why aren't alcohol companies targeted for major lawsuits like tobacco companies?
150039
It's all about doing what makes money. The general public sees the Tobacco companies as the "bad guys". You have a better chance of winning a lawsuit against the cancer causing socially unacceptable yucky tobacco company than against the good-time, party, just having fun Alcohol brewers.
789627
There are too many lawsuits to be listed here.  You can find some at http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/attorneys.htm\n\nThe reason we never hear about the anti-depressant kids involved in school shootings is that the pharmaceutical industry would lose a lot of money since parents would take their kids off of it.  \n\nThe medical establishment works closely with the drug multinationals whose main objective is profits, and whose worst nightmare would be an epidemic of good health. Lots of drugs MUST be sold. In order to achieve this, anything goes: lies, fraud, and kickbacks. Doctors are the principal salespeople of the drug companies. They are rewarded with research grants, gifts, and lavish perks. The principal buyers are the public - from infants to the elderly - who MUST be thoroughly medicated and vaccinated...at any cost! Why do the authorities forbid alternative medicine? Because they are serving the industry, and the industry cannot make money with herbs, vitamins, and homeopathy. They cannot patent natural remedies. That is why they push synthetics. They control medicine, and that is why they are able to tell medical schools what they can and cannot teach.\n\nThere are many, many things kept from the public.  This is just one.
205239
You cant penalize them, it says clearly on the box that smoking causes cancer... So the tobacco companies cant be sued.... So if you get lung cancer from smoking, its your own dumb fault for starting in the 1st place..
676456
Yes...Maybe not legal to sell, but to smoke. I would hate the taxing on it, and the potency or effect would be screwed up with all the chemicals that they use for tobacco and $hit. I think just not busting people for smoking it would be nice. Both Alcohol and Tobacco cause more deaths than Marijuana. No one has died from Marijuana unless they had been allergic to it or something, or it was laced. The only deaths from Marijuana are the mental incapability ones, and Alcohol still tops those...So it should be legalized, but in the end that may do more harm then good.
239213
I would disagree with that. We live in a very litigious society and companies are sued all the time. In general the courts favor the consumer and corporations end up paying millions if not billions in damages to people every year. In my opinion most of these people are just looking for someone to blame for their problems and see suing the company as a way to make a fast buck. I know that their are people out there with legitimate claims and they should be compensated when the company is clearly wrong. But too many consumers are abusing the legal system to make a profit.
1162666
Until this country begins to have integrity in all of its laws, there is no way to have fairness on this issue. If smoking IS as hazardous as it seems, then, it should be made illegal completely. But our country is so diverse, and proud of our diversity, that we cannot come to a concensus on anything and, therefore, we have contradictory feelings on many issues. \n\nDe-legalizing tobacco/smoking would have a devastating effect on the tobacco industry, which is made up of individual farmers, factory workers, and retailers whose loss of income would substantially effect the rest of the economy. Eventually, they would be reabsorped  into the workforce in other jobs, but until then, their problems would become our problems. Do we want to support them through this time?\n\nAnd criminalizing tobacco use would create an underground industry to provide tobacco products to those who still desired to have them, just as "rum running" and moonshine appeared at the time of Prohibition. Are we prepared to pay to combat this "criminal activity"?  \n\nIMHO, we are attempting to legislate something that should be a personal moral decision. If every smoker would care more about the right of non-smokers to breathe, if every alcohol consumer would care about the other people who are on the roadways and byways, if all users of illegal drugs would see the damage they are doing to themselves and others... Unfortunately, since these people refuse to respect the rights of others, claiming only their own "rights", we must make laws that are "unfair" to some in order to protect others. That means that even though smoking is a legal activity, smokers will have to be restricted by law from smoking where an innocent bystander may be harmed.
792020
i agree.\nthere are plenty of nasty illegal drugs, that people abuse and put added strain on the health services, \njust because alcohol is legal, it doesn't stop it being as destructive and an equally abused drug.\n\ni heard the other day that alcohol will b getting health-warnings, but the alcohol companies r busy finding ways 2 stop it.\n\ni'd rather b trapped in a lift with some1 with a bad case of tourettes than an alcoholic!
524731
No lawsuit.  So for the time being, parents are no longer responsible for controlling the content of entertainment viewed by their children as long as tobacco is involved.  It's only a matter of time until someone convinces a judge that parents aren't responsible for content involving alcohol either.  Someday we won't be responsible for anything.
178590
Not all alcohol is legal.  Absinthe and moonshine are both still illegal due to the lethality.  Some it might be due to taxes, but in reality I think it has more to do with the majority of us who vote don't want it legal.
312749
Because the government cant make money off it. Pot and alcohol basically do the same thing(impair your mental processing). Pot is easy to get/grow so there isn't alot of money to be made by Washington, alcohol however is a little harder and expensive to make (other than moonshine) so the government can make hundreds of millions of dollars from alcohol taxes.
991337
I believe that anyone that acts in an irresponsible manner with their own health should be fully responsible for any costs associated with repairing said health. This would include smokers who get lung disease, cancer etc., extreme sports persons who do not take the appropriate cautions, drinkers that drink to excess and cause themselves harm via liver damage and the such and any other avoidable personal harm. If people were more accountable for their own actions, then perhaps our health care would be able to help those who do not willfully attract personal harm such as children with cancer. Another side effect of a system like this may be to drastically reduce the number of smokers and drinkers and risk takers; they would think twice about doing these things that may harm them.\nJust my two cents.
924092
Probably not enough. The anti-smoking campaigns claim health concerns as their sole motive, and I believe this for about half of the supporters. The other half need someone to whom they can feel superior, someone they can kick around. In the south for years it was blacks, in Europe it has always been the Jews.\n\n"But this is different. Smoking is bad for you and harms other people." True. Part of freedom is the freedom to make stupid choices. The marketplace usually sorts things out pretty well. Delta Airlines banned smoking on all of its flights without a law requiring it, Westin Hotels has done the same, about half the restaurants in my home town ban smoking. This is called making a choice. "It harms other people" is not on as sound a scientific ground as the "smoking nazis" would like you to believe. They quote statistics that make it sound as though there's a 40% chance that a non-smoker living with a smoker will get lung cancer, when in fact the probability of a non-smoker not living with a smoker getting lung cancer is infintessimal, and the probability when living with a smoker is infintessimal times 1.4.\n\nNew York City is contemplating an ordnance that would restrict what ingredients restaurants may use in meals not based on safety (sure they prohibit arsenic) but on whether the ingredients are healthy for you. Private companies have gotten court approval to fire employees who smoke off the job in their own homes. As written, Ohio's Issue Five will ban smoking in many private homes.\n\nTobacco is not the primary cause of preventable illness in the U.S.: obesity is. Watch out, once tobacco is gone the overweight will become the target for those who know better than you do what is good for you. Obese people consume health care resources that could go to others, they cause gas mileage to go down contributing to global warming, they require that furniture be designed to support loads that otherwise would not be required thus raising the cost of chairs, sofas and beds - the list goes on. The obese will be the next target.\n\nHow about unprotected sex? If a company can fire an employee because she or he engages in activity off the job, in the employee's own home, that may be dangerous to the employee's health, then they must have the right to prohibit unprotected sex. The rationale that the private activity might raise the employer's cost of providing health insurance applies here.\n\nSo, how many people will vote to keep smoking accessible? Probably not enough.\n\nA non-smoker Libertarian
70121
Be very carefull, large companies will take and use your patent whatever and make you fight them, they can have much deeper pockets than you. Coke did it to a guy I know, he came up with the design for the plastic bottles so they would not have to keep using the glued on bottom. They took his idea and he had to get financial help to battle them and did win in the end. Corporations have no morals, just look at what is happening in the world, were corporate slaves.  xoffice.com
257019
yes i believe that it should since there is no proof of it doing harm. Umlike drinking and driving there are very few if any proven pot related accidents or deaths due to much consumption. Also it can be good ofr medicanl purposes that have been medicaly proven. Here is some food for thought. If the governmant leagalized it and packaked/Sold it as they tobbaco industry does cigarettes do you think we would have the financial deficit that we are in? Also have you ever heard of second hand marijuana smoke having the harmful impct that cigarettes do? As far as it bieng a "gateway' drug that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard! You make the choices you make cos you want to not because well it started w....People need to take responsabilty for their actions and choices not cop outs!
1074883
Because they're all American companies!\nWho's gonna make it stick?\n\nBut I do agree with you they should be prosecuted, before the first ones infected die, but I very much doubt it will happen!\nMaybe it was orchestrated by the drugs companies, they've benefiting from the spread of Aids.
462487
Are you talking about the smokers that have died?\n\n"Smoking Kills \n\nEvery year, more then 400,000 American deaths are attributed to smoking. It’s banned in restaurants, workplaces and other public areas. It’s illegal for cigarettes to be sold to anyone under 18. Yet even with all the loss of customers by death, tobacco companies still manage to make a profit. \n\nHow do they do it? There are numerous laws against smoking. In 1998, a law passed that made it illegal to smoke in bars. An internal Philip Morris document states, "[The] financial impact of smoking bans will be tremendous - three to five fewer cigarettes per day per smoker will reduce annual manufacturer profits a billion dollars plus per year." In an effort to keep their customers smoking, the companies trick the public with lies and loopholes. Their goal is to slow the antismoking movement and keep people smoking—to get more profits. \n\nWhat about the health of non-smokers? Reports from 1993 state second-hand smoke causes lung cancer and respiratory diseases. The same findings have been concluded by a hundred other major studies, and still the tobacco industry says the results are flawed. \n\nA Philip Morris inside report from 1987 discussed how anti-smoking movements and price increases prevented 600,000 teens from taking up smoking. In 1979, a memo noted that “Marlboro dominates in the 17 and younger age category…” and in ’78 “…the base of our business is the high school student…”. Even with these companies’ lies and tricks to get around antismoking laws, they still try to sell their products to children. Who could blame them, considering their product kills more than 2,000 of their American customers a day? They need to replace these consumers quickly, and what easier way to do so than convince impressionable teens that smoking is the ‘cool’ thing to do? Hey, it keeps the profits coming! \n\nAntismoking movements are just beginning to be heard. With a product that kills more Americans than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, illegal drugs, and fires combined, no law can be too strict. So, when you see a tobacco ad, are offered a cigarette, or have the choice whether or not to smoke, remember that tobacco companies are greedy money-grubbers. No matter who you are, you’re just another dollar sign in the eyes of Philip Morris. \n\nSmoking Kills is for the nonsmokers of the internet. We know the effects of smoking, and we're smart enough to stay away. Are you one of us?"
361625
You are talking about an industry with absolutely no morals or ethics whatsoever.  If it wasn't for the laws, they would have no problem selling alcohol to toddlers.