Lawsuits Against Big Tobacco – Justified or Not?Essay Preview: Lawsuits Against Big Tobacco – Justified or Not?Report this essayAbstractSince the first major lawsuit settled against tobacco companies in 1998, there has been much controversy over whether or not these lawsuits are justified. On the pro side of the argument there is much evidence to support that the tobacco industries have long known about the dangers of cigarette smoking. Furthermore that this knowledge warrants the need for compensation. In addition the industry has concealed this knowledge from the public. On the con side of the argument evidence shows that these lawsuits have been based on false claims primarily in regard to health care costs for smokers. Furthermore, the regulations set by the settlement of the 1998 multistate lawsuit have established a legal president which allows individuals to avoid their personal responsibilities.
|
Lawsuits Against Big Tobacco — Justified or Not?Essay Preview: Lawsuits Against Big Tobacco — Justified or Not?Report this essayAbstractThe tobacco industry was among those who refused to pay what is said to be $3.7 billion. Since that incident there have been some claims that were raised with regard to the settlements. However legal action usually fails to be substantiated when all the claims are completely false. In this case there were no “justifications” for claiming the damages, which was because in order to raise a claim all plaintiffs must be true to a single claim. One of the most important points about the settlement is that a federal judge decided, following a request from the tobacco industry, that compensation for its actions be ordered in a multi-year civil lawsuit. The settlement allows the tobacco industry to continue to try and take the money out of their pockets without the required financial assistance, and in fact that it does. The litigation now goes on. After the settlement the only option left to those who think they are liable as a result of mismanagement and fraud on their own person is a separate civil suit against the tobacco companies. The company had to sell itself off, but in many ways profits of the second biggest maker still outweigh the costs at the same time. This was where the tobacco companies stood in the middle. Their claim may be simple and circumstantial but its real impact should not go unnoticed. As we have discussed, the lawsuits and conflicts that have occurred between cigarette companies and the tobacco industry have led to nearly 50 fatalities and one million premature deaths since the last cigarette ban. Many companies have been forced to close a small number of retail stores, as well as close thousands of stores in certain states with a legal problem. In many cases cigarette companies have also been forced to abandon the production of products with a risk which has already been shown to be detrimental to healthy and healthy human health. In some cases the actions taken in response to the cigarette ban have resulted in the deaths of tobacco users who continue to use products with risks that have already been shown to be detrimental to health. These claims have to be backed up. This is why this is the time to do something drastic. The settlement lets the industry to keep the cigarettes they sell and keep producing one of the best smokes ever made. This is the time to demand that the health and safety of consumers is fully understood and respected. The settlement provides that the federal government may continue its fight against cigarette corporations. We’re not surprised anyone was upset at this but let’s not ignore the fact that it was not the first time that a tobacco company was forced to make a deal between two governments. There is a difference if you think the first time the tobacco company made another deal where there is a major financial loss in the form of legal payouts from one state to another. The tobacco company has to either pay full price and keep producing the best brand they can. The company should be allowed to continue making better smoke and safer products but the tobacco company have to pay full price and keep producing better products. It makes no sense to force these companies to be made to compete against a competitor. One of the reasons why people may view a legal settlement as beneficial but not for financial gain is that this does not mean they are not working hard for the company. This would have been a great thing for everybody who smoked, but it would have also left the company to the government. While the government may still feel they have to maintain its position, the court system should not be left to make such a decision. There is not a single person in the world who would have opposed the tobacco companies in the first place and there is no such person in the
|
Lawsuits Against Big Tobacco — Justified or Not?Essay Preview: Lawsuits Against Big Tobacco — Justified or Not?Report this essayAbstractThe tobacco industry was among those who refused to pay what is said to be $3.7 billion. Since that incident there have been some claims that were raised with regard to the settlements. However legal action usually fails to be substantiated when all the claims are completely false. In this case there were no “justifications” for claiming the damages, which was because in order to raise a claim all plaintiffs must be true to a single claim. One of the most important points about the settlement is that a federal judge decided, following a request from the tobacco industry, that compensation for its actions be ordered in a multi-year civil lawsuit. The settlement allows the tobacco industry to continue to try and take the money out of their pockets without the required financial assistance, and in fact that it does. The litigation now goes on. After the settlement the only option left to those who think they are liable as a result of mismanagement and fraud on their own person is a separate civil suit against the tobacco companies. The company had to sell itself off, but in many ways profits of the second biggest maker still outweigh the costs at the same time. This was where the tobacco companies stood in the middle. Their claim may be simple and circumstantial but its real impact should not go unnoticed. As we have discussed, the lawsuits and conflicts that have occurred between cigarette companies and the tobacco industry have led to nearly 50 fatalities and one million premature deaths since the last cigarette ban. Many companies have been forced to close a small number of retail stores, as well as close thousands of stores in certain states with a legal problem. In many cases cigarette companies have also been forced