Alberta suing the tobacco industry

[Daradon]

The reason the tabacco industry put itself in a position to get sued was not because it sold a harmful product, but because they not only knew it was harmful but actually worked at making it more addictive which increased the danger of the product.

One person in the industry coined the phrase, 'nicotine delivery system'. That's what a cigarette is. Nicotine is the drug. The reason you find all those other wacky chemicals and substances in there is because they were slowly added over decades of research in order to get the nicotine into the system faster. I remember reading something that original methods of consuming nicotine including smoking, chew, etc. got the nicotine into the body in about 10 minutes. Which is a long time to create a dependency. However, the modern cigarette gets it into the blood in 7 seconds! That's why all those other things are in your cigarette. It encourages the system into making a pathway directly to the brain for the nicotine. And of course, these chemicals don't just make the smoke far more addictive, but they are very harmful themselves.

That's why they got into trouble. They were actively working at creating the perfect drug for decades. They were not selling a product, they were trying to create a dependency. And doing it a very subversive way.

Add that to their questionable marketing campaigns, many even aimed at children, and there are very good reasons why they get in trouble.

Now don't get me wrong. We have known smoking is bad for you for a very long time. And I too get tired of people that complain they got taken advantage of both in this situation and other situations that are similar. People are responsible for they're own lifestyles, I do agree. Sometimes we do things that aren't healthy. Sometimes we down right enjoy doing these things and search them out. And the majority of responsibility should be ours. But there is a balance that can be struck between consumer responsibility and company responsibility and in this case it has been legally argued very well that big tobacco broke many rules and did many horrible things.

If we can cash in why not? So many other people and jurisdictions have.

I don't even smoke, but as someone who depends greatly on the health care system I would love to see some extra money infused into it. Maybe don't do it for the smokers, but for people like me who were born with problems that were not our fault, unlike these smokers.

[Locke]

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.

Hyperbole aside, I think his point of 'where do you draw the line' in regards to personal responsibility or the Government deciding that they're not paying for certain health concerns anymore is valid.

If you're going to have Universal Health Care, then it has to be universal, you cant pick and choose at your own biased discretion. Its health care, not a buffet line.

The fact of the matter is that cigarettes are legal so long as they meet the Government's mandated conditions, if those conditions are met and accepted by said same Government the I dont see on what grounds the Province could sue the tobacco companies.

[Fire]

Redford is going to have to find a way to pay off the massive debt she is accumulating, so might as well try to get some money from the tobacco companies.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by blankall

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.

I agree, but I have no idea how we the people will accomplish this. Obviously violence is not preferred.

Too many politicians nowadays stick with the establishment because at the end of the day they are more interested in their career advancement rather than serving their constituents.

The governing class is out of control.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hyperbole aside, I think his point of 'where do you draw the line' in regards to personal responsibility or the Government deciding that they're not paying for certain health concerns anymore is valid.

'Where do you draw the line' is not a point, it's a truism, the line will always have to be drawn, the debate is always about where to draw it. Right now smokers pay a penalty through taxes on cigarettes, but other than that, they are free to indulge in the health system. The question is whether or not this system is the ideal one... I don't see where children's stitches fit in beyond wild exaggeration.

If you're going to have Universal Health Care, then it has to be universal, you cant pick and choose at your own biased discretion. Its health care, not a buffet line.

I hear that... the issue is how to (if at all) deal with people who 'take advantage of the system' by consciously making themselves sick over the years. If people knowingly increase their health costs, which we all 'universally' pay for, is that a broken aspect of the system? If I'm not a smoker, aren't I getting screwed by paying (potentially) increased costs because of those who are?

The fact of the matter is that cigarettes are legal so long as they meet the Government's mandated conditions, if those conditions are met and accepted by said same Government the I dont see on what grounds the Province could sue the tobacco companies.

Have you looked though? In 1998 46 US States successfully sued big tobacco to the tune of over $200 billion... so there must be some grounds somewhere........

[Devils'Advocate]

FYI - a lot of these lawsuits launched by the province claim that the tobacco companies knowingly hid the risk of their product. You can claim that smokers are personally responsible for their health, and today I'd say that's true since nobody can claim that they didn't know the health risks. But if we go back a few decades, tobacco companies did everything they could to obfuscate any evidence that their product caused health problems.

[Agamemnon]

I think there's an issue also where the province doesn't have many options when it comes to recouping expenses to the health system from smoking.

