-15-2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Chewbacca]

Well I think it is the smokers responibility, the risks taken for using tobacco are widely know as it has already been pointed out.

Im still a light smoker, but I smoke a speciality brand of cigarettes so I no longer support the old school big tobacco companies.

I also abhor the fact that many of them load there stogies with also sorts of crap that is not tobacco. Yucko. Thanks Goodness for no-additive American Spirits!

[khazadman]

Ultimately it's the smoker who is responsible for their own actions. The same goes for those who drink, over eat, drive for NASCAR, and engage in any other dangerous pastimes.

[Aelia Jusa]

I agree that it's mostly the responsibility of the smoker these days. I personally know a number of people who know perfectly well the risks but don't care. One friend recently quit smoking 'just to see if she could do it', realised quitting was 'easy' so started smoking again because she 'likes it' and now 'knows she can quit easily' when she's older and susceptible to health problems. She seems to think that you can smoke all you like when you're in your 20s with no negative consequences but when you're in your 30s some sort of switch flicks and suddenly they're dangerous .

Actually perversely, I think the comments by health professionals trying to entice people to quit by saying that after a year off cigarettes your chance of heart disease is halved and it halves every year after that (or whatever the exact rates are ), encourages young people to smoke more because they think that as long as they quit before it's 'too late' they won't suffer any negative consequences [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img] . Just an aside though, not apportioning blame to health professionals

However I do find it morally, if not legally, repugnant that tobacco companies continue to sell their products that, if taken as they are supposed to be taken, are so dangerous. I also find it morally repugnant that governments jump up and down waging 'wars on drugs' and sending people to jail for marijuana use and holding that no one convicted of a drug offence can ever have certain jobs and yet rake in so much in tax from tobacco sales that they would never ever ban this very dangerous drug.

[johnny]

Everyone knows the risks of smoking, so do i. So if anything happens to my health, i can only blame myself for that, because i was full aware of what it might cause right from the beginning.

[Timber Loftis]

Aleia, interestingly the information I've heard regarding quitting smoking is that if you can do it for two decades your lungs will recover almost completely. That focuses more long-term than the "halving by year" figures you mention.

[Djinn Raffo]

If I quit smoking today I will have lived half of my life. If I don't quit smoking I will have lived two/thirds of my life.

[Azred]

I have always held the belief that anyone who smokes does so by their own choice and should not be allowed to sue any tobacco manufacturer because the product increases the risk of disease. I used to smoke; no one forced me to do so.
Yes, tobacco companies hid some facts of the true nature of thier research, but so have auto manufacturers yet I don't see any class-action suits trying to sue Ford for a billion dollars because some relatives died in an auto wreck. Didn't anyone tell them that driving is dangerous?

[Djinn Raffo]

When i was in Indonesia i noticed that virtually everyone smoked. And it was not like in Canada with pictures of rotten teeth stained from tobacco smoke on the packs, photos of blackened lungs on the packs, monkey see monkey do picture of mom smoking with kid on the packs, diseased hearts on the packs (yes, these are on our smoke packs in Canada), there was no ingredients on the packs there either.. showing tar and nicotine levels.

And i remember speaking to a young man about smoking.. after noticing he had chain smoked about twenty cigarettes while sitting in the train station in Jogjakarta i asked him: Why do you smoke so much? He answered: "Smoking... *dramatic pause* ...is my inspiration."