NationStates Jolt Archive

The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the Province of British Columbia can sue tobacco companies for health care costs. I feel this is yet another message to society that we don't have to be accountable for our own actions. If I choose to smoke (and I do) then I must be accoutable for any disease that occurs and not blame the "evil" tobacco companies. This decision and BC's seeking of it shows, once again, the hypocrisy in governments today. If they don't want people getting sick then ban tobacco but don't be crying about its ill effects, suing the companies while raking in all the taxes. If we're going to blame tobacco companies for cancer and other diseases then why not allow our governments to sue McDonald's, KFC, etc. for the health costs of obesity. Why not sue Tim Hortons for hooking people on their coffee (and I mean there has to be some sort of cocaine in their coffee ;) ). Society today has got itself too much into the blame game. It's never a person's fault for their lot in life it's always someone or something else's falt. That's bullshit. When you take the ME about of blame then all you have is a lot of bla bla bla bla bla!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The BC government should be ashamed of itself for taking this approach to it's money woes.

THe thing with illnesses related to smoking is that in at least some cases the tobacco companies will be to blame. Health warnings on cigarettes etc. is a fairly new development in the lifetime of tobacco. At one time certain companies even marketed their cigarettes as medicinal. Many of the health problems from tobacco will be suffered by those who were smoking at a time when the tobacco companies were less responsible with their customers' health.

Personally, I would like to see ALL tobacco burned out of existence. Kinda the lazy way of quitting. :D

By collecting taxes and winning a huge settlement in court against the tabacco companies, it would appear that the Government is double dipping.

<snip>

Quick question Plator. Is addiction considered a disease or a choice in Canada?

Personally, I would like to see ALL tobacco burned out of existence. Kinda the lazy way of quitting. :D

Great thought, except then more "illegal" tobacco will come in around from the world.... Not everyone wants to quit.

I'm of two minds on this. I don't think individuals ought to be able to sue, especially not anyone my age--I'm 36. There have been warning labels on cigarette packs since I was a kid, so anyone my age and younger has had ample opportunity to discover what they do to you and should stay away from them.

But the government's health care system is a different animal--they have to take care of people like my granddad who got hooked back when he was 12 (or they would if he lived in Canada), well before warning labels and during the period when the tobacco industry was actively trying to hide research that showed cigarettes were dangerous. They ought to have to pay for that period, and for the people hooked as a result of that period.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the Province of British Columbia can sue tobacco companies for health care costs. I feel this is yet another message to society that we don't have to be accountable for our own actions. If I choose to smoke (and I do) then I must be accoutable for any disease that occurs and not blame the "evil" tobacco companies. This decision and BC's seeking of it shows, once again, the hypocrisy in governments today. If they don't want people getting sick then ban tobacco but don't be crying about its ill effects, suing the companies while raking in all the taxes. If we're going to blame tobacco companies for cancer and other diseases then why not allow our governments to sue McDonald's, KFC, etc. for the health costs of obesity. Why not sue Tim Hortons for hooking people on their coffee (and I mean there has to be some sort of cocaine in their coffee ;) ). Society today has got itself too much into the blame game. It's never a person's fault for their lot in life it's always someone or something else's falt. That's bullshit. When you take the ME about of blame then all you have is a lot of bla bla bla bla bla!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The BC government should be ashamed of itself for taking this approach to it's money woes.
First, even if it was illegal to produce cigarettes they would still be made in BC, just look at drugs in this province.
Second, when you smoke you aren't just killing yourself you are killing others around you. Eating Mcdonalds kills you and only you.

Great thought, except then more "illegal" tobacco will come in around from the world.... Not everyone wants to quit.
When I said ALL, I meant ALL tobacco.

Quick question Plator. Is addiction considered a disease or a choice in Canada?
I thought that we already hammered that topic to death?

I thought that we already hammered that topic to death?

No matter how many times a topic is hammered to death it will still be brought back.