1. Raise taxes even further on cigarettes to fund healthcare - Problem - the higher the price on cigarettes the increase in smuggling/black market/organized crime activities (smokes are already smuggled in to Canada in some areas).

2. Ban tobacco products - Problem - total take over of the multi-billion dollar industry by organized crime, smuggling, etc., tobacco use persists, health care system still has to deal with it, but without the benefit of taxation.

3. Maintain status quo and do nothing - Problem - Increased costs on the healthcare system due to smoking places an extra and unfair burden on those who support the system but do not indulge in these vices.

or.....

4. Sue the tobacco industry - Solution - the province is able to recoup billions of dollars from big tobacco to fortify the healthcare system against the effects their product has on the population. The money goes directly from big tobacco to the government's coffers, without the organized crime or 'do nothing 'aspects.

That's how I read it anyway... maybe a bit simplistic.

[pylon]

As an ex smoker for about a year and a half, who is now revolted by the stench of cigarettes, I even think it is ridiculous to sue the tobacco industry. If they want to sue them, then quit collecting the taxes off of them immediately. Seems quite hypocritical. And to say the tobacco industry doesn't sufficiently warn people of the dangers? You would have to have time warped from 1954 to not realize cigarettes will KILL YOU. They are forced to have pictures of tumors on the packages for god sakes. Every single time I lit one up, I was reminded of the dangers by those pictures.

This is the governmental equivalent of suing a guy for a million dollars for rear ending you at 10 kph in a shopping mall parking lot. It is a frivolous cash grab, nothing more.

[CaramonLS]

They should mandate proper breaks in the restaurant industry, would probably lower rates of smoking by about 10% across the board.

[CrazyCaper]

I'm so tired of the government trying to solve their financial issues by continually blaming big tobacco. We are a highly-regulated, highly-audited business. At any time, without warning, government officials can walk into our office and demand documentation on anything they're asking for. If its not to their liking, they have the power to levy huge fines or even shut us down.
Where the government should be focusing their energy is "black market" tobacco. Right now anually, the government is missing out on approximately $20 Billion in tax revenue because of illegal cigarettes being produced in Canada and being smuggled into the country.
As for the burden on the healthcare system, one of the easiest solutions would be to penalize the smoker. I know when I applied for life insurance, I was tested to ensure that I didn't have any terminal diseases and that I didn't smoke. If I did, I had to pay a substantially higher premium than a non-smoker, which is fair. Why not run Alberta Health Care the same way? Should an individual decide to smoke or drink excessively, they are required to pay additional premiums to the government on an annual basis. These premiums would definitely help in offsetting some of the additional burden they are putting on the system.
Am I way out in left field here?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by macker

Prohibition won't work. We learned that from booze. Use Cleveland as an example......In 1919, a year before prohibition went into effect, Cleveland had 1,200 legal bars. By 1923 the city had an estimated 3,000 illegal speakeasies along with 10,000 stills. An estimated 30,000 city residents sold liquor during prohibition and at least 100,000 more made home brew and bathtub gin for themselves and friends. Prohibition not only fostered widespread contempt for law enforcement, it did something far worse by creating a market unmet by legitimate means. Organized and disorganzied crime filled the vacuum created by the closure of the legal alcohol business. Drinking during prohibition actually increased so the law did the opposite of what it was inteneded to do.

It didn't work in Springfield, either.

[Jake]

When people say "the government has no place telling us what we can/cannot eat/smoke/abuse", where exactly does that end? Right now it seems like the line is arbitrary. Tobacco/alcohol are apparently fine, but for some reason other drugs with similar health risks are illegal.

This is such a complicated moral issue I don't think Alberta will ever, in my life time, make any progress with it. Alberta's failed attempt to ban trans fat demonstrated that our government is not capable of banning any currently legal, common food/drug with health risks. If they can't ban trans fats, how could they handle a ban on something immensely more controversial, like smoking?

I also hate that these conversations inevitably break down to one about money. I think any reasonable smoker would admit that tobacco directly costs the government millions of dollars each year, but, to me, that is not the important issue here. That "issue" seems straight forward to solve... tax the hell out of tobacco and/or force the tobacco industry to give the government cash. This lawsuit may be ridiculous the way it is phrased, but in my opinion the tobacco industry should help cover the significant health care costs the government incurs, while they profit. It seems like it is in both the governments and tobacco industry's best interests to not further increase tobacco tax, so personally I think the tobacco industry will agree to contribute cash directly to the government.