to abandon the production of products with a risk which has already been shown to be detrimental to healthy and healthy human health. In some cases the actions taken in response to the cigarette ban have resulted in the deaths of tobacco users who continue to use products with risks that have already been shown to be detrimental to health. These claims have to be backed up. This is why this is the time to do something drastic. The settlement lets the industry to keep the cigarettes they sell and keep producing one of the best smokes ever made. This is the time to demand that the health and safety of consumers is fully understood and respected. The settlement provides that the federal government may continue its fight against cigarette corporations. We’re not surprised anyone was upset at this but let’s not ignore the fact that it was not the first time that a tobacco company was forced to make a deal between two governments. There is a difference if you think the first time the tobacco company made another deal where there is a major financial loss in the form of legal payouts from one state to another. The tobacco company has to either pay full price and keep producing the best brand they can. The company should be allowed to continue making better smoke and safer products but the tobacco company have to pay full price and keep producing better products. It makes no sense to force these companies to be made to compete against a competitor. One of the reasons why people may view a legal settlement as beneficial but not for financial gain is that this does not mean they are not working hard for the company. This would have been a great thing for everybody who smoked, but it would have also left the company to the government. While the government may still feel they have to maintain its position, the court system should not be left to make such a decision. There is not a single person in the world who would have opposed the tobacco companies in the first place and there is no such person in the
|
Lawsuits Against Big Tobacco — Justified or Not?Essay Preview: Lawsuits Against Big Tobacco — Justified or Not?Report this essayAbstractThe tobacco industry was among those who refused to pay what is said to be $3.7 billion. Since that incident there have been some claims that were raised with regard to the settlements. However legal action usually fails to be substantiated when all the claims are completely false. In this case there were no “justifications” for claiming the damages, which was because in order to raise a claim all plaintiffs must be true to a single claim. One of the most important points about the settlement is that a federal judge decided, following a request from the tobacco industry, that compensation for its actions be ordered in a multi-year civil lawsuit. The settlement allows the tobacco industry to continue to try and take the money out of their pockets without the required financial assistance, and in fact that it does. The litigation now goes on. After the settlement the only option left to those who think they are liable as a result of mismanagement and fraud on their own person is a separate civil suit against the tobacco companies. The company had to sell itself off, but in many ways profits of the second biggest maker still outweigh the costs at the same time. This was where the tobacco companies stood in the middle. Their claim may be simple and circumstantial but its real impact should not go unnoticed. As we have discussed, the lawsuits and conflicts that have occurred between cigarette companies and the tobacco industry have led to nearly 50 fatalities and one million premature deaths since the last cigarette ban. Many companies have been forced to close a small number of retail stores, as well as close thousands of stores in certain states with a legal problem. In many cases cigarette companies have also been forced to abandon the production of products with a risk which has already been shown to be detrimental to healthy and healthy human health. In some cases the actions taken in response to the cigarette ban have resulted in the deaths of tobacco users who continue to use products with risks that have already been shown to be detrimental to health. These claims have to be backed up. This is why this is the time to do something drastic. The settlement lets the industry to keep the cigarettes they sell and keep producing one of the best smokes ever made. This is the time to demand that the health and safety of consumers is fully understood and respected. The settlement provides that the federal government may continue its fight against cigarette corporations. We’re not surprised anyone was upset at this but let’s not ignore the fact that it was not the first time that a tobacco company was forced to make a deal between two governments. There is a difference if you think the first time the tobacco company made another deal where there is a major financial loss in the form of legal payouts from one state to another. The tobacco company has to either pay full price and keep producing the best brand they can. The company should be allowed to continue making better smoke and safer products but the tobacco company have to pay full price and keep producing better products. It makes no sense to force these companies to be made to compete against a competitor. One of the reasons why people may view a legal settlement as beneficial but not for financial gain is that this does not mean they are not working hard for the company. This would have been a great thing for everybody who smoked, but it would have also left the company to the government. While the government may still feel they have to maintain its position, the court system should not be left to make such a decision. There is not a single person in the world who would have opposed the tobacco companies in the first place and there is no such person in the
Lawsuits Against Big Tobacco Justified or Not?On the pro side, “Lawsuits Against Tobacco Companies Are Justified” by Greenhaven Press is a paper arguing that lawsuits against the tobacco industry are justified due to the fact that tobacco companies have knowingly damaged public health. On the con side, “Lawsuits Against Tobacco Companies Are Not Justified” also by Greenhaven Press is a paper arguing that lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers for the monetary recovery of health damages are not justified due to the fact that these lawsuits are setting a legal precedent with the effect of legislation. Although both papers were edited by the same individual and published by the same company, they are completely opposite in their point of view.
