Big Blow for Big Tobacco

[Mike F]

B.C. given right to sue tobacco firms

"In a major blow to big tobacco, the Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for the British Columbia government to sue cigarette companies for the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses."

"The law also curtails some of the legal defences available to tobacco companies and makes it easier to prove a link between smoking and disease."

[KevanGuy]

Isn't the reason we pay so much tax on a pack of smokes because that money is earmarked for treating smoking-related illnesses? I recall a show on Rutherford (I think, it was on QR anyway) at least a few months back about that.

[calculoso]

Just like the CPP is earmarked for the Canada Pension Plan?

Not with the government we have.... it's general revenue.

[Bill Bumface]

As much as I hate tobacco companies, the biggest problem is that people are now educated about the effects of smoking yet they are still stupid enough to do it.

Sorry smokers, but its true, and all of you know it deep down every time you light one up

[KevanGuy]

Originally posted by calculoso@Sep 29 2005, 11:55 PM
Just like the CPP is earmarked for the Canada Pension Plan?

Not with the government we have.... it's general revenue.

I believe that was the basis of the show. Does the money really end up in the Health Care system or not. Like you I am pretty skeptical. I suppose it is probably just the 'excuse' they use to increase the taxes. I mean, they know we are still gonna pay it. Free money from thier point of view.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by hulkrogan@Sep 29 2005, 10:56 PM
As much as I hate tobacco companies, the biggest problem is that people are now educated about the effects of smoking yet they are still stupid enough to do it.

Sorry smokers, but its true, and all of you know it deep down every time you light one up

I agree. I don't see how the Tobacco companies could succesfully be sued when they actually inform people of the hazards they are giving now. People can only be held responsable for themselves with the knowlege that is out there about smoking.

Maybe there should be an ommision in health care for covering people who knowingly make themselves sick.

[browna]

A couple things.

a)The BC government doesn't charge PST on cigs, and thus takes less taxes in. Why not start charging tax...the two fold effect of being a deterrant, (thus less future health care costs to the province) and, adding to the exsisting health care coffers.
The $$ spent by the taxpayers on legal costs in long drawn out legal proceeding will add up quickly too.

b)A oversimplstic view, but, is it not hypocritical that one arm of the BC govt is regulating the sale and collecting taxes on the sale of cigs, while another arm is trying to lay the entire health cost blame of cigs soley at the feet of big tabacco?

Not a smoker, or defending big tabacco...but (ignoring the personal choice issue) before provincial governments start to get involved in this and any other issue, looking to rush out for some compensation, shouldn't they look at thier own practices first?

[icarus]

Here it is. It's a short judgment.

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/r...scc049.wpd.html

It isn't very exciting since it is essentially a matter of addressing the constitutional validity of BC's Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

[4X4]

I agree with Browna's point...


As for tobacco taxes going to health care & CPP payments going to CPP, let's add gasoline taxes going to roads & infrastructure (or even coming back to the city they are collected in).

[troutman]

Originally posted by hulkrogan@Sep 30 2005, 05:56 AM
As much as I hate tobacco companies, the biggest problem is that people are now educated about the effects of smoking yet they are still stupid enough to do it.

Sorry smokers, but its true, and all of you know it deep down every time you light one up

True, but for a lot of people that smoked in the 1950s and 1960s, the negative effects of smoking were not as well known. Those are the types of plaintiffs that might be successful; otherwise, it would have to be argued that smokers are contributorily negligent.

[calf]

Originally posted by KevanGuy@Sep 29 2005, 11:52 PM
Isn't the reason we pay so much tax on a pack of smokes because that money is earmarked for treating smoking-related illnesses? I recall a show on Rutherford (I think, it was on QR anyway) at least a few months back about that.

non-smoker here...but that's what I'd think too. With legislated warnings, PSAs, I think the tabacco companies are doing all they can...now it's looking like the BC government just wants to bully them more. Maybe the BC government should go after the individuals since the tabacco companies are doing their part...but they don't have the money.

IIRC, when governments in the US were suing tabacco companies, they were looking to recoup costs back when tabacco companies knew cigarettes were harmful, but didn't give fair warning. This isn't what BC's doing, is it?


Just speaking aloud.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I absolutely hate the idea of smoking, but this seems like a pretty stupid concept.

The BC government has always had the ability to completley ban smoking within the province, but instead has allowed people to buy/sell/smoke cigarettes, and probably makes a ton of money off of taxing them.

Seems to me that if I give someone permission to burn down my house, I shouldn't be able to sue them for the damages said fire will cause.

