• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

Very few people can quit smoking through will power alone... last statistic I read was somewhere between 3-5%. Most people need additional help in the form of medication and counseling if they are serious about it. Long-term smokers, such as adults who have been smoking since adolescence, will have a much harder time quitting than people who are relatively newer to smoking.

The smoking cessation industry accounts for $3 billion per year in the U.S. alone. If it were easy to quit this industry would vanish over night. Your suggestion that people simply take personal responsibility is insufficient. The vast majority of smokers start at a young age which is the age group that the tobacco companies target (unless there is legislation to prevent it). It is also incredibly difficult to quit, as a long-term smoker, if you are constantly running into other smokers in your life, like at your work, at restaurants/bars, or even just walking down the street.

I don't think you truly grasp the gravity of what addiction is, which is why you think it's somehow an easy matter to toss a substance abuse problem out the window. Even people who have quit can have cravings years and years after the fact. The same goes for hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc. Maybe if smokers were having serious withdrawl symptoms that require hospitalization like with hard drugs, people would take their addiction problem more seriously?

Addiction is addiction and it should never be minimized as it can negatively effect the lives of those ailed and all those who know them.
 
Last edited:
Very few people can quit smoking through will power alone... last statistic I read was somewhere between 3-5%. Most people need additional help in the form of medication and counseling if they are serious about it. Long-term smokers, such as adults who have been smoking since adolescence, will have a much harder time quitting than people who are relatively newer to smoking.

The smoking cessation industry accounts for $3 billion per year in the U.S. alone. If it were easy to quit this industry would vanish over night. Your suggestion that people simply take personal responsibility is insufficient. The vast majority of smokers start at a young age which is the age group that the tobacco companies target (unless there is legislation to prevent it). It is also incredibly difficult to quit, as a long-term smoker, if you are constantly running into other smokers in your life, like at your work, at restaurants/bars, or even just walking down the street.
These people take responsibility and seek help. Personal responsibility does not preclude co-operation, I'm not talking about some kind of rugged individualism.


I don't think you truly grasp the gravity of what addiction is, which is why you think it's somehow an easy matter to toss a substance abuse problem out the window. Even people who have quit can have cravings years and years after the fact. The same goes for hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc. Maybe if smokers were having serious withdrawl symptoms that require hospitalization like with hard drugs, people would take their addiction problem more seriously?
I smoked and quit.

Addiction is addiction and it should never be minimized as it can negatively effect the lives of those ailed and all those who know them.
These people take up smoking when they know it is addictive and dangerous. In Australia and the UK anti-smoking advertising and information through schools and such actually is far more than pro-smoking stuff.
 
These people take responsibility and seek help. Personal responsibility does not preclude co-operation, I'm not talking about some kind of rugged individualism.

Great, so are you going to pay for it? Don't forget to account for the fact that "seeking help" costs more money than buying a pack.

I smoked and quit.

Me too.. that doesn't mean everyone can do it so easily.

These people take up smoking when they know it is addictive and dangerous. In Australia and the UK anti-smoking advertising and information through schools and such actually is far more than pro-smoking stuff.

While there has been a big reduction in smoking in Western societies, there are still a lot of people who do. I don't think it's fair to stigmatize everyone who does, even though I myself do not support smoking.
 
Great, so are you going to pay for it? Don't forget to account for the fact that "seeking help" costs more money than buying a pack.
Nope. I believe smokers should probably have to pay for healthcare.


Me too.. that doesn't mean everyone can do it so easily.
Maybe they shouldn't take it up then......


While there has been a big reduction in smoking in Western societies, there are still a lot of people who do. I don't think it's fair to stigmatize everyone who does, even though I myself do not support smoking.
That's great. They still knew the dangers.
 
Nope. I believe smokers should probably have to pay for healthcare.

I agree, which leads me to my next point... if people aren't rich and don't have health insurance which covers smoking cessation, how do you expect them to pay for it? It's far simpler to just continue buying cigarettes than to pay even more money for smoking cessation products, therapies, and medications.

Maybe they shouldn't take it up then......

Sure... and maybe they should sue companies that are making their product so addictive that they can't quit? They don't deserve to die because they made a bad choice ten years ago.
 
I agree, which leads me to my next point... if people aren't rich and don't have health insurance which covers smoking cessation, how do you expect them to pay for it?
Charity, insurance.

It's far simpler to just continue buying cigarettes than to pay even more money for smoking cessation products, therapies, and medications.
Then don't take it up.


Sure... and maybe they should sue companies that are making their product so addictive that they can't quit? They don't deserve to die because they made a bad choice ten years ago.
Then pay for their healthcare. They made the choice and they should live with it. They knew the dangers. We can't remove everyone from all personal responsibility, that is a bad road to take.
 
Charity, insurance.

We've been down this road. If they don't have insurance or insurance that covers smoking cessation, then maybe they can't afford it.

Charity? Please.

Then don't take it up.

Then pay for their healthcare. They made the choice and they should live with it. They knew the dangers. We can't remove everyone from all personal responsibility, that is a bad road to take.

Yes, we can't remove everyone from all personal accountability. I agree. Just as it was the smoker's decision to buy a toxic product, so too it is the company's decision to put a toxic, addictive substance on the market. They are both equally responsible for the smoker's long-term health.

To say that it's all the smoker's fault is removing accountability from corporations that are profitting on people's addiction, cancers, and respiratory diseases.
 
Okay. Is this supposed to upset me?

You are not bothered by the fact you through the patronage of certain food and beverage brands that you basically helped paid big tobacco's fines?

It is the equivalent of the speeder handing you the speeding ticket every time he gets pulled over for speeding and you cheering it on as though somehow the speeder is suffering.

Would you ground, spank or punish yourself some other way every time the child does something wrong? "Look Timmy you shouldn't skip school and beat up nerds, for that daddy is going to spank mommy and then mommy is going to ground herself for two weeks, I hope you learn your lesson after this."
 
Last edited:
The government would never in a million years allow a product like cigarettes to be sold in the US if it was introduced today.

Its all about money.
 
The government would never in a million years allow a product like cigarettes to be sold in the US if it was introduced today.

Its all about money.

No... it's a lot more than about money. It's also got quite a bit about people believing government can or should regulate our daily lives and habits.

Seat belt laws.
Helmet laws.
Cell phone while driving laws.
Trans-fatty acid laws.
No wood-burning fireplace laws.

And there are other proposals in the works... taxing 'miles driven' for instance to incentivize us to cut down on our driving. Taxing ammunition and guns through the roof to prevent more people from buying them.

Why not outlaw alcohol and pornography? Both are addictive, by the way.

If the goal is to promote good health, why stop with cigarettes? Why not ban junk food? Junk food probably leads to more deaths and higher health costs every year than cigarettes. Alcohol abuse certainly accounts for a large number of health problems.

So no, it's not just about the money. It's about people who believe they are 'doing good' by legislating the behavior of others. Of course, that's what legislation and laws are all about... regulating behavior. The question is when does that legislation become too extreme. And I think we've passed that point already.
 
Did this happen to this guy? I can agree if it was known by the companies that smoking was dangerous but the info was withheld from the customers but I'm pretty sure this guy took it up long after it was known what it could do or at least the vast majority of his smoking years were after it was well known what the dangers are.
By then he was probably addicted to the product and unable to quit. Are you pretty sure or are you sure?
 
No... it's a lot more than about money. It's also got quite a bit about people believing government can or should regulate our daily lives and habits.

Seat belt laws.
Helmet laws.
Cell phone while driving laws.
Trans-fatty acid laws.
No wood-burning fireplace laws.

And there are other proposals in the works... taxing 'miles driven' for instance to incentivize us to cut down on our driving. Taxing ammunition and guns through the roof to prevent more people from buying them.

Why not outlaw alcohol and pornography? Both are addictive, by the way.

If the goal is to promote good health, why stop with cigarettes? Why not ban junk food? Junk food probably leads to more deaths and higher health costs every year than cigarettes. Alcohol abuse certainly accounts for a large number of health problems.

So no, it's not just about the money. It's about people who believe they are 'doing good' by legislating the behavior of others. Of course, that's what legislation and laws are all about... regulating behavior. The question is when does that legislation become too extreme. And I think we've passed that point already.
What's the alternative? We the tax payer foot the bill when someone else's dangerous activity results in hospitalization or disability. If you aren't going to be responsible, and your irresponsibility causes financial problems beyond your means, then what? Let them suffer? and so too their families and friends? How about as a society we say "sorry, that is too dangerous for EVERYONE so you can't do it".

Do you know what head injuries from not wearing a helmet cost the tax payers before and after the law was enacted?
 
What's the alternative? We the tax payer foot the bill when someone else's dangerous activity results in hospitalization or disability. If you aren't going to be responsible, and your irresponsibility causes financial problems beyond your means, then what? Let them suffer? and so too their families and friends? How about as a society we say "sorry, that is too dangerous for EVERYONE so you can't do it".

