Smoking: Who's Really At Fault

My general thoughts on who should really take the blame and fault in the issues surrounding smoking. I think we put too much onis on the cigarette companies, and not enough on personal reslove to choose whether or not we smoke.

        The �truth.com,� whatthefxup, and many more organizations have risen in the wake of the initial ruling on the tobacco industry. They are adamant about pointing out how �big tobacco� has covered up facts about their product, that they are cruel and callous about their customer base, and that they should pay for those who were harmed by cigarette usage. In recent years it has become such a hotbed issue that it has caused various legislation to be enacted, including a ban on smoking in various restaurants, bars, and nightclubs; and even smoking within a specified distance of various buildings. An influx of television and print ads have surfaced to further the anti tobacco movement. The big question is, should the tobacco industry pay restitution to those who have been injured because of their usage and subsequent addiction to tobacco? The answer is not a simple yes or no.

        First is the issue of addiction. The majority, if not all, of the blame is put on cigarettes. Many have made claims that the tobacco companies knowingly put out a product that they knew was not only dangerous and unhealthy, but also addictive. I completely agree, and there is evidence for this now thanks to trials and people at various organizations such as truth.com. But the question is should we have known this prior, should we have been aware of this? For those of you who didn�t pay much attention during history class, I�ll let you in on a little secret: tobacco is not new; in fact it was one of the first cash crops drawn from the native soils of the land that would become the United States. People have been smoking tobacco since the early times of the American colonies. We have been smoking tobacco for nearly 400 years. Surely we should have noticed that we have become �attached� to this product. Even putting that fact aside and just focusing on the knowledge of adverse effects gives us more to ponder.

        Surely there must have been some observation of people who smoked heavily having health issues during say the second 100 years of usage, after such a product would have become more common place, much like the telephone is to us today. Even with that aside, there were reports of the negative effects of cigarettes on health prior to the recent lawsuits against big tobacco, and even before the Surgeon General�s warning on cigarettes, which started in the mid/late 1950�s. The first real reports were done by German scientist in the 1940�s, the came out with reports that cigarettes were adverse to proper health, and thus all German soldiers and citizens were discouraged from partaking in the habit. Sure enough in response to this information, the US decides to promote smoking, going so far as to include smokes with the equipment of soldiers. So here you have your government promoting the habit, why would you expect anything to be wrong with it? The answer is, of course, you would not, at least not in those times where trust in one�s government was higher in the eyes of the public and media. And if you are manufacturing the product, even with knowledge of how addictive it is, why would you stop selling the product. I would crank those puppies out like there was no tomorrow and advertise like crazy� like our friends in big tobacco did. Now sure, some of the things they did were apprehensible such as targeting kids, but with such advertisement 86ed, and more and more enforcement of the �use must be 18� policy, that is less of an issue of starting people young. But you say that it�s not just direct advertisement, but also indirect such as in movies, and I�ll agree it is a very sneaky practice, but a very clever one. You can�t fault big tobacco for strategic placement of product. The big issue I see is the addition of any additives that would increase the addiction level, that were not natural to the product. Such actions would be sufficient to blame the tobacco industry partly for the addiction of people to their product. But even then it depends on the additive. If the additive is damaging in nature (i.e. any amount of the product is damaging such as cyanide, arsenic, etc.,) then there is no question, but I cannot accept menthol as a dangerous additive since most of us take it in the form of aroma therapy and cough drops.

        There is no reason, at this point, that anyone should be unaware of the effect of tobacco. I do not think that anyone who started smoking after the Surgeon General�s warning should be able to sue big tobacco. There was knowledge, and thus it becomes more so a choice, rather than an act of trickery. And anyone that began during the times where health films showed the effects smoking has on lungs and various other aspects of the human anatomy, should just accept that they played with fire and lost. Sure, the tobacco industry is full of creeps who only wanted to make profit and deny the health issues, but are they completely at fault? With knowledge of the product causing cancer, shouldn�t the government, or at least the people rise up and make this product illegal? Well hey didn�t and we haven�t. We still allow the product to be issued, we just decided to try and tax the hell out of it in order to get rid of it. This strategy has only filled the treasury with countless of dollars that symbolize the problem cannot be solved by taxes alone, it take people to say no more and enough. And why just the attack on cigarettes, why not all tobacco products such as dip, cigars, chew and snuff, these products have been known to cause various health problems similar to cigarettes. You could even expand it further to items that industries knowingly distribute, and sometimes even add to these items things that will make them more desirable, that people will partake in and possible become harmed from such activities. Jumping out of planes, fast food, food in general, television, spa treatments, etc., all these items fit the bill, heck even the American Dream technically falls under this category. Now it�s true that some of those items are no where near as dangerous, but you have to ask where this will end. When will we stop blaming big tobacco, and start taking personal responsibility for not curbing the behaviors and messages that lead to the addiction to cigarettes. Even Phillip Morris, tobacco�s biggest company, is getting in on showing us the ills of smoking and prevention of underage consumption of their product. Sure the programs are forced, but none the less you cannot go anywhere without seeing one.

        I am not an advocate for smoking or big tobacco. I do not find pleasure in smoking cigarettes, and do not care for the habit. I do like the occasional cigar, however I am one of the ones who knows never to inhale such a treat. I think that big tobacco contains some of the sleaziest people on earth, but there are other industries such as the modeling industry that have done more damage to life on this planet (hey you tell me which is harder to deal with, and eating disorder that you can hide, developed from negative body image derived from unattainable standards set by fashion, or smoking, something that can be seen and observed by all the senses, especially smell.) I think big tobacco should be completely honest as to the effects of their products, and make all such knowledge public. If any restitution is to be paid by big tobacco, it should go towards the educational system, so that our children can become wise to things such as smoking, that could cause them harm, and thus they can make an informed decision on what they are going to put in their bodies. Paying for the medical treatment of those who have become sick because of their choice to smoke seems absurd. It�s like someone suing the gas company because they have taken to playing with fire on a stove. At this point there is enough knowledge where one should know better. If you are stupid enough to pick up or continue the habit and not seek help at this point, it�s an informed choice; you run the risk of causing harm to your body for the pleasure you derive from cigarettes. So while you take in all the things these advocates bring up about smoking, think about who is really to blame. There is far more information out there than I could ever put in this blog, and it is up to us to not to live in a state of vincible ignorance of how things we like effect us, and stop passing the buck on the blame. To quote my hero, Dennis Miller, "and that's just my opinion... I could be wrong," but it's up to you to figure it out.

Reviews

[Blue Cavalla]

'stop passing the buck on the blame' - exactly! Great rant.