[Thunderball]

I think the Tobacco Industry is pretty sleezy and what not, but lets get serious... 95% of the people who smoke know its bad for them and the other 5% are just ignorant. The law, to my knowledge, states that ignorance is not a defense. Cigarettes do not have a hidden defect that people are falling prey to, they are breathing in tar, carbon monoxide, nicotine and other carcinogens... its right on the label. Not to mention new labels put on by the government...

This is like the government suing the Auto Industry for cars made before seatbelts... just ridiculous. As much as I dislike tobacco, they don't deserve this.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Sep 30 2005, 12:02 AM

Maybe there should be an ommision in health care for covering people who knowingly make themselves sick.

My old man has smoked for 40 years and he's paid an absolute fortune in taxes directly on cigarettes and plain old income taxes. Should he be denied healthcare while some moron who drove his crotchrocket into a stop sign gets fixed up? I don't think so.

Your theory of "knowingly make themselves sick" should also apply to most fat people, boozers, speeders, workaholics, and people who live in polluted big cities.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Sep 29 2005, 11:02 PM
I agree. I don't see how the Tobacco companies could succesfully be sued when they actually inform people of the hazards they are giving now. People can only be held responsable for themselves with the knowlege that is out there about smoking.

Maybe there should be an ommision in health care for covering people who knowingly make themselves sick.

If this is anything like the American cases, most of the lawsuits are because big tobacco knew about the dangers of smoking decades ago, but hid them out of fear that people would stop smoking.

On that basis, I believe the people who were smokers after big tobacco knew and before the dangers were finally revealed have a right to sue.

I do not believe that people who knew about the dangers and chose to start smoking anyway should have a right to sue, nor do I believe the government - which collects all kinds of taxes, and sanctions the sale of tobacco should have a right to sue.

Government permits the sale of cigarrettes because it wants more tax money. Frankly, in any modern case (ie: since the link was proven) government should be a defendant along with big tobacco, not a plaintiff.

[Lurch]

Government permits the sale of cigarrettes because it wants more tax money. Frankly, in any modern case (ie: since the link was proven) government should be a defendant along with big tobacco, not a plaintiff.

I don't believe this is true. I think gov't allows cigarettes simply b/c it would be too hard to outlaw something so ingrained in society. If anyone took the time to do some basic math they would see there is NO WAY the gov't comes out ahead on cigarettes unless the is almost no direct health care cost. For example, using figures I largely made up but don't have time to verify:

Population of Canada: 32 million
Smoking Rate: 25%
Avg # of pack/day of smokers: 1
Tax revenue per pack: $5
Total tax revenue: $40 million

Now I know I don't have actual #'s for these, but I doubt I'm far off. Anybody want to make the argument that smoking costs less than $40million per year in direct health costs for gov't?

[FireFly]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 30 2005, 04:38 PM

I don't believe this is true. I think gov't allows cigarettes simply b/c it would be too hard to outlaw something so ingrained in society. If anyone took the time to do some basic math they would see there is NO WAY the gov't comes out ahead on cigarettes unless the is almost no direct health care cost. For example, using figures I largely made up but don't have time to verify:

Population of Canada: 32 million
Smoking Rate: 25%
Avg # of pack/day of smokers: 1
Tax revenue per pack: $5
Total tax revenue: $40 million

Now I know I don't have actual #'s for these, but I doubt I'm far off. Anybody want to make the argument that smoking costs less than $40million per year in direct health costs for gov't?

Your math would suggest it's closer to $40 million/DAY they make, not year.

[Clarkey]

I too am curious to see some studies that look at the costs smoking imposes on the health care system. I'm sure they exist. I searched around a bit but couldn't find anything pertinent.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by FireFly@Sep 30 2005, 03:44 PM
Your math would suggest it's closer to $40 million/DAY they make, not year.

Further to that, your estimation is that governments take in $14.6 billion a year in tobacco related taxes.

On cigarettes alone.

Thats almost 50% more than Alberta currently makes in O&G royalties.

While I think you are estimating a little high, Lurch, I think you helped make my point.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by FireFly@Sep 30 2005, 03:44 PM
Your math would suggest it's closer to $40 million/DAY they make, not year.

Or $14,240,000,000 per year collected in taxes. The Federal government spent or gave to the provincial govt.s 35.5 billion in 2004 of a total 88 billion spent on healthcare by our govt.s.
I have no idea how much we collect from booze taxes but if we had a junk food tax and were able to legalize pot and tax the hell out of it too, these sin taxes would take a big bite out of our health care costs. Oh yea, don't forget the govt. profits made from gambling.

Forgetting about tax dollars, I wouldn't mind seeing tobacco companies driven into bankruptcy. They're worse then drug pushers.