Smoking is a controversial subject in most recent history. It dates back as early as 5000 BC. In the 16th century, Europeans arrived and cultivated the crops used for cigars. Mass production started by having more efficient factories which lead to the increased availability of cigarettes. The contention began when science revealed the negative effects of smoking in the 1980’s eventually condemning the practice thereafter. What is striking is that the tobacco companies were targeted harshly more so than other industries. It is true that smoking indeed has adverse health effects however, there are some benefits to it which are not widely advertised. For example, in a state of alkalosis, patients that are given a cigarette reduces hyperventilation. Further, there are numerous studies which detail those cigarettes reduce the risk of Parkinson’s disease. Specifically, Harvard scientist discovered and published an article in Neurology in March 2007 revealing that smokers were less likely to have the disease. Smoking also acts as a way to reduce weight. A study found that nicotine, the substance contained in cigarettes acts as a stimulant for the hypothalamus which then supresses appetite. In 2005, a study published by the American Heart Journal indicated that smokers who have had heart attacks, have lower mortality rates. Further, a study by Korean researchers published an article in the journal Thrombosis Research in 2010 specified that something in cigarette smoke activates proteins called cytochromes which are then used to convert clopidogrel a drug used to lower the risk of stroke.
With all these health benefits, why is it that the tobacco companies have been painted in such bad light in the 21st century? In fact, the damaged reputation of some of these companies have been irreparable. Such is the case when tobacco companies experienced such incidents as in the class action law suite in Quebec involving Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans Benson & Hedges and JTI-MacDonald to pay for punitive and moral damages groups comprising about one million people. With all this in mind, it becomes evident that what has occurred with the tobacco industry is interest groups pooled their agency to depict tobacco companies in a negative light which then caused mass media herding and evidently resulted in the tainted image of these companies. What is interesting to note however, is that these tobacco companies were specifically sought out and sued. As mentioned earlier herein, why is it that tobacco companies were prosecuted in this manner? Why has there been preferential treatment? For example. There are many foods that have significant health effects which can potentially cause health problems just as tobacco does. These junk foods are filled with fats, sodium and other additives which are designed to inflate people so they consume more product. It is clear that parts of North America have a problem with obesity. In fact, according to the CDC obesity prevalence was 42.4% in 2017- 2018. What is clear here is that the government has given some industries preferential treatment. Why is it that when fast food chains get sued for obesity, it is not sensationalized? The evidence of preferential treatment comes with the fact that there is not a tax for junk food in the same manner as the government has been consistently profiteering from taxation of tobacco companies since their inception. I think the future of tobacco companies is to be able to start action against the government for such preferential treatment. The business of tobacco has been decimated and clearly the interest groups have ruined it for these companies but also the many indigenous workers that are employed. Isn’t it part of the Canadian identity to ensure and see to it that we protect our heritage. With tobacco companies supporting such cause to pool the agency of and supporting their indigenous employees, in a counter action towards predatory government practices towards the commodity of tobacco, tobacco companies will be in a position to regain much of what they lost.
As it pertains to “failure to warn,” there was a law suite against multiple alcohol companies (Miller Brewing Company, Anheuser-Busch Co., Adolph Coors Co., Brown-Furman Co., American Brands Inc., Pepsi-Cola, RJR Nabisco, Gallo’s Winery, Ernest Gallo and Julio Gallo) in 2012 specifically pertaining to the specified matter. The lawsuit was a product liability claim which theorized that the companies failed to adequately warn its customers that their products were addictive. The courts claim that there is a flaw in the argument because it would be impractical for alcohol companies to create warning labels to address the dangers of alcohol consumption. However, the flaw in that is that it has already been done with tobacco companies. “In January 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the complaint with prejudice”.
With the foregoing, it becomes clear that there is preferential treatment, and the tobacco companies received the brunt of it all resulting in a decimated industry. As it pertains to negligence, there must be four factors that constitute it, damage, standard, duty to care and causation (Yates 2017) with regards to the alcohol and junk food. It is very clear that a standard is not being met, a standard of labelling that was established with the tobacco companies. Clearly there has been damages from consumption, the causation, of the aforementioned including obesity, liver damage, addiction amongst others. Doesn’t the government have a duty to care? What is established here is the negligence of the government to protect the public interest. There needs to be more taxation and labelling of such commodities as is the case with the tobacco companies.
What many people do not realize is that these three are very connected. People consume food and at the time during it they have alcohol. Once they are finished, these people then consume a cigarette. The food- alcohol- and nicotine connection is something that is practiced by millions of people around the world because they derive pleasure from it.
Work Cited
Yates, R., et al. (2017). Business Law in Canada. Ontario, Canada. Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment