Alberta suing the tobacco industry

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

People use the 'nanny' thing because they feel like it's the easiest most damaging way to describe her without doing any real work... I wonder if a man was in charge enacting the same legislation/decisions if he would be called nanny too...

I just think it's lame.

[GP_Matt]

Ignoring partisan politics for a moment, lately I have been disappointed with the lack of respect for political leaders. Across all stripes people make up names for politicians that they don't like and use them in a derogatory fashion. Name calling just comes off as buillying and likely turns a lot of great people off of politics.

[GGG]

The government should be limited in suing for costs from the time tobacco comapnies new that cigarettes were harmful to the time the public knew cigerettes were harmful. Anytime outside that window it is a public policy decision of the government on whether or not they want cigerettes to be legal and how much tax revenue they want from them.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by GGG

The government should be limited in suing for costs from the time tobacco comapnies new that cigarettes were harmful to the time the public knew cigerettes were harmful. Anytime outside that window it is a public policy decision of the government on whether or not they want cigerettes to be legal and how much tax revenue they want from them.

Though haven't there been cases in the US where individual States successfully sued Tobacco outside of this 'we didn't know' window?

[ranchlandsselling]

They could sue the smokers. I think they're equally liable for the health care costs.

How many smokers in Alberta? What's the math per smoker.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by goaliegirl

If they really cared about it they would ban tobacco, this is nothing more than a money grab for something that has no basis in reality. There have been studies done, and on average smokers(and obese people) cost the health system less than non smokers. This is a US link based on a study done in the Netherlands, but I would imagine it would be the same world wide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...1.9748884.html

While I think efforts like lawsuit this are ridiculous, using the fact that people who live longer consume more resources as a justification to allow society to poison themselves is pretty pathetic.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Though haven't there been cases in the US where individual States successfully sued Tobacco outside of this 'we didn't know' window?

I think so, to me that is ridiculous. At that point you are producing a legal product and declaring its harmful side effects. Its like suing a drug company for side effects that are clearly disclosed or a car company because car accidents occur.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think the difference between saying sue car companies for the dangers associated with them and suing tobbaco companies is no one ever claimed driving wasn't dangerous, but tobbaco companies for years claimed cigarettes had no effect on things like lung cancer and heart disease. In fact lets be real, if they weren't legislated to put all the warnings on packs they wouldn't. They would prefer the dangers of smoking be unknown, as it hurts their business when people know its a deadly product.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think so, to me that is ridiculous. At that point you are producing a legal product and declaring its harmful side effects. Its like suing a drug company for side effects that are clearly disclosed or a car company because car accidents occur.

I think the difference is if you smoke you're likely to get sick from it somehow over 30 years. If you drive over 30 years, you're not necessarily going to get in to a single accident, and very unlikey to be in a fatal one. Dying in a car is an 'accident', dying from cigarette smoking is not.

I'm not sure what the statistics are, but there's definitely an impression among the population that cigarette smoking is 'automatically' bad for your health, whereas driving a car is not.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

They could sue the smokers. I think they're equally liable for the health care costs.

How many smokers in Alberta? What's the math per smoker.

Then we can sue the drinkers and the meth heads and the crack heads, and lets go after the skin poppers and the grass smokers (Lets be proactive here).

Personally, every time someone has a accident on the deer foot that stretches my drive home from 20 minutes to 50, well somebodies gots to get sued.

Oh and lets sue kids that need stitches and broken arms cause they do something dumb, god damned tax on the health care system they are.

In fact if you don't buy CaptainCrunch's bubble wrap suit and isolation dome $1449.99 at a retailer near you . . . you could be sued.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Then we can sue the drinkers and the meth heads and the crack heads, and lets go after the skin poppers and the grass smokers (Lets be proactive here).

Personally, every time someone has a accident on the deer foot that stretches my drive home from 20 minutes to 50, well somebodies gots to get sued.

Oh and lets sue kids that need stitches and broken arms cause they do something dumb, god damned tax on the health care system they are.

In fact if you don't buy CaptainCrunch's bubble wrap suit and isolation dome $1449.99 at a retailer near you . . . you could be sued.

You're comparing suing big tobacco to suing children who need stitches? Have you ever thought of running for office? No? Good.

[blankall]

A little off topic, but what are people's thoughts on this. NYC potentially bans large sized sugared drinks:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18285462

From a health care point of view could have an equal impact to a ban on smoking.

[Locke]

This is how the Oilers are going to pay for their new Arena.

