being held to account for the consequences of thier product?
2006-09-14 10:00:50 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Business & Finance ➔ Corporations
We all know tobacco is bad but it is a complex question. The Federal government has constitutional limitation as to how to eliminate tobacco smoking. It is complicated by:
1. Very strong tobacco lobby in DC.
2. Major revenue source and economic base as well as employment in some states and has tremendous grass root support from tobacco producing areas. This will pit Federal government against tobacco producing states.
3. Aside from the US, tobacco companies export huge amounts to the rest of the world.
Shutting down of an huge industry overnight is like an economic catch 22. So we grudgingly wind it down slowly and hope someday the problem will disappear.
2006-09-14 10:35:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same way alcohol manufacturers do - they earn the government fortunes in taxes. They will never have to answer for the damage they cause. The argument will be;
The cigarettes are labelled as being dangerous to health and it's illegal to drink / smoke until a certain age, which could be classed as adult - therefore the responsibility lies with the user!
2006-09-14 10:04:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are selling a legal product that you have a choice about using. The government is so addicted to the tax revenue from tobacco, that their hypocrisy about it is ludicrous.
2006-09-14 10:05:50 · answer #3 · answered by united9198 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its called liability. If they but a sign on the box saying "Smoking can cause cancer and bad health." The responsibility is place on the consumer. Kind of like "Park your car her at your own risk."
2006-09-14 11:39:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because they have warnings all over their packages. and people KNOW what they are doing with their bodies/ lungs when they smoke a ciggy. Why should a company be held liable when the idiot person putting the nasty crap to their lips is the one inhaling.?
2006-09-14 10:10:06 · answer #5 · answered by one_sera_phim 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because the governments are making so much money from it, they would probably ban it if it werent for the taxes they place on it
2006-09-14 10:05:02 · answer #6 · answered by jake m 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because people are going to smoke anyway - they are selling a legitimate product and people choose to consume it.
2006-09-14 10:03:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one is forcing people to smoke....OR drink....OR drive cars....OR climb ladders....OR use knives....OR.....get the picture????
Stop thinking that its best for the government to do the thinking for you. And lose the "You owe us" mentality and maybe accept responsibility for a change?
A better question is, why should people that smoke all their lives and can't afford hospital bills be treated for THEIR poor choices?
2006-09-14 10:12:29 · answer #8 · answered by joe b 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They have paid billions and billions of dollars in legal settlements. They are not forcing anyone to start smoking.
2006-09-14 10:10:19 · answer #9 · answered by Zak 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Politics!
Caffeine is another legal yet harmful drug, but coffee manufacturers can also get away with it.
2006-09-14 14:19:02 · answer #10 · answered by dealer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