Do you know what head injuries from not wearing a helmet cost the tax payers before and after the law was enacted?

Are you in support of Universal Healthcare?
 
What's the alternative? We the tax payer foot the bill when someone else's dangerous activity results in hospitalization or disability. If you aren't going to be responsible, and your irresponsibility causes financial problems beyond your means, then what? Let them suffer? and so too their families and friends? How about as a society we say "sorry, that is too dangerous for EVERYONE so you can't do it".

Do you know what head injuries from not wearing a helmet cost the tax payers before and after the law was enacted?

Fine... if what you're looking at is strictly cost-benefit, then why not as a society ban alcohol? What do you think costs more to taxpayers each year? Not wearing helmets? Or alcohol-related injuries, death, and disease?

:doh
 
Fine... if what you're looking at is strictly cost-benefit, then why not as a society ban alcohol? What do you think costs more to taxpayers each year? Not wearing helmets? Or alcohol-related injuries, death, and disease?

:doh

Alcohol??? I believe that the single biggest killer in America I believe is the automobile; we need to ban them. :rofl
 
We've been down this road. If they don't have insurance or insurance that covers smoking cessation, then maybe they can't afford it.
Then they die. They knew the risks, cry me a bloody river.

Charity? Please.
You said you weren't a liberal but here you sre deriding private charity.

Yes, we can't remove everyone from all personal accountability. I agree. Just as it was the smoker's decision to buy a toxic product, so too it is the company's decision to put a toxic, addictive substance on the market. They are both equally responsible for the smoker's long-term health.
And no one forced these people to buy it.

To say that it's all the smoker's fault is removing accountability from corporations that are profitting on people's addiction, cancers, and respiratory diseases.
Not really, they wouldn't be profiting if people took responsibility.

Bottom line these people knew what it would do to them, they still chose to do it. That is no one's fault but their own and no one else should be forced to pay for it.
 
Bottom line these people knew what it would do to them, they still chose to do it. That is no one's fault but their own and no one else should be forced to pay for it.

Well... there are several practical problems with this. Suppose a sixty y/o is admitted to the hospital suffering from lung or heart disease or cancer. And suppose during the history it's revealed that the person was a light smoker for a few years during her 20s. Does this disqualify her from care? Are you certain the disease was caused by the smoking? What if she'd smoked for five years? Or ten?

What if an alcoholic is admitted to the hospital with liver disease? Should they be forced to pay since they chose to drink?

Or an obese person who chose to eat?

Or an out of shape person who chose not to exercise?

Lots of poor choices lead to high medical costs. Why do so many seem to want to pick on smokers? My answer? Great work by the anti-smoking lobby!

;)
 
Well... there are several practical problems with this. Suppose a sixty y/o is admitted to the hospital suffering from lung or heart disease or cancer. And suppose during the history it's revealed that the person was a light smoker for a few years during her 20s. Does this disqualify her from care? Are you certain the disease was caused by the smoking? What if she'd smoked for five years? Or ten?
How is this a problem? Does the fact you have to cut the wood to certain dimensions mean you can't make a house out of wood. It is perfectly possible to make decisions about these kinds of things.
What if an alcoholic is admitted to the hospital with liver disease? Should they be forced to pay since they chose to drink?
Probably.

Or an obese person who chose to eat?

Or an out of shape person who chose not to exercise?
I think if you are morbidly obese then perhaps. Obviously I'm more talking about major choices like smoking, drinking morbid obesity and such. They certainly shouldn't be treated for free on the NHS.

Lots of poor choices lead to high medical costs. Why do so many seem to want to pick on smokers? My answer? Great work by the anti-smoking lobby!

;)
What an excellent argument for private healthcare.
 
Then they die. They knew the risks, cry me a bloody river.

Then we should also ignore the obesity epidemic in America, because those people chose their fate. Let's just let an entire generation (most of them under 30) suffer cardiovascular decay and die young because of their choices. We should ignore chronic alcoholics and not offer them help, because, you know, they aren't addicts, they are just stupid people that are making bad choices.

You don't understand addiction at all. Until you demonstrate that you do, there is no further need to argue with you.


You said you weren't a liberal but here you sre deriding private charity.

Not relevant to this debate, nor am I interested in what you think I am.

And no one forced these people to buy it.

And no one forced the companies to sell a product that was refined to be toxic and addictive. I already agree with you that the buyer is responsible, but so is the company. What kind of corporate socialist are you? Corporations should be held accountable for their actions.

Not really, they wouldn't be profiting if people took responsibility.

And people wouldn't be dying if they didn't sell them. So there you go. Two sides of the same coin. Why are you so reluctant to come to this conclusion?

Individual responsibility and corporate responsibility are two things I am in favour of. Corporations are also comprised of human beings that can make choices. Just because the market provides them with the opportunity to sell a deadly product, doesn't mean they should.

I agree that if cigarettes were introduced today they would not be made legal.

Bottom line these people knew what it would do to them, they still chose to do it. That is no one's fault but their own and no one else should be forced to pay for it.

In order to cut down on smoking in America, more smokers who are helplessly addicted should sue even more to put a dent in these companies. The government won't shut them down because the government is making profit off of addiction as well; the tobacco companies won't slow down, they will only expand and try to get more people hooked; and the people who are hooked might be hooked for the long term.

I think lawsuits are perfectly acceptable.
 
Then we should also ignore the obesity epidemic in America, because those people chose their fate. Let's just let an entire generation (most of them under 30) suffer cardiovascular decay and die young because of their choices. We should ignore chronic alcoholics and not offer them help, because, you know, they aren't addicts, they are just stupid people that are making bad choices.
Addicts do make bad choices. And their choices are their own. Their health is their problem. They chose to start using something addictive, they choose to continue using it.

You don't understand addiction at all. Until you demonstrate that you do, there is no further need to argue with you.
I do. All too well.


And no one forced the companies to sell a product that was refined to be toxic and addictive. I already agree with you that the buyer is responsible, but so is the company. What kind of corporate socialist are you? Corporations should be held accountable for their actions.
Why should a corporation be held accountable for someone elses choices? Jesus christ, where the **** has personal responsibility gone in this country.


And people wouldn't be dying if they didn't sell them. So there you go. Two sides of the same coin. Why are you so reluctant to come to this conclusion?
Yes yes...and if gun manufacturers didn't make guns, no one would die from gunshots. And if car manufacturers didn't make cars, no one would die from car accidents. So and so forth into illogical oblivion.

Individual responsibility and corporate responsibility are two things I am in favour of. Corporations are also comprised of human beings that can make choices. Just because the market provides them with the opportunity to sell a deadly product, doesn't mean they should.
Why not? Supply and demand. If the demand wasn't there, the supply would be irrelevant.

In order to cut down on smoking in America, more smokers who are helplessly addicted should sue even more to put a dent in these companies. The government won't shut them down because the government is making profit off of addiction as well; the tobacco companies won't slow down, they will only expand and try to get more people hooked; and the people who are hooked might be hooked for the long term.
"Helplessly addicted"? :rofl

Gimme a break.

I think lawsuits are perfectly acceptable.
Yes yes.. sue the person who gave you what you personally sought out, willfully bought, and willfully ingested, all along knowing full well how unhealthy it was. Yes, it's all THEIR fault you kill yourself. :roll:

I'd laugh if it weren't so pathetic.
 
Then we should also ignore the obesity epidemic in America, because those people chose their fate. Let's just let an entire generation (most of them under 30) suffer cardiovascular decay and die young because of their choices. We should ignore chronic alcoholics and not offer them help, because, you know, they aren't addicts, they are just stupid people that are making bad choices.
Well if it becomes such a problem that it threatens the stability of society then that is a different matter but that is not the threat here. In fact being harsh may in fact help matters by inducing individuals to stop smoking and not take it up. Anyway you didn't really address what I said.

I'm not even suggesting it be taken up quickly in the case of smokers et al, just as a last resort sort of thing when they refuse to make change repeatedly.
You don't understand addiction at all. Until you demonstrate that you do, there is no further need to argue with you.
Textbook Orius. His arguments fail so he runs away.:2wave:




Not relevant to this debate, nor am I interested in what you think I am.
You're still a liberal.

And no one forced the companies to sell a product that was refined to be toxic and addictive. I already agree with you that the buyer is responsible, but so is the company. What kind of corporate socialist are you? Corporations should be held accountable for their actions.
That makes no sense. The ultimate responsibility is the consumers. The corporations have moral responsibility but legal responsibility should only be the smokers because their choices fuel the operation. by your logic you can extend responsibility in many cases to many bodies. The theft victim is responsible presumably for having such valuable property.

What could be set up, if the need arose, would be a tax on cigarettes which could be used to fund the healthcare of smokers. That would introduce some kind of safety net without the kind of nanny state, removal of individual responsibility you want.