Nanny Redford is outdoing herself on this one.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You're comparing suing big tobacco to suing children who need stitches? Have you ever thought of running for office? No? Good.

Hey those kids made a decision to put themselves in harms way thus taxing our health care system. If they wouldn't have tried to ride their skateboard down the railing where there is a stronger then average chance that they're going to be badly injured then they wouldn't need a doctors attention in the first place. Not only should the government be suing the skateboarder, but they should be suing the massive skateboard and hand rail industry.


I don't believe in running for office, I believe in seizing it violently and suspending all voter rights for the average persons own good.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

People use the 'nanny' thing because they feel like it's the easiest most damaging way to describe her without doing any real work... I wonder if a man was in charge enacting the same legislation/decisions if he would be called nanny too...

In Ontario they've been calling Dalton McGuinty "Premier Dad" for his similar attitude that the gov't should always be involved.

It'd be a bit awkward to call her "Premier Dad" since she's a woman, so nanny seems like a reasonable compromise.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by blankall

A little off topic, but what are people's thoughts on this. NYC potentially bans large sized sugared drinks:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18285462

From a health care point of view could have an equal impact to a ban on smoking.

Not surprising coming from control-freak Michael Bloomberg.

Removing choice/freedom for everyone is exactly the wrong way to deal with issues like this. What about all the skinny high metabolism people who want to have a big, cold, sweet beverage? The fatties will just buy multiple smaller beverages to match their appetite anyway.

Looking down the road, it seems our lives will be incrementally micro-managed by government regulations all under the pretext of health, security, and saving the earth.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Not surprising coming from control-freak Michael Bloomberg.

Removing choice/freedom for everyone is exactly the wrong way to deal with issues like this. What about all the skinny high metabolism people who want to have a big, cold, sweet beverage? The fatties will just buy multiple smaller beverages to match their appetite anyway.

Looking down the road, it seems our lives will be incrementally micro-managed by government regulations all under the pretext of health, security, and saving the earth.

I'd agree. Pretty sad state of affairs. Started with the baby boomers. Continued by their spawn, who seem to want to tow their party line in the name of liberalism/conservatism. We need a total overahaul of our political system. The right/left paradigm needs to disappear as both sides have no fallen into a state of limiting freedoms at the drop of a hat.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Making the taxes rise to $40 a pack would have a worse effect than making it illegal. Smugglers and bootleggers will flood the market with illegal smokes at a fraction of the price and the government will lose all the tax revenue from those sales as well as the ability to attempt to block access to minors. They will also be unable to enforce the law as it will be hard to identify who is smoking legit tobacco and who is using the tax free stuff.

I was being over dramatic in stating they should charge $40 a pack obviously that would cause more problems than help. However they easily tell if it's an illegal pack, they don't it right now. Right now you can tell if a pack was bought in Ontario vs. Alberta or Alberta vs. USA.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

They could sue the smokers. I think they're equally liable for the health care costs.

How many smokers in Alberta? What's the math per smoker.

It's about 21.3% of the province smokes, so around 750,000 people. They already pay to smoke at a average premium of about $1,100 in taxes every year each.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are you sure. I have never seen full life cycle numbers for in broken down but I would think its close.

Per capita alberta spends somewhere around 5k on health care. People over 65 cost on average something like 12k, people over 80 cost something like 20k a year.

So a smoker paying 1k a year in taxes pays a 20% premium for health care. They also die sooner reducing the number of post income tax paying years they collect CPP, OAS etc. From a health care point of view they may just move their expensive years sooner or they may be more expesive.

Also the smoking rate is highest amoungst 20 - 30 year olds. Many of them will quit smoking before they are 40. The health risks of smoking disappear between 10 and 20 years after quitting and become comparable to those of a person who never smoked. If you quit by 30 you will have likely paid 10k extra in tax without putting additional strain on the system.

So i bet its really close to being break even.

I seem to recall a study that found smokers cost the health care system far less than non smokers, they tend to die young of reletively cheap diseases.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Ignoring partisan politics for a moment, lately I have been disappointed with the lack of respect for political leaders. Across all stripes people make up names for politicians that they don't like and use them in a derogatory fashion. Name calling just comes off as buillying and likely turns a lot of great people off of politics.

It's hardly new. You can look back at old newspapers and periodicals both here in Canada and all over the world and see it's happened for hundreds of years. Historical records show probably even thousands.

I do think this name is kinda lame and sexist though.