The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 7, Thread 53.

1. TOBACCO LAWSUIT
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 3:44 PM/EST
AGZ

Clinton mentioned this in his speech so I figured I could add it to the groups subjects:

What is your opinion of these lawsuits and the settlement that has been reached?

2. Personally
Sun, Jan 24, 1999 - 6:27 PM/EST
markearnest

I actually think suing a tobacco company because you got cancer using their product is stupid. It's not like we didn't know cigerettes were dangerous.

Dennis Leary (as he often does) said it best:
[talking about larger warnings on the cigerette package]..."Did they think the problem is we just haven't seen the warning label yet? Do they they if it's bigger we're going to go 'Oh, my God!!! These things are dangerous!!!!'"

No matter what we say about their ads, they do not force us to smoke, it's a choice people make. If the product is tested and legal, don't blame the manufacturer. Blame the government [FDA] that approves it and the customer who uses it.

3. Yes, but....
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - 9:19 AM/EST
operabuff

The problem is, much of the advertising and distribution of cigarettes has been aimed at minors. Internal cigarette company memos affirm this, despite executive claims to the contrary. The sale of cigarettes to minors is, of course, illegal. More importantly, nicotine is much more addictive when it is first used in childhood or young adulthood than in adulthood, so people become addicted to nicotine at an age when they are not able to make well reasoned adult decisions balancing the risks and "benefits" of smoking. If an adult chooses to smoke, that is an issue of personal choice. However, if a child is pushed into smoking by a combination of peer pressure and slick advertising aimed at hooking children, that is something else entirely.

4. Operabuff
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - 4:49 PM/EST
AGZ

They have to advertise now, the settlement requires more people to continue smoking in order to collect the money to make the payouts possible. See this is my responsibility "thing".

Aren't we still paying tobbaco subsidies? Didn't Clinton go down to tobbaco land and promise the farmers that money would continue? and Gore was with him. I believe he said they play a vital role in the American society. And of course Clinton enjoys cigars, but I bet he does not inhale.

5. slippery slope
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - 6:14 PM/EST
operabuff

AGZ, this is the slippery slope argument which, in other contexts, has been called the domino effect. I think we are sophisticated enough to distinguish between eating fatty foods and marketing cigarettes to children. The same argument has been used against any form of gun control. Impose a waiting period? Next thing you know, we won't be allowed to shoot sporting clays! The fact is, the cigarette companies have engaged in a systematic campaign to misinform the public, and to cover up evidence, regarding the danger of smoking, while at the same time actively recruiting new smokers among the most vulnerable and impressionable members of society, children.

The existence of tobacco subsidies is problematic, of course. Ideally, the subsidies should be phased out, while at the same time new ways need to be found for the tobacco farmers to earn a living. Interestingly, many of the Amish in Pennsylvania have started to phase out tobacco growing, one of their main sources of income, because of the impact of smoking on health.

6. Operabuff
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - 6:55 PM/EST
AGZ

I never smoked, tried it two or three times, did inhale, thought it was worthless. The cigarette companies did not misinform me I knew smoking was bad for my health, how can anyone think otherwise?

But we do not want to take the blame for our own stupidity it is easier to blame the bad cigarette companies. Hey I also know chewing that stuff is also dumb, plus it gives you bad breath and dirty teeth. Oh yes also cancer.

7. When do we grow up?
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - 7:17 PM/EST
AGZ

When do we stop expecting big government to protect us from ourselves? Are we that immature?

Operabuff how do you feel about the fact that people have to continue to smoke in order to pay for the settlement?

8. Aimed at Children
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - 9:43 PM/EST
markearnest

I can almost guarentee that peer pressure is one hundred times more effictive then joe camel. It doesn't matter what the tobacco companies do, other children seem to play a larger role in the decision of a child to smoke. That is where the parents come in. I would hope the family is more influential in a child's life than other kids and tobacco companies.

