What do you think about suing tobacco companies? Tue, September 29, 2009
TORONTO - Ontario filed a $50-billion lawsuit today against a group of tobacco companies over the health-care costs tied to smoking.
The suit, which had been planned under legislation introduced in March, claims damages for past and ongoing health-care costs.
The province claims tobacco-related costs currently total more than $1.6 billion per year in Ontario and that smoking accounts for the deaths of about 13,000 Ontario residents annually.
Smoking is not good for anyone.
Ontario, 2009-10-23 03:01:25
I don't trust any stats emanating from Queen's Park...especially when it comes to tobacco! Smoking may not be good for one's health,but the eating of junk food is even more destructive to the human body. Many more people wind up in hospital beds because of ruinous eating habits. They overdosed on sugary products until their bodies conked out. Sue junk food manufacturers!
richard, 2009-10-09 15:46:52
Absolutely stupid, as a smoker I made a choice to smoke, the government choose to tax the hell out of cigaretts. The government should have used those tax dollars and bought some GIC's then they'd have twice the money they are suing for.
And the gas companies too, if they did not produce the gasoline we would not have dangerous drivers. Wake up, is Tweetypie an elected official or what, certainly sounds like his "silly willy" type of crap.
Mike, 2009-10-09 10:08:42
Can I sue the government for to recover the excessive tax dollars they reap from the tobacco industry? heck, they are on board 100%
How about the Gas tax they rape us for considering these oil resources are 'owned' by Canadians?
I'd settle for recovering some of the mismanagement costs they have saddled us with for everything from adscam and e-health and HRDC and frivolous lawsuits and poor planning and the fisheries collapse and the 407 etr and.............
CliffStir, 2009-10-07 16:08:26
A tad hypocritical is an understatement, to say the least.
From this point onward, most dictionaries will have to include "governemts suing tobacco companies" as one of the definitions of hypocritical. The other will be a picture of tweety-pie.
The Crusher, 2009-10-07 12:42:58
We might as well file lawsuits against all the car and truck companies to cover off the costs of injuries from car accidents - after all, people were aware that accidents happen, lets then sue all the restaurants for the costs of looking after overweight people, on second thought we had better include grocery stores in there too. The lawsuit is frivolous and outrageous. There is not a smoker who is not aware that smoking is harmful and was aware of that before they started smoking. I am 58 years old and have been aware of the dangers of smoking since I was a child as has every other adult and child in North America.
To sue the tobacco companies because of a self inflicted disease is no different that suing a gun company because you shot yourself or a car company because you ran into a pole when you were drunk or the grocery store because you are fat. In today’s world we seek all too often to blame others for our troubles and forget that each and every thing that happens to you is as a result of decisions that YOU made and not some one else. If people were to take that leap and become responsible for their own actions and not be continually looking for a surrogate mom or dad to come along and clean up their mess there would likely be a lot less mess.
Bill Kimber, 2009-10-06 14:29:05
It is just a TAD hypocritical. The Canadian government has participated with the tobacco industry on many levels:
1. Packaging laws...cigarettes as with alcohol are exempt from listing content ingredients. You know what you are getting in a box of cereal but not a bottle of beer or a package of cigarettes. This anomaly is LEGISLATED.
2. Agriculture Canada has financed research for both yield enhancement (bushels per hectare) and hybrid studies to increase nicotine content.
3. Agriculture Canada has participated in subsidy programs for tobacco farmers and obviously LICENSED production for farmers that wanted to participate in Agriculture Canada programs.
4. It is a legal product by virtue of legislation.
5. It is taxed up the yin yang as part and parcel of being a legal product and has traditionally being subject to "sin taxes". SOOOOO, the government to place it in the "sin" category HAD to know it was not Omega 3 beneficial.
6. I don't see a huge difference between allowing the sale of tobacco and Big Macs. Over indulgence of either allows you the choice of emhysema or high blood pressure.
7. Teach people that LIFE itself is deadly, we all end up in the same place, how quickly you get there is determined by your own actions.
8. Finally, yah I know you are bored, how about a level playing field...at least subject tobacco to packaging laws and list the additives.
Not_the_Daddy, 2009-10-06 01:26:17
No one forced me to smoke, the Government hasn't done crap to stop it cause there is too much money to be made from it and many would be unemployed.
So no, suing tobacco companies should not be allowed especially when today anti-smoking campaigns are all over the place.
