Tobacco Companies Should Not Be

Tobacco Companies Should Not Be Held for Smoking Related Illnesses and Deaths

While certainly court litigation, rules and laws are important in the area of consumer products, the legal question of whether tobacco companies are responsible for smoking related illnesses and deaths, the work of Richman (1996) entitled: "Escape from Responsibility" states that the implicit lesson taught be the welfare state is that "you are not responsible for yourself. You will be taken care of. The 'safety net' will catch you if you fall." These ethics not surprisingly 'spill over into the legal system..." As increasingly the system is 'used in novel ways to pervert the notion of responsibility." (Richman, 1996)

This is true certainly in the case of tobacco use as individuals have successfully sued the tobacco companies for damages they suffered in relation to their smoking habit. In 1985, Chambers reported that a jury sitting on the case of John M. Galbraith, a chain smoker who had died due to lung cancer and whose family had sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company found in the company's favor and that 147 cases following Galbraith had been won by the tobacco companies. However, this work in writing examines this question and concludes with a greater question that should be addressed in the work of scholars and academics in the study of producer product liabilities.

I. Free Will and Smoking

It is reported by Health Promotion International in the document entitled: "Individual vs. Corporate Responsibility for Smoking-Related illness: Australian press Coverage of the Rolah McCabe Trial" that smoking "is a choice: no one forces people to smoke. Citizens should be responsible individuals who accept they are ultimately accountable for their health and well-being." (2003) Richman reported in 1996 that Massachusetts and several other states were "suing the tobacco industry to recover money spent by their Medicare program on people who suffer smoking-related illnesses" upon the theoretical bases that "the cigarette companies caused these people to become ill, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars; hence, they should reimburse the state." (Richman, 1996)

Richman states that there is "A host of problems with the theory. First, the tobacco companies don't force anyone to smoke. People choose to do so. Moreover, people quit every day; there are more ex-smokers in America than smokers. Advocates of those lawsuits say the tobacco companies withhold information about the risks of smoking. But that doesn't wash. People have long known that smoking entails risks." (Richman, 1996) Indeed, free will means that people can choose to consume alcohol, fatty foods and to smoke tobacco. It does not seem rational that tobacco companies should be sued for the individual having exercised their own free will in choosing to smoke tobacco.

II. Interesting Fact about Tobacco and Prevention of Immune Response System Diseases

A report published by Sciencentral entitled: "Good Nicotine" relates that immunologist Luis Ulloa reports that study findings demonstrate that tobacco has been found to have the capacity to effectively:

"...reverse the condition called sepsis, which kills some 250,000 Americans a year. Typically, when your body responds to an infection, immune cells send out chemical messengers called cytokines. Some of these cytokines force your blood to clot, which ensures that the threatening material doesn't spread throughout the body." (Sciencentral, 2006)

This leads to the question naturally of whether the tobacco companies should receive a monetary reward for their products having potentially combated this many deaths each year? Ulloa also reports that individuals with sepsis earlier stages:

"...may feel confused, have a fever and rapid heart rate, and develop a rash. Sepsis is often confused with other conditions and treating the underlying infection with antibiotics misses the root of the problem. It's your own immune response who is killing you. So your own immune response becomes so strong that it's attacking the cardiovascular system and it's able to cause multiple organ failure." (Sciencentral, 2006)

Sepsis is not the only immune response system disease that cigarette smoking has been credited for protection the individual from developing as it is additionally it is reported by Ulla that those who consume cigarettes are "...less prone to another disease of the immune system, ulcerative colitis. This inflammatory disease attacks the digestive system, but was found to affect a disproportionate number of non-smokers." (Sciencentral, 2006)

III. The Functions of Tobacco Litigation

The work of Vernick, Rutkow and Teret (2007) state in the work entitled: "Public Health Benefits of Recent Litigation Against the Tobacco Industry" states that the litigation against the tobacco industry "...as with lawsuits involving other dangerous products...can serve several important functions." (Vernick, Rutkow and Teret, (2007) Those are stated as follows: (1) Lawsuits can compensate individuals harmed by the product; and (2) Lawsuits can serve a public health purpose by encouraging manufacturers to change their products, sales, or marketing strategies to reduce risks. Information obtained in litigation also can be used to support future regulatory action." (Vernick, Rutkow and Teret, 2007)

Summary and Conclusion