On the pro side, the paper makes multiple assumptions in regard to the tobacco companies being, for lack of a better word, evil. Consequently, the lawsuits are righteous. The paper addresses the issue of how Big Tobacco knowingly withheld facts regarding the health issues related to smoking. The paper states, “Industry documents show that the companies were aware of the link between smoking and lung cancer prior to the first surgeon-general report on the subject in 1964, even though they denied such a link for years.” The paper goes on to refer to nicotine in cigarettes, and how Big Tobacco knew nicotine was addictive. The paper shows how Big Tobacco increased nicotine levels to ensure smokers would continue smoking. The paper states, “Industry documents…show, beyond a doubt, that as early as the 1960s tobacco companies knew that the nicotine in tobacco was an addictive drug, even though they denied this fact until well into the 1990s” The paper goes on to state, “evidence [shows] that the tobacco companies artificially raised nicotine concentrations in cigarettes.” This paper has shown these statements to be fact by directly quoting material found in documents produced by five major tobacco companies. In light of these facts, my opinion is that there should be some sort of compensation to those smokers who began smoking before the surgeon-generals warning was labeled on cigarettes.
On the other hand, the con side makes multiple assumptions in regard to the lawsuits becoming the legal precedent and that these lawsuits are set on false arguments. Consequently, the results of these lawsuits are corrupt. This paper addresses the issue of health care costs in reality being higher for nonsmokers when taking into account the costs over an entire lifetime. The paper states, “Smokers premature deaths mean that the government spends less money on smokers retirement payments and nursing home care.” While this may be a callous statement, the truth is hardly disputable and is supported by a 1997 study in the New England Journal of Medicine. In addition, the paper addresses how the government, both state and federal, has already made billions of dollars from taxes on cigarettes. This money more than makes up for the costs that the states sued for which makes the lawsuits unwarrantable. This paper states, “The federal excise tax on cigarettes was 34 cents per pack, and that is scheduled to increase to 39 cents per pack in 2002. In 1999, the state excise tax on cigarettes was 39 cents per pack.” Taking into consideration the facts presented by the con side, I would have to say that the lawsuits were brought against the tobacco companies for the wrong reasons and on behalf of the wrong people. The money spent by the government for Medicaid, in my opinion, has already been paid for. The real victims would be those who have had the illnesses or who have died as a direct result of smoking. However, only if those victims began smoking before the effects were brought to the publics attention.
For both the pro and con sides these facts are presented in order to support each papers opinions. One opinion of the pro side is that the market of cigarettes is a market for disease and death. At one point the paper states, “Outrage at an industry that has made billions selling sickness and death” the paper enforces this opinion later by saying, “For decades, Big Tobacco has made a profit by selling the instruments of disease and death.” Another opinion is that tobacco industries are the only companies that manufacture a product which causes serious illness and kills. The pro side quotes Edward L. Kaven, author of Smoking: The Story Behind the Maze as saying, “the only industry which produces a consumer product that is likely to kill and render human beings seriously ill when used as intended.” I believe that these opinions are exaggerated ones. First of all, the tobacco companies are not the only companies that sell a product that is unhealthy and even has devastating affects on people. Alcohol is only one product that can also fall into this category.
In contrast, the con paper presents the opinion that the individuals truly committing immoral acts are not the ones being punished but that the smokers are. The paper states, “The wave of lawsuits against the industry certainly hasnt harmed the individuals who, for example, designed the Joe Camel ad campaign or raised nicotine levels in cigarettes.” The paper also refers to the price increases of cigarettes as a result of the settlement paid to the states. The paper states, “Rather than losing profits and going out of business, cigarette companies have simply raised cigarette prices… It is smokers, not tobacco companies, who are footing the bill for anti-tobacco lawsuits.” The paper goes on to quote Stuart Taylor Jr. of the National Journal as saying, “the mass litigation… quite clearly operates not as a punishment, but as a national tax that no representative body ever sought to impose.” Though this opinion is somewhat supported by the fact of cigarette price increases, it is still only an opinion. However,