No matter how many times a topic is hammered to death it will still be brought back.
In Canada, it is a disease. However, to discuss it here would be hijacking the thread. :eek:

When I said ALL, I meant ALL tobacco.

Alright... I should have read it a little better. Sorry.

First, even if it was illegal to produce cigarettes they would still be made in BC, just look at drugs in this province.
Second, when you smoke you aren't just killing yourself you are killing others around you. Eating Mcdonalds kills you and only you.


The difference is that you can push McDonalds on your kids.

The difference is that you can push McDonalds on your kids.
Same with tobacco.

Alright... I should have read it a little better. Sorry.
Hey....no apology necessary. Welcome to NS. :)

How is obesity any more responsible than smoking? Skinny people still have to foot the medical bills to treat obesity and related diseases. Isn't that the same argument that gets used with smoking too?

How is obesity any more responsible than smoking? Skinny people still have to foot the medical bills to treat obesity and related diseases. Isn't that the same argument that gets used with smoking too?
It's easier to diet and take more exercise than it is to stop smoking as well...

Eating Mcdonalds kills you and only you.

Nope, it kills your kids too. You take your kids there, let them play, and feed them garbage food instead of fixing a proper meal or snack at home.

It's easier to diet and take more exercise than it is to stop smoking as well...

Not for me. It was a lot easier for me to quit smoking than it has been for me to loose weight, and yes I do diet and exercise. :(

I think an important point is being missed here.

A smoker may make a conscious decision to smoke, and accept the bad health that will most likely result. But if he or she is a citizen of a country with a state health service, then the state has no choice in the matter - they are obliged to provide treatment. And so they are entitled to reclaim their costs.

I would laugh at a person suing a tobacco company or the fast food industry, but a government should have the right to reclaim their costs, in an ongoing fashion through high taxation, but also retrospectively through the courts if necessary.

THe thing with illnesses related to smoking is that in at least some cases the tobacco companies will be to blame. Health warnings on cigarettes etc. is a fairly new development in the lifetime of tobacco. At one time certain companies even marketed their cigarettes as medicinal. Many of the health problems from tobacco will be suffered by those who were smoking at a time when the tobacco companies were less responsible with their customers' health.
By taking this approach we're admitting that the majority of people are plain stupid. There have always been fires in buildings and people are constantly being treated for smoke inhalation so anyone person with common sense could link that with problems related with smoking. :rolleyes:

Quick question Plator. Is addiction considered a disease or a choice in Canada?
I believe addiction is a disease but if you do want to take that view then shouldn't we be suing Molson's, Labatt's, Jack Daniels, etc. (In fact I want to sue all of them because they have cost me some pretty expensive meals in the past!!!) :confused:

Great thought, except then more "illegal" tobacco will come in around from the world.... Not everyone wants to quit.
Well if it were "all burned out of existence" then there wouldn't be any around to import, would there? rolleyes:

I'm of two minds on this. I don't think individuals ought to be able to sue, especially not anyone my age--I'm 36. There have been warning labels on cigarette packs since I was a kid, so anyone my age and younger has had ample opportunity to discover what they do to you and should stay away from them.

But the government's health care system is a different animal--they have to take care of people like my granddad who got hooked back when he was 12 (or they would if he lived in Canada), well before warning labels and during the period when the tobacco industry was actively trying to hide research that showed cigarettes were dangerous. They ought to have to pay for that period, and for the people hooked as a result of that period.
I'm going to assume that since your 36 your grandfather is probably over 80. The government would be spending health care money anyway on someone of that age. In the long run its cheaper to let people smoke because we die earlier and don't reach old age.

I thought that we already hammered that topic to death?
That's okay big CH I wasn't able to find that string. :p

How is obesity any more responsible than smoking? Skinny people still have to foot the medical bills to treat obesity and related diseases. Isn't that the same argument that gets used with smoking too?
Thank you couldn't have said it better myself. Plus obesity does effect other people I mean there's a greater chance your elevator or plane will crash with lots of obese people on it. Plus my eye sight seems to get effected when I see obese people. HAHAHAH :D

I think an important point is being missed here.

