smoking

[Dudius]

I got this as an essay question last year during testing.

"A patient, in the hospital because of heavy smoking, is trying to get tobacco companies to pay for his medical bills because he thinks that it is their fault that he is in the hospital because of their products."

A response to this was that the tobacco companies should not pay for his medical bills because that's just not the way it works. If you buy a car from a car company, and get into an accident, should the car company pay for your medical bills? No.

Do you agree or disagree with this response? Why?

My first obvious answer was to agree. Yeah why would they pay for your medical bills?

But when I talked to my dad about it, he had a different answer. He said that tobacco companies should pay for it because of how much nicotine that they put into it. They put in enough purposely to make it too hard to just quit therefore keeping you buying their products and attacking your health. Makes it so you can't really control yourself, making it... not your fault.

I'd say that he had enough information before he started smoking and probably knew what he was getting himself into so it should be his fault, but my dad did have a good point.

What do you guys think?

[Madame Adequate]

It depends on when he started smoking. If it was way back before anyone knew how harmful it was - indeed when it was believed to be good for you - then he's got plenty of grounds to sue. If it was since we've discovered the harm smoking can cause, then he's not got a leg to stand on.

[Reles]

Yeah it does depend how he started. If it were a choice, him knowing about the risks, then I'd say no that they shouldn't have to pay. A lot of people CAN quit, I've seen many people do it, it's very difficult, but since he's in the hospital, he has put himself there, not the company. He bought the cigarrettes, he's had a million opportunities to not support a tobacco company.

[Lionx]

Hard to say, it can say to cause harm, but who causes the addiction? Is it wrong for something to want to smoke but be addicted because of the ammount of nicotine the manufacturers put in there? Is there no freedom to smoke without being a slave to your product?? But is it also irresponsibility on the smoker's part?

May the best lawyer convince the jury ftw.

[Teek]

Assuming the man isn't a hundred and two, the answer is clear - that old man has the right to curtail the profits of any business he wants by not buying their products. I'm big on some things that are addicting, too, and I buy them, but I don't pretend that it's all their fault becuase they exist. It was my choice to buy the product - I could have escaped. It boils down to personal responsibility. Like those fat people who think they have the right to sue McDonalds because it "made them fat". No, THEY made themselves fat. If they liked the food and McDonalds made a profit, good for them.

[Master Quan]

Mebbe your dad didn't think about the car aspect. Maybe they should make them so damn effective at moving from place to place. I just want to go faster and faster and FASTER!


Until crash. Uh oh, I died.

[bipper]

What if we found out milk was bad for us? I don't think that anyone has the right to sue tabacco companies for a product which has been around for hundreds of years!

I think the only thing that gives people the right to sue is when they new it was dangerous they began ( and there has been a ton of proof) working to get kids addicted, Even women were targeted. When you have a harmful product as such - I think its best just not to advertise - as anything can get you sued now adays.

If i cough i will sue Philip Moris, If i am fat I will sue McDonalds, If i am board i will sue walmart. What ever happened to working for a living? Not playing the victum?

Bipper

[Tekno Drifter]

Well...There's no way in hell the tobacco company would pay his/her bills regardless of whether or not they should(and they shouldn't).

But that makes me want a cigarrette...anyone else agree with me on that?? Haha!!

[T-MaN]

Tobacco companies should pay for the healthcare of smokers. They are already rolling in a hell lot of cash, so they should pay. That is all.

[Madame Adequate]

Tobacco companies should pay for the healthcare of smokers. They are already rolling in a hell lot of cash, so they should pay. That is all.

And your justification for this is...?

[Rusty]

It's the persons choice if they wish to smoke or not, and if because of their decision to smoke they get cancer or something and have to go to hospital - they should pay the medical bills.

Tabacco companies try to get you to smoke, yes. But they can't force you to smoke.

You can't blame someone else for your choice.

[crazybayman]

A person choses to smoke, of his/her own free will. Tobacco companies certainly don't force anyone to smoke.

Therefore, its the person's own stupid fault for smoking. Therefore tobacco companies (although evil for advertising such an unhealthy product) are not 100% responsible.

