Should tobacco companies be held responsible for the effects of smoking?
I think so. In the same way that McDonalds has to pay for the installment and maintenance of bins outside their premesis to prevent littering, tobacco companies have a duty to, up to a point take some of the brunt of the social costs it brings.
If you want to smoke, you pay for any damage you do to your own body. That doesn't mean that tobacco companies should make cigs as 'healthy' as possible.
I disagree with the McDonalds incident also. I believe you should take responsibility for your own actions.
If it is proven that certain products encourage certain behaviours, this should be factored into the price. Since it isn't, the company, not the individual should be liable. Up to a certain point though. Give me specifics if you want a more focused response.
I'm talking about the smoking related illnesses and deaths.
This is still, in iitslef, a fairly broad issue. Consider a country like Britain with UHC. An individual has the right to smoke. If that individual develops lung cancer as a result of this, I, the tax payer suffers, having to pay for their medical care in the NHS. Is this fair another's actions are paid for by my earnings? No. It is not. Medical costs should therefore be factored into the original price of the tobacco, and not left for the tax payer to pick up the bill.
If they do stuff to them to make them more addictive in order to sell more of them, even when they know they are harmful for their customer, then yes, they should have to pay.
If they said, "Smoking is dangerous and it will give you a stroke, please see your doctor on a regular basis if you choose to smoke." If they said that and you didn't see your doctor and then you had a stroke, then no, they shouldn't have to pay.
Unfortuneatly when I started smoking they[tobacco co. or govt]didn't warn you about the harmful side effects. Now its to late,so what does it matter to me. I'll never get better. Wish I would have known about the cemicals that were added. The best thing is just don't start.
Should tobacco companies be held responsible for the effects of smoking?
No, I don't think so. It's your own decision if you want to smoke. And nowadays everybody knows that smoking harms you. But smokers should pay more insurance dues because they have a higher risk to get lung cancer. And smoking in restaurants should be forbidden.
Second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer or asthma, any more than the top 25% of major US cities. Standing behind a car for 10 seconds will give you more smoke inhalation than second hand smoke will give you in a week. The active chemicals that are so harmful to the smoker are only being consumed by the smoker. His exhale, and the majority of the stuff at the end of the cigarrette cannot carry a majority of the material.
Oh yes this crap again im glad they did that smoking gives me a major head ache i wouldnt mind if they had a smoking SECTION but thats about as far as it goes for me
And no tobacco companies should not be held responsible they give you a fair warning of what it does to your body
Second hand smoke doesn't carry allot of chemicals and/or nicotine, in fact most of the 93(usually) chemicals are left behind in second hand smoke, it's mostly just bothersome, I'm sorry but I don't any people who became addicted of second hand.