A smoker may make a conscious decision to smoke, and accept the bad health that will most likely result. But if he or she is a citizen of a country with a state health service, then the state has no choice in the matter - they are obliged to provide treatment. And so they are entitled to reclaim their costs.

I would laugh at a person suing a tobacco company or the fast food industry, but a government should have the right to reclaim their costs, in an ongoing fashion through high taxation, but also retrospectively through the courts if necessary.
The government is also responsible to pay health care for people who have accidents skiing, doing extreme sports, etc. So by your logic it should be able to sue the companies that promote these things.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the Province of British Columbia can sue tobacco companies for health care costs. I feel this is yet another message to society that we don't have to be accountable for our own actions. If I choose to smoke (and I do) then I must be accoutable for any disease that occurs and not blame the "evil" tobacco companies. This decision and BC's seeking of it shows, once again, the hypocrisy in governments today. If they don't want people getting sick then ban tobacco but don't be crying about its ill effects, suing the companies while raking in all the taxes. If we're going to blame tobacco companies for cancer and other diseases then why not allow our governments to sue McDonald's, KFC, etc. for the health costs of obesity. Why not sue Tim Hortons for hooking people on their coffee (and I mean there has to be some sort of cocaine in their coffee ;) ). Society today has got itself too much into the blame game. It's never a person's fault for their lot in life it's always someone or something else's falt. That's bullshit. When you take the ME about of blame then all you have is a lot of bla bla bla bla bla!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The BC government should be ashamed of itself for taking this approach to it's money woes.


Indeed. Or hey, why not sue breweries because there are alcoholics? I know someone who was abused by an alcoholic, should we sue Coors?

There's a lot of "blame others" going around these days - no one is at fault for their own actions, because the underlying assumption is that people are weak and stupid and essentially brainwashed and under mind control.

A few quick facts:
1. Target population for the tobacco industry are teenagers i.e. minors. Society doesn't deem the teenagers responsible enough to make their decision in an election, yet in your opinion they should be able to make an informed decision whether to smoke or not. After they come of age, they are already addicts.
2. Money spent on the marketing for tobacco products is by orders of magnitude higher than the money spent on raising the knowledge about negative effects of smoking. An uneducated person or a teenager exposed to peer pressure (because advertisments and hollywood movies create a concept that "smoking is cool") will likely become a smoker. I personally can't believe how gullible people are, as cigarettes stink, and so do the people who smoke them and stinking is not "cool" in my book.
3. Smoking is damaging to the environment,and to other people who don't smoke, but are exposed to the cigarette smoke i.e. secondary smokers.
4. Knowingly distributing a product that is known to be addictive (nicotine), toxic (carbon monoxide) and a karcinogen (tobacco tar) is logically equivalent to pushing heroine or crack cocaine. The drug pushers are accountable, and so are the nicotine pushers i.e. tobacco industry.

I smoke, so anything I would have to say would be biased. lol

A few quick facts:
1. Target population for the tobacco industry are teenagers i.e. minors. Society doesn't deem the teenagers responsible enough to make their decision in an election, yet in your opinion they should be able to make an informed decision whether to smoke or not. After they come of age, they are already addicts.
2. Money spent on the marketing for tobacco products is by orders of magnitude higher than the money spent on raising the knowledge about negative effects of smoking. An uneducated person or a teenager exposed to peer pressure (because advertisments and hollywood movies create a concept that "smoking is cool") will likely become a smoker. I personally can't believe how gullible people are, as cigarettes stink, and so do the people who smoke them and stinking is not "cool" in my book.
3. Smoking is damaging to the environment,and to other people who don't smoke, but are exposed to the cigarette smoke i.e. secondary smokers.
4. Knowingly distributing a product that is known to be addictive (nicotine), toxic (carbon monoxide) and a karcinogen (tobacco tar) is logically equivalent to pushing heroine or crack cocaine. The drug pushers are accountable, and so are the nicotine pushers i.e. tobacco industry.

So we should be able to sue the alcohol industry as well then?

But the government's health care system is a different animal--they have to take care of people like my granddad who got hooked back when he was 12 (or they would if he lived in Canada), well before warning labels and during the period when the tobacco industry was actively trying to hide research that showed cigarettes were dangerous. They ought to have to pay for that period, and for the people hooked as a result of that period.The government's healthcare system, or medicare, has been funded in large part by taxes from cigarettes. The government of Canada has made 13 times the "profit" (in the form of taxes) as the tobacco industry has. If the money was spent on roads or other public services before so many people started to get sick, that is irrelevant. Now that smokers and ex-smokers need more medical care, they have every right to it, considering that they paid more than their fair share of taxes in the past. In Spain, cigarettes cost about $3 Canadian, so even though I have no Canadian stats, I'll assume that we're currently paying about $5 in taxes per pack.

Unlike smoking and narcotics like crack and heroin, alcohol is not toxic in moderate quantities and is not addictive for the most of people. Even the smallest quantities of CO are toxic.

Well if it were "all burned out of existence" then there wouldn't be any around to import, would there? rolleyes:

I already corrected myself... Great to know that you already knew that.

A few quick facts:
1. Target population for the tobacco industry are teenagers i.e. minors. Society doesn't deem the teenagers responsible enough to make their decision in an election, yet in your opinion they should be able to make an informed decision whether to smoke or not. After they come of age, they are already addicts.
2. Money spent on the marketing for tobacco products is by orders of magnitude higher than the money spent on raising the knowledge about negative effects of smoking. An uneducated person or a teenager exposed to peer pressure (because advertisments and hollywood movies create a concept that "smoking is cool") will likely become a smoker. I personally can't believe how gullible people are, as cigarettes stink, and so do the people who smoke them and stinking is not "cool" in my book.
3. Smoking is damaging to the environment,and to other people who don't smoke, but are exposed to the cigarette smoke i.e. secondary smokers.
4. Knowingly distributing a product that is known to be addictive (nicotine), toxic (carbon monoxide) and a karcinogen (tobacco tar) is logically equivalent to pushing heroine or crack cocaine. The drug pushers are accountable, and so are the nicotine pushers i.e. tobacco industry.

The smoking age is 19. Adult. You can vote, drink and make any kind of love you want. Once again I point out that the tobacco companies are just making a profit (please view "The Coporation", rent it at your local video store) and it's up to the government to protect its citizens. All it has to do is ban tobacco but it won't because of......PROFIT.

A few quick facts:
1. Target population for the tobacco industry are teenagers i.e. minors. Society doesn't deem the teenagers responsible enough to make their decision in an election, yet in your opinion they should be able to make an informed decision whether to smoke or not. After they come of age, they are already addicts.

Teenager=/=minor

And I always like hearing about how cigarette smokers are "addicts" from a nonsmoker. It's good you have such firsthand knowledge and I don't. OH WAIT.


2. Money spent on the marketing for tobacco products is by orders of magnitude higher than the money spent on raising the knowledge about negative effects of smoking.

Maybe so, but I don't seem to recall seeing a single cigarette ad when I was growing up.

In contrast, I was treated to anti-smoking propoganda videos time and again in junior high school and later. No knowledge imparted, mostly just scare tactics and brainwashing attempts to get me to realize that Authority doesn't want me to smoke Tobacco.


An uneducated person or a teenager exposed to peer pressure (because advertisments and hollywood movies create a concept that "smoking is cool") will likely become a smoker.

Okay, and you base this conclusion on what? Nothing. You just think it sounds good, incidentally implying that "uneducated" people are too dumb to do anything but obey Evil Hollywood. Which, incidentally, is pretty damned ANTI-smoking now. Much like Hollywood itself, if you've ever been there.


3. Smoking is damaging to the environment,and to other people who don't smoke, but are exposed to the cigarette smoke i.e. secondary smokers.

Yeah, and auto pollution is FAR worse for the environment, far more prevalent, and exposes far more people to harmful toxins. But hey, we "need" cars, and don't "need" personal freedom, right?


4. Knowingly distributing a product that is known to be addictive (nicotine), toxic (carbon monoxide) and a karcinogen (tobacco tar) is logically equivalent to pushing heroine or crack cocaine. The drug pushers are accountable, and so are the nicotine pushers i.e. tobacco industry.

Alcohol is toxic and addictive. But I guess since there isn't a "carcinogen" it's OK in your book, no? Caffeinated beverages like coffee and soda are addictive, but that alone doesn't seem to bother you either.

And of course, like everyone driving an automobile, coffee and booze are "needed" according to you. Death and bad health and addiction don't bother you on their own...

No, what really bothers people like you about all this?

cigarettes stink, and so do the people who smoke them and stinking is not "cool" in my book.

You said it right there. You PERSONALLY don't like the smell, and so you go on this self-righteous anti-smoking rant and try to make it like you're some noble, selfless warrior in the War on Drugs and Tobacco and Freedom.

Once again I point out that the tobacco companies are just making a profit (please view "The Coporation", rent it at your local video store) and it's up to the government to protect its citizens. All it has to do is ban tobacco but it won't because of......PROFIT.

What, is "The Corporation" now the favorite home video of anti-capitalists anytime they want to demonize people for "just making a profit?"

If making money was so fucking evil, none of you would have a job, you'd be too noble for that. Then again I don't think many people on this forum DO have a job...

"All it has to do is ban tobacco." Yeah, and all it had to do was ban 'assault weapons,' or 'drugs,' or alcohol during Prohibition.

Apparently, reality doesn't change just cuz some pretentious tofu-eating health nut elected by the idiot masses proposes to ban something. It requires enforcement. Meanwhile, actual crimes with victims occur, but we take manpower and funding away from that to enforce people's DIETARY AGENDAS and their concept of a healthy "lifestyle."

Unlike smoking and narcotics like crack and heroin, alcohol is not toxic in moderate quantities and is not addictive for the most of people. Even the smallest quantities of CO are toxic.

So, it is your contention that cigarettes are "addictive for the most of people." And you can back that up with what exactly?

Alcohol is toxic by nature. Ever hear of the word "intoxicated?"

Ethanol has been shown to increase the growth of Acinetobacter baumannii, the bacteria responsible for pneumonia, meningitis and urinary tract infections.

Although ethanol is not highly toxic, death from ethyl alcohol consumption is possible when blood alcohol level reaches 0.4%. A blood level of 0.5% or more is commonly fatal. Levels of even less than 0.1% can cause intoxication, with unconsciousness often occurring at 0.3-0.4%.

Ethanol within the human body is converted into acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase and then into acetic acid by acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. The product of the first step of this breakdown, acetaldehyde, is more toxic than ethanol. Acetaldehyde is linked to most of the clinical effects of alcohol. It has been shown to increase the risk of contracting cirrhosis of the liver, multiple forms of cancer, and alcoholism.

But hey, don't let that stop you from drinking. I believe alcohol should be legal. And cigarettes. People can make their own decisions, can't they, or do we need government to do our thinking for us?

Teenager=/=minor




You said it right there. You PERSONALLY don't like the smell, and so you go on this self-righteous anti-smoking rant and try to make it like you're some noble, selfless warrior in the War on Drugs and Tobacco and Freedom.

You tell him you wasically wabbit!!!!!!!!!!!! Power to the People. Down with Political Correctness.