Sunday, January 6, 2013

Tobacco companies to apologize for killing 1,200 per day

It took 13 years in SF Bay Area, but a federal judge found that tobacco companies lied about the dangers of smoking. Gee - you think? Part of the remedy is an order that "the tobacco companies to pay for corrective statements on cigarette packs, in print and on TV, radio and the Internet. The statements also must disclose smoking's health effects, including the death on average of 1,200 people a day." [Judge ponders tobacco apology in stores].

It seems odd that this is the worse that can happen for poisoning humans. If a company was selling a product that similarly damaged the  health of other animals, e.g., dogs, there would be a ban on the sales. Maybe that is the price to be paid for free will. Arguably though cigarettes produce an addiction that overrides free will.

But as long as someone makes a profit - this product will not be banned irrespective of the danger and damage it causes. And interestingly enough the smoker in a sense contributes monetarily to his or her continued addiction. Tobacco companies 'kickback'  cash from tobacco revenue to the cigarette seller. E.g., an "owner of 50 stores in Indiana [...] received nearly $1.8 million in payments in one year, in addition to free promotional displays and fixtures, according to court documents."

And the retail sellers are fighting the "possibility that retailers could be required to post large displays with the mea culpas." Why because it would cut into their profits and "the possibility the displays would commandeer their most valuable selling space and imply their own guilt-by-association."

Of course they are guilty and of course they care little about the fact that those cigarettes are killing "on average of 1,200 people a day." People will do anything to make a profit irrespective of what ill effect it may have on those that buy the product. Man is not a moral animal.

Is the cigarette seller any different from the drug dealers who might well be selling their poison in front of the seller's store? Isn't it a good argument that cigarettes are worse, at least in its health ill effects, than the illicit drugs?

Oh, but let us worry about harmful car emissions.