[bipper]

When you have a proven ill product; and you add adictants to it - you become more liable. Although smoking in the first place is bad, making people addicted is even worse.

Kids and adults alike were both targeted by tabacco adds, and although they may have smoked them regularly before, the added adictants willl keep em comming back for more and faster.

This IS the only logical reason i can see a lawsuit win.

Bipper

[T-MaN]

And your justification for this is...?

Well, seeing how the average cigarette pack costs near $4-$8, and the average smoker smokes near a pack a day (maybe not the WHOLE pack but pretty close to it.), it results in $28-$56 per week in cigarette consumption. As days go by...it results in $112-$224 used per month. Let's go by year now, which would be $1344-$2688. If you live to be near the age of 50, you will have spent over $100,000. As you know, the level of smoking increases as you smoke because there is more demand for nicotine in your body. Thus, eventually you will end up smoking more than a pack a day later on in life. According to this typical teenager example you might end up smoking near a million. Remember that this is for only one person.

A large population of the world smokes, and most of them have been smoking since they were teens. You can imaging for yourself how much money the tobacco companies are making each day.

In the US, tobacco companies spend near 5 billion/year on advertising and promotions.

So far, if the tobacco companies can spend that much on just advertising and promoting their products, don't you think that they should be able to pay the healthcare of their customers? If the tobacco companies reduced their total spending on advertising by at least half, they would be able to spend the rest of the money helping those who are suffering due to tobacco.

As you know, reducing advertising reduces more non-smokers to become a smoker which eventually leads to a more smoke-free environment in the future.

Although it is the choice for some people to smoke, they still should recieve healthcare payments from the tobacco companies. Just look at how much the average smoker spends, and what if they don't have enough money to pay their healthcare bills due to buying so many cigarette packs over their course in life? It happens.

Others are forced into smoking at an early age due to peers, being cool, etc. It isn't generally their fault that they smoke and have continued throughout their life. Tobacco companies should pay for their healthcare. It is because of tobacco companies that all this mess started in the first place right? So, it should be their responsibility to take care of their customers' health.

[MecaKane]

And your justification for this is...?

Well, seeing how the average cigarette pack costs near $4-$8, and the average smoker smokes near a pack a day (maybe not the WHOLE pack but pretty close to it.), it results in $28-$56 per week in cigarette consumption. As days go by...it results in $112-$224 used per month. Let's go by year now, which would be $1344-$2688. If you live to be near the age of 50, you will have spent over $100,000. As you know, the level of smoking increases as you smoke because there is more demand for nicotine in your body. Thus, eventually you will end up smoking more than a pack a day later on in life. According to this typical teenager example you might end up smoking near a million. Remember that this is for only one person.

A large population of the world smokes, and most of them have been smoking since they were teens. You can imaging for yourself how much money the tobacco companies are making each day.

In the US, tobacco companies spend near 5 billion/year on advertising and promotions.

So far, if the tobacco companies can spend that much on just advertising and promoting their products, don't you think that they should be able to pay the healthcare of their customers? If the tobacco companies reduced their total spending on advertising by at least half, they would be able to spend the rest of the money helping those who are suffering due to tobacco.

As you know, reducing advertising reduces more non-smokers to become a smoker which eventually leads to a more smoke-free environment in the future.

Although it is the choice for some people to smoke, they still should recieve healthcare payments from the tobacco companies. Just look at how much the average smoker spends, and what if they don't have enough money to pay their healthcare bills due to buying so many cigarette packs over their course in life? It happens.

Others are forced into smoking at an early age due to peers, being cool, etc. It isn't generally their fault that they smoke and have continued throughout their life. Tobacco companies should pay for their healthcare. It is because of tobacco companies that all this mess started in the first place right? So, it should be their responsibility to take care of their customers' health.

Why? Because they make money, and their customers are stupid? Peer pressure and being addicted is not forced. Lots of people quit smoking or just say "no" in the first place. Be stronger if you don't want lung cancer. Children can blame whoever illegally gave them the cigarettes, but other than that, it's your own damn fault.