If the government was really concerned about the health care costs, they would shut down the tobacco industry period, make it illegal like marijauna.
Or maybe, we should sue the alcohol companies too, for all those people suffering from liver disease, alcohol poisoning, alcohol addiction and the brutal attacks and verbal ones that come with it!
Evil Momma, 2009-10-05 23:13:17
Lets start educating, and let people make up their own minds and then in turn be responsible for their choices.
Personally all crap that leads to risky living should be taxed hard. This way healthcare can afford to treat you.
Im tired of court costs and , stupid law enforcement cost. We could save an absolute fortune and put the money into what we hold more dear.
Frustrated, 2009-10-03 09:03:37
I personally think this lawsuit is frivolous... The government collects more than 85% in taxes in one way or form from each pack/carton of cigarettes, cigars. The government has known for a long time that smoking is promoting ill health (Mind you my grandmother is 96 years old, been smoking for 70 years and still is kicking butt). And now they want to launch a lawsuit versus and industry that they have been enjoying so much revenue from? It is a voluntary tax; even black market smokes somehow get taxed?!?!?
Max Galvin, 2009-09-30 14:43:47
What do you think about suing tobacco companies?
Smoking is not good for anyone.
Ontario, 2009-10-23 03:01:25
richard, 2009-10-09 15:46:52
And the gas companies too, if they did not produce the gasoline we would not have dangerous drivers. Wake up, is Tweetypie an elected official or what, certainly sounds like his "silly willy" type of crap.
Mike, 2009-10-09 10:08:42
How about the Gas tax they rape us for considering these oil resources are 'owned' by Canadians?
I'd settle for recovering some of the mismanagement costs they have saddled us with for everything from adscam and e-health and HRDC and frivolous lawsuits and poor planning and the fisheries collapse and the 407 etr and.............
CliffStir, 2009-10-07 16:08:26
From this point onward, most dictionaries will have to include "governemts suing tobacco companies" as one of the definitions of hypocritical. The other will be a picture of tweety-pie.
The Crusher, 2009-10-07 12:42:58
To sue the tobacco companies because of a self inflicted disease is no different that suing a gun company because you shot yourself or a car company because you ran into a pole when you were drunk or the grocery store because you are fat. In today’s world we seek all too often to blame others for our troubles and forget that each and every thing that happens to you is as a result of decisions that YOU made and not some one else. If people were to take that leap and become responsible for their own actions and not be continually looking for a surrogate mom or dad to come along and clean up their mess there would likely be a lot less mess.
Bill Kimber, 2009-10-06 14:29:05
1. Packaging laws...cigarettes as with alcohol are exempt from listing content ingredients. You know what you are getting in a box of cereal but not a bottle of beer or a package of cigarettes. This anomaly is LEGISLATED.
2. Agriculture Canada has financed research for both yield enhancement (bushels per hectare) and hybrid studies to increase nicotine content.
3. Agriculture Canada has participated in subsidy programs for tobacco farmers and obviously LICENSED production for farmers that wanted to participate in Agriculture Canada programs.
4. It is a legal product by virtue of legislation.
5. It is taxed up the yin yang as part and parcel of being a legal product and has traditionally being subject to "sin taxes". SOOOOO, the government to place it in the "sin" category HAD to know it was not Omega 3 beneficial.
6. I don't see a huge difference between allowing the sale of tobacco and Big Macs. Over indulgence of either allows you the choice of emhysema or high blood pressure.
7. Teach people that LIFE itself is deadly, we all end up in the same place, how quickly you get there is determined by your own actions.
8. Finally, yah I know you are bored, how about a level playing field...at least subject tobacco to packaging laws and list the additives.
Not_the_Daddy, 2009-10-06 01:26:17
So no, suing tobacco companies should not be allowed especially when today anti-smoking campaigns are all over the place.
If the government was really concerned about the health care costs, they would shut down the tobacco industry period, make it illegal like marijauna.
Or maybe, we should sue the alcohol companies too, for all those people suffering from liver disease, alcohol poisoning, alcohol addiction and the brutal attacks and verbal ones that come with it!
Evil Momma, 2009-10-05 23:13:17
Personally all crap that leads to risky living should be taxed hard. This way healthcare can afford to treat you.
Im tired of court costs and , stupid law enforcement cost. We could save an absolute fortune and put the money into what we hold more dear.
Frustrated, 2009-10-03 09:03:37
Max Galvin, 2009-09-30 14:43:47