Instead of allowing smokers to sue Tobacco Companies shouldn't instead they face criminal charges?

Question

Smoking is a choice that smokers make freely so they shouldn't be allowed to sue. Yet, tobacco executives who knowingly target the marketing of dangerous drugs to our children and who are purposely making those drugs more addictive and deadly should be liable for criminal charges like reckless endangerment or murder.

The Health Department has found that in the last 6 years the levels of nicotine in cigarettes has by design risen 10 %, making it harder to quit and easier to get hooked.

The study showed increased amounts of nicotine are now delivered to the lungs of smokers regardless of brand.

The study was done in Massachusetts as it is one of only three states that requires tobacco companies to submit information about nicotine.

Marlboro, Newport and Camel brands intensely marketed towards young smokers now deliver more nicotine than they did only a few years ago. More black smokers smoke menthols so it’s very significant that the nicotine in them rose more than 20 %.

Answer 1

I think that both measures are acceptable. The degree to which smokers are responsible for their own problems can and is decided by the courts. The courts do not absolve smokers of all responsibility for their own habit and adjust damages awarded accordingly.

Now that it has been established that tobacco companies intentionally supply products which they know will kill consumers and which they knowingly make more addictive, they should be liable to prosecution for, at least, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. State AGs should do their job and start prosecutions. It cannot be right that behavior which is known to kill people is permitted.

Answer 2

To date, tobacco companies are selling a product that is legal.
It may not be good for you, but it hasn't been made illegal yet.

The thing that cranks me is the fact that the Surgeon Generals Warning on cigarette packs was mandated by law in the early 1960s

That means that the government knew the product was unhealthy 40 years ago and what have they done about it?
They've sat on their butts, done nothing but collect billions of tax dollars. Smoking is bad for health so they use that as an excuse to raise the taxes even higher.
I remember hearing some Governor complain that too many people quit smoking so the tobacco tax revenue was down.

Governments job is to protect us.
If tobacco is so bad, then they should have outlawed it, not suck up billions in tax dollars to pay for their "pork" projects.
They are the ones who should go to jail, not the employees of companies that produce a product that has not been made illegal.

Answer 3

They have had warnings about cigarettes since the early 60's I believe. People that smoke today do it at their own risk and peril. I think it should be illegal to sue Tobacco Companies. I was a two pack a day smoker, and quit cold turkey 5 years ago, so I really have no empathy for those who say they are trying. Should we start suing manufacturers of liqueur? That's addictive.

Answer 4

No they shouldn't face criminal charges, instead if they sue because of a choice they made(and they started smoking after the government put warning labels on cigarette boxes), then the suit should be tossed out. People who smoked before the government did anything about it should be allowed to sue because it took the government over 70 years to do something about this. The anti-smoking nazis need to get over themselves and realize that the products aren't being marketed to kids anymore and it's virtually impossible for them to purchase a carton of cigarettes on their own when they don't have a driver's license nor are they 18. What study was this funded by anyhow, and anti-smoking activist group?

Answer 5

Wow... I really misunderstood what you were asking in the question!

I was thinking that yes, smokers should face criminal charges for creating second hand smoke, and if you smoke in the house with a child who cannot chose for himself it is child endangerment.

Charge the companies?? Why? Since 1964 they've posted the Surgeon General's warning on packs and on advertising. People can't say they didn't know about it.

If someone decides to run across an interstate during rush hour should they be able to sue the manufacturer of the sneaker they were wearing?

Answer 6

Actually, neither should be allowed. Cigarette manufacturers are neither liable for the choices of those who smoke, nor are they criminally guilty of anything for making cigarettes.

The ill effects of smoking have been known for well over a century. Ulysses Grant blamed his failing health on his smoking habit. Cigarettes were called Coughin' Nails or Coffin Nails prior to WW1.

Personally, I believe in liberty and freedom. That includes the right to choose to smoke, and the right to choose to allow smoking in one's place of business. Stealing freedom from people because it is 'good' for them is never justified.

There is a reason there is the saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." - Albert Camus

Answer 7

Quit whining!Don't smoke ! No one can be criminaly charged for using or marketing a legal product.The government is never going to outlaw it's use.The tax revenues are to high.They tried prohibition once with booze.Look at the history of the way that turned out.

Answer 8

i completely agree! there should be actual penalties for pedaling those things, not monetary that barely makes a dent in their pockets. the execs should face drug trafficking and dealing in states, at the federal level and internationally for exporting. i definately think they should not be allowed to advertise at all and the "FREE GIFTS" people like me (i don't smoke) get in the mail should be illegal also. vendors that choose to can sell them. people that choose to can buy them. it's the recruiting of new smokers i really don't agree with.

Answer 9

Tobacco companies certainly should suffer the consequence of jail time, but smokers have to realize that it is not a good and healthy choice for them.

Answer 10

I have the right to die slowly and painfully. I wouldnt sue the Tobacco Companies, but darn it, I will get pissed if they don't let me buy cigarrettes at one point.