I'd away with corporate personhood and privileges so I'm certainly no corporate socialist but that is a different matter.

And people wouldn't be dying if they didn't sell them. So there you go. Two sides of the same coin. Why are you so reluctant to come to this conclusion?
Because it is meaningless. Many people can sell the product to the smoker, only he can decide whether to smoke. He is the lynch pin, all individual responsibility is his own.

Individual responsibility and corporate responsibility are two things I am in favour of. Corporations are also comprised of human beings that can make choices. Just because the market provides them with the opportunity to sell a deadly product, doesn't mean they should.

I agree that if cigarettes were introduced today they would not be made legal.
Yes it is unfortunate we have authoritarians for governors but that is a different topic.

In order to cut down on smoking in America, more smokers who are helplessly addicted should sue even more to put a dent in these companies. The government won't shut them down because the government is making profit off of addiction as well; the tobacco companies won't slow down, they will only expand and try to get more people hooked; and the people who are hooked might be hooked for the long term.

I think lawsuits are perfectly acceptable.
That is because you the destruction of individual responsibility for individual actions. Have you ever considered applying for a job with the EUroplot?
 
Last edited:
Addicts do make bad choices. And their choices are their own. Their health is their problem. They chose to start using something addictive, they choose to continue using it.

So the company has zero responsibility?

That's like saying the DEA should only go after drug users, but ignore the dealers, because no one is forcing the users to go buy from them. If the DEA used that mentality, there would be a much higher quantity of hard narcotics in America today.

Except tobacco is legal, so we afford the tobacco companies more leeway. Tobacco is still a drug no matter what way you slice it.

Why should a corporation be held accountable for someone elses choices? Jesus christ, where the **** has personal responsibility gone in this country.

Please provide evidence that I said the smokers should not be held accountable at all.

Yes yes...and if gun manufacturers didn't make guns, no one would die from gunshots. And if car manufacturers didn't make cars, no one would die from car accidents. So and so forth into illogical oblivion.

Bogus strawman. A car is not a drug. A gun is not a drug. You can't be addicted to either. Guns and cars don't inherently kill you (unless you are unlucky or stupid).

Why not? Supply and demand. If the demand wasn't there, the supply would be irrelevant.

Both sides of the supply and demand equation are responsible for the problem. That is the argument I have been trying to make.

"Helplessly addicted"? :rofl

If they are not part of the 5% that can quit on will power alone, and if they can't afford expensive treatments and therapies, then yeah, it can be dire. What if a doctor tells them to quit in the next 6 months or they will suffer serious health problems, but they have been a chain smoker for 20 years. You think it's that easy?

Yes yes.. sue the person who gave you what you personally sought out, willfully bought, and willfully ingested, all along knowing full well how unhealthy it was. Yes, it's all THEIR fault you kill yourself. :roll:

Please cite where I said it's all the company's fault.
 
That's like saying the DEA should only go after drug users, but ignore the dealers, because no one is forcing the users to go buy from them. If the DEA used that mentality, there would be a much higher quantity of hard narcotics in America today.
The DEA need to go after drug dealers of hard drugs because they pose a massive threat to social stability not because individual idiots are being harmed by stuff they originally decided to try.
 
So the company has zero responsibility?
Zero.

That's like saying the DEA should only go after drug users, but ignore the dealers, because no one is forcing the users to go buy from them. If the DEA used that mentality, there would be a much higher quantity of hard narcotics in America today.
The DEA should go after no one, because the drugs should be legal.

Except tobacco is legal, so we afford the tobacco companies more leeway. Tobacco is still a drug no matter what way you slice it.
So is caffeine. And your point is?


Please provide evidence that I said the smokers should not be held accountable at all.
They are the ONLY ones that are accountable.

Bogus strawman. A car is not a drug. A gun is not a drug. You can't be addicted to either. Guns and cars don't inherently kill you (unless you are unlucky or stupid).
Drugs don't inherently kill you either.

Both sides of the supply and demand equation are responsible for the problem. That is the argument I have been trying to make.
Incorrect. the only person responsible for what I put in my body is me.

If they are not part of the 5% that can quit on will power alone, and if they can't afford expensive treatments and therapies, then yeah, it can be dire. What if a doctor tells them to quit in the next 6 months or they will suffer serious health problems, but they have been a chain smoker for 20 years. You think it's that easy?
Yes, it is that easy.


Please cite where I said it's all the company's fault.
It's not the companies fault at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom