|
Provinces can sue tobacco companies --this should be scary to any business owner (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
I don't get you.
The government shells out dollar after dollar of YOUR tax money - which you gripe and bitch that it is being wasted at every turn - and now they are allowed to go after someone else for that money, and you have a problem with that too? what gives? |
stealing my money is wrong...
stealing other's money through frivolous court actions is also wrong.
not to mention the incredible amount of tobacco taxes that are collected every year from the very people they are suing.
i wish the government would get out of the health care business altogether so they can stop using it as a crutch to tell us how to run our lives.
Im all for a public FUNDED system in principal, but not if it's going to be used against us like this.
Everytime i hear somebody say "we should ban such and such because it costs our healthcare system money" i cringe. |
|
|
| MarkT |
I don't see this *at all* in the light Jayx1 is portraying it. AFAIK, to invoke the notion of precedence, subsequent cases need to demonstrate either that the former case is identical to their own or is at least deserving of a reasonable extension of that ruling.
1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it has been demostrated that tobacco companies have knowingly provided a product (and tweaked it so) that is both physically addictive and directly carcinogenic...and a product with ZERO benefit to the consumer?
this is not true of the fast food industry, for example, where the food is at least marginally nutritious, non-addictive, non-carcinogenic, etc.
2. This ruling merely ALLOWS the gov't to sue. It DOES NOT mean that the gov't will SUCCESSFULLY be able to sue. This just means that the courts will entertain the case if the gov't chooses to bring it before them. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Further, even if this case is in fact interpreted as a valid precedent for subsequent cases, the decision merely allows that the gov't (or whoever) can ATTEMPT to sue other companies for health-related costs.
i.e. nothing has been set in stone and the door is WIDE open to deny subsequent cases (against the fast food industry, for e.g.) the same right to sue.
a significant ruling? indeed. a "dangerous" precedent? hardly. |
|
|
| Skipper |
yawn
How do you propose the government cover the soaring health care costs associated with tobacco consumption? Clearly, tax revenue is not sufficient to do that. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
yawn
How do you propose the government cover the soaring health care costs associated with tobacco consumption? Clearly, tax revenue is not sufficient to do that. |
if the government is worried about how to cover costs related to every activity that we do, they shouldnt be in the healthcare business. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| sorry mark, my yawn was directed at jayx1 :p |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
if the government is worried about how to cover costs related to every activity that we do, they shouldnt be in the healthcare business. |
TOBACCO RELATED HEALTHCARE COSTS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE ALL OTHER COMPARABLE HEALTH CARE COSTS.
So, private health care is your solution? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I don't see this *at all* in the light Jayx1 is portraying it. AFAIK, to invoke the notion of precedence, subsequent cases need to demonstrate either that the former case is identical to their own or is at least deserving of a reasonable extension of that ruling.
1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it has been demostrated that tobacco companies have knowingly provided a product (and tweaked it so) that is both physically addictive and directly carcinogenic...and a product with ZERO benefit to the consumer?
this is not true of the fast food industry, for example, where the food is at least marginally nutritious, non-addictive, non-carcinogenic, etc.
2. This ruling merely ALLOWS the gov't to sue. It DOES NOT mean that the gov't will SUCCESSFULLY be able to sue. This just means that the courts will entertain the case if the gov't chooses to bring it before them. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Further, even if this case is in fact interpreted as a valid precedent for subsequent cases, the decision merely allows that the gov't (or whoever) can ATTEMPT to sue other companies for health-related costs.
i.e. nothing has been set in stone and the door is WIDE open to deny subsequent cases (against the fast food industry, for e.g.) the same right to sue.
a significant ruling? indeed. a "dangerous" precedent? hardly. |
we shall see if they win. If they do then ill be really scared. And products that have ZERO advantages? That depends on which side of the fence you stand. Many people enjoy smoking as much as others enjoy other activities. There are many things in life that could be determined to have ZERO advantages yet we still do them. Why should big brother be allowed to decide which activities we are allowed to persue and which ones we shouldnt?
Im also against drug prohibition and ive barely touched a drug in my life. Its all about YOUR choice. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
TOBACCO RELATED HEALTHCARE COSTS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE ALL OTHER COMPARABLE HEALTH CARE COSTS.
