The Cipollone Vs. Liggett Group, Inc. Case Against Three Tobacco Companies

The tobacco industry has one of the most unethical approaches when it comes to marketing and social responsibility in business. Tobacco has been around for many years and despite its dangerous effects on consumers their marketing approach and unethical behavior does not seem to be changing. Tobacco companies have also failed to live up to social responsibilities in the communities regardless of its capital gains and profit.

Every year, tobacco companies spend billions of dollars on advertising and promotion. Not only that but they are causing deaths of many. They try to get people of all ages to use their product. Unfortunately, this works, after a while this causes many serious issues to the body, their addiction kicks in causing the tobacco business to flourish, and causes young deaths of many kids and adults. Overall tobacco companies are causing deaths by the tobacco use and people need to know the serious topics around this.

Since 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

Tobacco has existed for long as we have known about history, but due to the negative effects of it to the broader community Tobacco has sparked greater controversy across the globe. Many people argue that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the individual but on the contrary some disagree and believe it’s up to the individual. This essay will elaborate above mentioned aspects and lead to a logical conclusion.

However our concern here is not only about the cigarette as a product but with the ethics of cigarettes as well, that affect the social process of marketing. This is because marketing process makes things worse and is also considered as unethical, and as a result has a significant negative impact on the societal welfare. Multinational tobacco companies apply sophisticated strategies ( such as putting flavor in the cigarettes and placing cigarettes in the shops near the sweets to make them more appealing) and invest huge amounts of money for marketing, in order to establish brand familiarity and future loyalty among young peoplem, to secure profits in the long run. 'The tobacco epidemic is a man-made international health crisis, created and sustained by multinational tobacco corporations.' (Yach, Brinchmann, Bellet page 2).

By allowing the FDA to regulate the chemicals in cigarettes and outlaw a majority of flavorings it would help in reducing the number of children that would be enticed to try cigarettes. This in turn would save money on health care and many people would live longer more productive cancer free lives.

It has been proven that smoking is the cause of 30% of general cancer deaths and 80% of lung cancer deaths in the U.S. Lung cancer has also been found to be the biggest cause of cancer deaths among breast cancer, prostate cancer, and ovarian cancer. This year alone, 190,500 of about 600,900 cancer deaths will be caused by smoking tobacco. This means that one in every three cancer patients will die due to tobacco products. In fact, smoking tobacco caused such high amounts of lung cancer that tobacco companies are legally required to include a surgeon general’s warning that outlines the potential of developing cancer on their packaging. The numbers and warnings of smoking-related lung cancer can be seen everywhere from statistics to the companies themselves being held liable for the illnesses their products

The United States is believed to be a free country, not monocracy. No one wants the government to charge them extra for the snacks they decide to eat. People want to make the choice to be healthy on their own. The choice is up to the individual it is not the governments` choice to make. No matter how much more the taxes the government puts on junk and fatty food, it will not stop people from eating them. 2.

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada on the subject of smoking is the main topic of my articles. The landmark ruling made on September 30th gives the province of British Columbia ammunition against big tobacco companies. "The decision allows British Columbia to sue tobacco companies for damages related to smoking-related health care costs dating back 50 years" (Bell Globalmedia Inc [BGMI], 2005). Many expect the ruling in BC will act as a model for other provinces to follow suit. The resulting lawsuits could potentially cost Canadian tobacco companies like Benson & Hedges, Imperial Tobacco, and Rothmans hundreds of billions of dollars. Similar

Courts use a risk/utility analysis to determine whether the risks associated with certain inherently unsafe products are reasonable. To make the determination, courts weigh the availability of safer alternatives and whether the risks of using the product outweigh that product's utility. The myriad of lawsuits against tobacco companies certainly raise this issue to a point of controversy.

Tobacco has been the center of much controversy in America since the late twentieth century. Increasing numbers of studies showing the harmful side effects of tobacco has also caused many insurance companies to increase coverage costs to those who use the product. Insurance rates have a directly proportional relationship with risk factors, so the increase in coverage costs of tobacco users means that they have a higher risk of health complications. The raising of insurance rates is a safety net for the company to protect their stock. On average, individuals who use tobacco products in Florida often pay twenty dollars more per month than individuals who do not

Now, more than ever, more and more people are beginning to look at tobacco use as a major public health concern. It is nineteen ninety nine, and the number of smokers is rising while the average age of smoking initiation decreases. There are those that believe using tobacco of any type should be illegal, or at least restricted. Others believe it is up to the person to choose whether to use tobacco products or not, however most of these people believe tobacco companies should warn their customers of their products harmful affects.

It takes two puffs from an inhaler, every day at six in the morning for my sister to bring equilibrium to her life and asthma in order to live through a normal day. If she doesn’t incorporate this into her daily routine, she is essentially to be bedridden until she does so, no exception. The inhaler that she carries in her purse has become as essential to her life as her desire to breathe freely. The symptoms worsen as her airways are exposed to any kid of second hand smoke, cold air, or pollen. All though manufacturing smoking cigarettes and alcohol, and guns is not illegal since their bona fide use is ultimately not centered around harm. Irving Coffman, a dilettante in the social effects of the manufacturing of legal but harmful products, introduces his sentiment on manufacturers responsibility to the general harm caused by their products by sharing the ongoing action by some cigarette manufacturers to recompense society for the effects being perpetuated by their products. Coffman correlates the actions between the tobacco companies to the responsibility of all other companies of all legal but harmful products to do the same.

During week six the class discussed a case titled Should E-Cigarettes be regulated? This article brought up different feelings that have been bottled up for the last ten months. The reason for these feelings is due to e-cigarettes assisting with cutting cigarettes out my life forever. quit a twelve-year habit of smoking cigarettes. From reading this chapter I changed my views greatly. By reading this chapter I can determine if the rights of the consumers are being met with the distribution of e-cigarettes and to whether they should be regulated. The primary step is the right to be informed. When it comes to the e-cigarettes I feel that the consumers are not informed of what can happen to them after long exposure to the use of e-cigarettes.

Does the corporation decision respect the canons of justice or fairness to all parties involved? The answer to this question is no. The fact the tobacco industry in general, has misled the public on the addictive qualities of cigarettes. For years the industry has with held information on the health risk involved with smoking. So the tobacco companies have not been fair to their consumers, especially in the international markets, where the standards are much lower. Are there critical factors that justify the violation of a canon of justice? There are no critical factors that would justify the tobacco industry to mislead and take advantage of the disadvantaged people who live in third world countries. Reject the decision. I do believe adults should have the right to make informed choices about the risks they do or do not want to take. I believe that the manufacturers of products that present health risks have a responsibility to help the government provide the public with the information necessary to make informed choices. Here is where I feel the tobacco industry is wrong. To protect profits, the tobacco industry has misinformed the public on the harmful qualities of smoking. Our government has stepped in to protect us from being taken advantage of. Some of the responsibility of protecting the rights of individuals in these third world countries falls on their government.