|
Provinces can sue tobacco companies --this should be scary to any business owner
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
Wow. So the province can now sue tobacco companies for expenses in order to pay for healthcare. Where do i even begin with this one. I dont think most people here will grasp the seriousness of this latest court decision.
Basically the courts have just said that the government can go after a business to recoup money it deems it lost due to paying health care costs for people who have allegedly used their product. Today it's the tobacco companies. But, now that this precedent has been opened, where will it end?
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO OWNS ANY TYPE OF BUSINESS IN CANADA SHOULD BE WORRIED SICK ABOUT YESTERDAY'S DECISION.
Why? Because what if the government decides that fast food is costing taxpayers money? What if cell phones are detrimental to your health? How about car emissions? You name it, you can probably find a health cost to it.
I know some of you are going to say "yeah stick it to those tobacco companies, smoking sucks." I agree, smoking does suck. But if you say this and think this you are missing the bigger picture. The fact that the government is allowed to do this smacks of totalitarianism.
Not only are businesses threatened, but this further opens the door to allowing the government to use our health care system as an excuse to try and regulate and control our social habits even more than they do now.
Yesterday was not a good day for Canada.
story here:
| quote: | It’s a question that’s been hotly debated for years: should tobacco companies be forced to pay for the health care costs of smokers who get sick using their products?
Now the Supreme Court of Canada has finally taken the first step towards answering that query once and for all.
In a precedent setting 9-0 ruling issued Thursday afternoon, the justices decided that provinces can go after the giant companies in court.
The case was brought by the B.C. government last year, after it complained it had been forced to fork over a fortune in taxpayer money to support patients suffering from diseases brought on by smoking – including cancer and emphysema.
But the case was put on hold when the companies issued a challenge to the suggestion.
The court spent a year pondering its decision and finally decided it was “constitutionally valid.”
With the go-ahead, other provinces are now expected to have their eyes on the prize and file similar suits seeking similar compensation.
And the decision could cost big tobacco billions, if experience is any judge.
A ruling in the States in the 1990s led to a settlement that cost the industry an incredible $245 billion over 25 years towards supporting the health needs of its users.
And this decision is even more comprehensive. If the provinces win they could potentially seek compensation going back 50 years, as well as any future costs that are incurred.
Tobacco companies were predictably perturbed by the outcome, feeling the province has overstepped its legal powers. And they claim they’re already taxed to death by governments and they’re not prepared to pay even more.
“The health risks associated with tobacco smoking have been known for decades,” an angry Imperial Tobacco spokesperson Christina Dona notes.
But anti-smoking groups are overjoyed, expecting all Canadian governments to join in the attempt to get taxpayer money back.
Ontario’s health solons are pondering their own court action.
“We're pleased with the decision,” notes Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson. “It's something that we're going to go back and work with the Attorney General and the rest of the cabinet to make a decision on whether we're going to pursue the same option as British Columbia. Tobacco is a killer of 16,000 people in the province of Ontario every single year.”
The Canadian Cancer Society can hardly contain its glee. “Finally, the tobacco industry will be forced to account for its actions before a court of law, for their wrongdoing over many decades,” affirms the group’s Rob Cunningham.
But both smokers and non-smokers in Toronto think individual responsibility should be considered.
“It's a choice you make, and I mean it's not easy to quit, but you shouldn't hold someone else responsible for your actions,” believes Vic Shelton. “You should be responsible for yourself.”
Katie Webb is on the same page. “They didn't make me smoke,” she points out. “I make me smoke. It's my choice.”
The B.C. case alone could be worth an estimated $10 billion. If others file suits of their own, the eventual payouts could be astronomical and have the potential to actually drive some companies out of business.
But provinces shouldn’t rush to the courthouse steps right away. Like most things involving the legal system, it could take years of litigation before any government sees a dime – and that’s providing they actually win their cases.
|
|
|
|
| Matt |
| I will talk about this later when I get back from class, but I am sure someone will make the appropriate counter-arguments by then. |
|
|
| simms327 |
but eating is necessary to live - and if McDonalds etc is all you can afford - then you get fat - but you eat to live - smoking isn't a necessity - so if people choose to smoke - and the dangers are advertised enough - then perhaps the companies should pay for huge health costs that smoking incurs. And maybe if they put massive labels on BigMac's saying "This will clog your arteries" less people would do.
The difference between smoking and just being fat etc... is that smoking is a chemical dependance... all the other things mentioned above ^^ are not chemical dependencies - whole different ball game.
the other option which I'm in favor of - is to have health premiums for people who smoke - even in Canada - have it cost money to get provincial health coverage if you smoke - or make any other very poor health choices - that way I would think a lot more people would quit.
That line is fuzzy - but why not be harsh and draw it at zero tolerance - it would certainly curb smoking. Or to buy cigarettes you'd have to swipe your health card etc, and charge on a per pack basis - that would help the province recover some costs (although it would start a great black market cigarette economy) |
|
|
| Cal |
Another check on businesses is a good thing.
If companies will be held accountable not only by the public, but by the government as well, products that adversly affect the health of consumers will appear less often and be weeded out faster. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
i thought about the precedent factor as well .. but personally i just don't think it'll extend that far into other areas. GM won't get sued for selling SUVs that emit carbon gasses, however Goodyear will for selling exploding tires, etc. What I (could) see this extending into are towards alcohol companies, which now has a door open to blame.
in the end everyone is responsible for their own actions. they should focus moreso on trying to change the 'culture' associated with smoking rather than trying to smack the wrists of the tobacco companies. if they wanted to do this they might as well have banned tobacco altogether.
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by simms327
but eating is necessary to live - and if McDonalds etc is all you can afford - then you get fat - but you eat to live - smoking isn't a necessity - so if people choose to smoke - and the dangers are advertised enough - then perhaps the companies should pay for huge health costs that smoking incurs. And maybe if they put massive labels on BigMac's saying "This will clog your arteries" less people would do. |
eating is necissary to live but mcdonalds is considered a luxury. People could argue that eating a piece of fruit is cheaper and better for you.
| quote: |
The difference between smoking and just being fat etc... is that smoking is a chemical dependance... all the other things mentioned above ^^ are not chemical dependencies - whole different ball game.
|
so is caffeine, and alcohol, and sex etc. Also the government is in the business of gambling. Are they going to sue themselves out of business for that as well?
| quote: | | the other option which I'm in favor of - is to have health premiums for people who smoke - even in Canada - have it cost money to get provincial health coverage if you smoke - or make any other very poor health choices - that way I would think a lot more people would quit. |
these premiums are already in place. Its called paying 2/3 of the price of a pack of smokes to the taxman. And smoking is legal, if people choose to smoke, why should the government tell them differently?
| quote: | | That line is fuzzy - but why not be harsh and draw it at zero tolerance - it would certainly curb smoking. Or to buy cigarettes you'd have to swipe your health card etc, and charge on a per pack basis - that would help the province recover some costs (although it would start a great black market cigarette economy) |
would you like to swipe your health card everytime you have a beer? Fill up your SUV? Buy a coffee?
You think along dangerous lines here. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
Another check on businesses is a good thing.
If companies will be held accountable not only by the public, but by the government as well, products that adversly affect the health of consumers will appear less often and be weeded out faster. |
so i guess we should sue booze companies and the province's own gambling business?
I think not |
|
|
| Skipper |
Cigarette companies are not just producing products that are harmful to human health, and they are not being punished for ONLY that.
It has been proven that tobacco companies have purposely added chemicals to make their cigarettes more addictive, they have marketed "light cigarettes" which lead consumers to believe they are better for you when they most often are not, they kenw their products were harmful from the beginning, but worked very hard to deceive the public of this and they also employed extreme marketing tactics towards young people specifically.
The health warnings that are well known now are only a recent thing - long before we were even born, people were smoking without knowing the full consequences of what they were doing. As I said, the tobacco giants worked very hard at ensuring that this information was not publicized.
I dont know how you can draw a parallel between the actions of tobacco companies and an ordinary, mom and pop business.
My only concern with this decision is that the government could feasibly reap millions of dollars in taxes from the consumers, and then again from the tobacco companies. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
i thought about the precedent factor as well .. but personally i just don't think it'll extend that far into other areas. |
why not? whats stopping them if they win with tobacco? I never thought we'd see the day that they'd be talking about banning outdoor smoking when the first no smoking section was enacted into law. But guess what?
| quote: | | GM won't get sued for selling SUVs that emit carbon gasses, |
they wont? Already i hear about antis trying to ban them. Who says they wont sue as well using this new precedent? | quote: | | however Goodyear will for selling exploding tires, etc. |
as they should be because obviously their product was not functioning properly.
| quote: | | What I (could) see this extending into are towards alcohol companies, which now has a door open to blame. |
whats the difference between alcohol and just about any other business out there? And do you really think the government should be allowed to dictate whats good and whats bad?
| quote: | in the end everyone is responsible for their own actions. they should focus moreso on trying to change the 'culture' associated with smoking rather than trying to smack the wrists of the tobacco companies. if they wanted to do this they might as well have banned tobacco altogether.
|
you are half right. EVERYONE is responsable for THEMSELVES. The government should fund education projects in school about smoking and liquor. Parents should also teach their kids about this. However, once someone reaches 18 they should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to smoke or drink or gamble. Increasingly the government is trying to force their morals on adults and i find that reprehensable. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
Lets face it....in North America smoking is taboo. The guvernment wants to look like it is doing something to prevent people from smoking but the reality is they get a big fat cheque that they wouldn't give up for anything.
I just want to know how the government is going to be able to keep this to only smoking. The reason the tabacco companies are getting singled out is because radical non-smokers are saying that something needs to be done and god forbid we piss this group of people off.
We will never see steps taken against alcohol or automotive companies because these are not considered taboo. I just wonder what kind of actions the tabacco companies will have against the government. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Cigarette companies are not just producing products that are harmful to human health, and they are not being punished for ONLY that.
It has been proven that tobacco companies have purposely added chemicals to make their cigarettes more addictive, they have marketed "light cigarettes" which lead consumers to believe they are better for you when they most often are not, they kenw their products were harmful from the beginning, but worked very hard to deceive the public of this and they also employed extreme marketing tactics towards young people specifically.
The health warnings that are well known now are only a recent thing - long before we were even born, people were smoking without knowing the full consequences of what they were doing. As I said, the tobacco giants worked very hard at ensuring that this information was not publicized.
I dont know how you can draw a parallel between the actions of tobacco companies and an ordinary, mom and pop business. |
big name corperations have added chemicals to foods to make them more flavourful and keep consumers coming back. MSG is known to have detrimental health effects for example. So i guess food companies are next on the list? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
We will never see steps taken against alcohol or automotive companies because these are not considered taboo. I just wonder what kind of actions the tabacco companies will have against the government. |
dont be so sure... smoking was not so taboo 20 years ago. Who says attitudes wont change about other sorts of companies in the near future? |
|
|
|
|