So, private health care is your solution? |
not at all...
as i said, i support publicly FUNDED healthcare in principal. The solution is for the government to accept that paying healthcare costs means paying for everyone's adult choices and quit trying to play the role of our parents and using the system as it's excuse. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
if the government is worried about how to cover costs related to every activity that we do, they shouldnt be in the healthcare business. |
+1
Public funded healthcare can have many benefits....not only will it prevent issues like this coming up again but emergency rooms will not be filled with people complaining about a cough or sore foot. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
we shall see if they win. If they do then ill be really scared. And products that have ZERO advantages? That depends on which side of the fence you stand. Many people enjoy smoking as much as others enjoy other activities. There are many things in life that could be determined to have ZERO advantages yet we still do them. Why should big brother be allowed to decide which activities we are allowed to persue and which ones we shouldnt?
Im also against drug prohibition and ive barely touched a drug in my life. Its all about YOUR choice. |
I strongly agree that one person's chosen pursuits are equally as valid as any others...though the harm principle still comes into play here (i.e. second-hand smoke).
what I'm saying is that it's scientifically and logically possible to show that cigarettes provide no nutritional benefits and that they are carcinogenic and physically addictive. The same is not true of fast food.
i.e. the fast food industry can claim that their food, while not "good for you" does provide some nutrition, that it is not carginogenic, that it does not harm anyone other than the person consuming it, and that it is not highly physically addictive and can be easily eaten in moderation.
in court, I suspect that difference would be valid enough to NOT make this judgement a valid precedent for the gov't to be able to sue the fast food industry. Even if this was seen as a precedent, I suspect then that these differences would prevent a successful lawsuit.
that's just my layman opinion though ;) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
here is a good opinion piece about the court decision:
| quote: |
EDITORIAL: They just don't know how to quit
Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada paved the way for provinces to sue Big Tobacco for the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses.
Provincial lawsuits that will now be launched due to this ruling are still years away from being decided in the courts. But if there's any justice, the provinces will lose every case.
We say this not because we are fans of smoking -- a deadly habit -- or of Big Tobacco, an ethically suspect industry.
But what's relevant here is that both our federal and provincial governments continue to allow tobacco to be sold legally in Canada -- and rake in billions of dollars in taxes from it.
Now the provinces, which pay for health care, are after even more money from the tobacco industry under the guise of caring about the well-being of their citizens. Of course, this is nonsense. If our governments truly cared about the health of their citizens, they would have banned the sale of tobacco decades ago, when its dangers became known.
This is merely another attempted multi-billion-dollar cash grab by governments from the tobacco industry.
That said, this unanimous Supreme Court decision wasn't a surprise, given that the British Columbia Court of Appeal had previously upheld the constitutionality of B.C.'s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (Ontario and Newfoundland have similar laws on the books and most other provinces are now expected to follow suit.)
The passage of similar legislation in Florida eventually led to a US $245 billion settlement, which the tobacco industry agreed to pay out to state governments over 25 years.
Obviously, the provinces will at some point attempt to reach a similar settlement with Big Tobacco here. While this move will be politically popular, it doesn't change the fact that it will also be wrong, bad public policy and utterly hypocritical.
Will the provinces, for example, then sue themselves to recover the added costs to our health care system caused by their own deep involvement in and promotion of the alcohol and gambling industries? Of course not.
Because what they're motivated by is the smell of money, not the health of their citizens. And when governments start to act this way, who knows where they'll strike next?
|
|
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ I dunno if I buy their logic that the gov't is just looking to get more $$$ from the tobacco industry and that they'd just ban tobacco altogether if they cared about public health.
1. public outrage if cigarettes were entirely banned. Support for restrictions ought not to be confused for support for a total ban. People are ok with (or at least tolerate) a 'last call' or restricted selling of alcohol, but we would be outraged if the gov't banned alcohol altogether.
2. the whole "do they make more money than they pay out for health related costs" argument isn't really the point. But if they did in fact ban tobacco, any potential health care savings are DECADES away from being realized...in the meantime, they need to either replace that tax revenue or cut spending to maintain the status quo in their budget. Either way, the public would be pissed at higher taxes or reduced spending.
I don't think it's as simple as calling it a cash grab...but I also am not so naive as to think our gov't is simply looking out for our health, lol. It's a balance between "we're not going to piss people off, and lose our tax revenue, by banning cigarettes, so let's make the industry itself help pay for the ramifications of their ty product". |
|
|
|
|