9. Hypocrisy as a factor of time
Tue, Jan 26, 1999 - 7:53 AM/EST
Kevin

There is a lot of hypocrisy in our government actions, both domestic and foreign. Almost all of it has to do with the fact that laws are made over time for different reasons. Farm subsidies, for example, are a product of the Depression when our government made the wise observation that we need to guarantee farmers incomes to make sure food production remains viable. If not for the goverment's "interference," our nation would likely have suffered more than a few famines, or at the very least corn and soy prices would have skyrocketed past filet mignon. Like health care, there are things which our government SHOULD take an active interest in protecting from the ebb and flow of market economy.

The point of this illustration is not to digress into a debate over the importance of standardized basic health care. It is to show that the reasons behind our laws sometimes get mangled and lost over time when lawmakers -- and even Presidents -- inherit legislation. I am certain the tobacco subsidies are a reflection on how important that market was deemed without the weight of years of scientific research and mounting medical bills. Unfortunately for hypocrisy's sake, it is far easier to get a corrective law or action passed than to repeal a time-honored but outdated piece of legislation.

It would be nice if the two could be joined, but the impact of lobbyists and the myopic vision of most lawmakers make that unlikely.

10. Product responsibility
Tue, Jan 26, 1999 - 1:42 PM/EST
Kevin

I don't smoke and have never owned a gun. I'll put that right out there so you know that I already have biases in both areas. While I won't deny any individual's right to either -- and don't advocate any laws that ban tobacco or guns outright -- there must be some accountability when a product is deemed to have a detrimental societal impact.

The insidious marketing strategies opened up the tobacco industry to legal attack, regardless of their accountability for the health damages done by their product. For that reason, I don't think it's fair to compare tobacco to guns verbatim. However, the accountability issues -- which drives the politics of the lawsuits, if not the justics -- are very appropriate comparisons.

I will be most interested in seeing how the different strategies by cities like Chicago, New Orleans and Philadelphia have on achieving successful lawsuits against the gun manufacturing and distribution industries, and how the process will reform societal arms.

Clearly, there is basic causality between making a gun and having it used in a violent act. It is unfortunate that the pro-gun lobby has been so successful in fending off real qualtiative studies that track gun use to get an accurate depiction of the path most weaponry takes. That kind of information would be helpful in locating the problems inherent in the system and attempting to correct them without destroying Constitutional rights.

I have read some of the arguments being used by Chicago in their lawsuit, which mostly echoes successful suits that ultimately improved the environment a couple decades ago. New Orleans and Philly are taking different approaches. If nothing else, these kinds of legal attempts serve to add definition to existing laws, legal limitations and Constitutional definitions (should the Supreme Court opt to hear anything on the matter). Surely, THAT serves a positive purpose.

11. Kevin
Wed, Jan 27, 1999 - 4:36 AM/EST
AGZ

Should we also sue the auto makers? Many people are killed and injured everyday in this country due to accidents involving their product.
Their advertising makes you want to drive fast.
What about Cokde and Pepsi? Think of all the sugar
their product has, and they market to children.
Look at all the soda machines on school property.

12. Valid questions
Wed, Jan 27, 1999 - 7:15 AM/EST
Kevin

And hopefully, I have some valid responses ...

Unlike gun production -- where the intended use is to propel a small projectile very fast at a target, usually living and moving -- and tobacco -- where the result in every instance of use is deteriorating health and clogged up lungs which statistically leads to a VERY high rate of cancer, auto manufacturing mostly creates a safe product. The basis for the lawsuits is not that guns and cigarettes occasionally harm people; it's that they predominately harm people.

Now, studies have shown this to be true for smoking (in spades!), but I know of no sanctioned study that has been completed that proves that the majority or a significant percentage of guns wind up used in violence.

Going back to your auto analogy ... if studies found that a car were unsafe because bumping into that back of it caused it to erupt in flames, don't you think it makes sense to force that company to recall the product and fix the deficiencies? It happens all the time, if not the flaming problem then at least safety concerns.