General Medicine

» P_Al - Leading Cause of Cancer Deaths

I think it is very unfortunate when a 13 year old takes up the habit of cigarette smoking when he or she has no real understanding of the long-term consequences. How should we protect our children from the appeal of cigarette smoking? Of course, changes in advertising will help and are commendable. However, can it be argued that a business has a right to sell a product that is the leading cause of cancer deaths?
--

-- posted by P_Al

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» tinuviel - Leading Cause of Cancer Deaths

In response to Leading Cause of Cancer Deaths posted by P_Al:

It depends on the standpoint from which you're looking at it. Ethically, I would say the sale of cigarettes is comparable to the sale of narcotics. Whatever objections a person might make to the sale and casual use of such drugs as marijuana and cocaine, one can usually make similar objections to the sale and use of cigarettes.

However, the question also has to be looked at from a legal standpoint. In marketing their product, the cigarette companies are doing nothing against the law. They can openly sell their products--and each packet of cigarettes they sell does contain the surgeon general's warning of its potential fatality. Though it is evident that a significant number of kids get their hands on cigarettes, the tobacco companies are ostensibly marketing to adults--and in including the warning label on the packet, they have done their legal duty in educating the adults about the effects of using their product. Therefore, they have legally removed the burden of responsibility from their own shoulders and placed it on those of the adults who use their products. In the mean time, laws exist to protect minors from themselves by restricting their ability to buy cigarettes.

Still, three thousand deaths per year from second hand smoke is a significant and startling statistic. This makes cigarette smoking a public problem, not just a private one. In light of the fact that cigarette companies are considered law-abiding, while drug dealers are criminals, maybe we should consider the role that the legal authorities play in this. The cigarette companies are able to market their product openly because the judicial system has chosen to declare the product legal, though it is very harmful. If cigarettes are lethal, and if second hand smoke is also dangerous, maybe a law against cigarettes is warranted.

Of course that gets into the area of restricting people's freedom to pursue happiness--even in a way that might be considered suicidal. I guess the legal system has at least attempted to address the problem of second-hand smoke by restricting smoking in enclosed public areas. But what about parents who smoke in cars and endanger their children's lives?

It's a tough question that leads to even more questions. I don't really know the answer. I do have an opinion, but we live in a (largely) democratic world.

-- posted by tinuviel

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» P_Al - Leading Cause of Cancer Deaths

In response to Leading Cause of Cancer Deaths posted by tinuviel:

Hi tinuviel,

Interesting points. This is definitely a difficult situation. I also agree that this is not a legal issue per se. My initial question, though not stated explicitly, was really refering to the moral issue.

This leads to other questions. On isues of societal importance, when moral and legal obligations conflict , who is responsible for making these decisions? Also, which should take precedence - moral or legal requirements?

-- posted by P_Al

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» tinuviel - Leading Cause of Cancer Deaths

In response to Leading Cause of Cancer Deaths posted by P_Al:

Okay P_Al, I can only try to answer the essay questions you've posed. You used the phrase,"when moral and legal obligations conflict." You are aware, I'm sure, that there are those who believe the two obligations ought never to conflict. If I were to argue from their standpoint, I would have to say that on this issue where smoking has been proven harmful to the individual who engages in it, then the law should forbid it. According to this view, the law would be responsible for the moral issue.

The law should also, then, forbid the sale of cigarettes altogether. I'm not completely educated on the topic of narcotics, so I'm not sure why cocaine and other "hard drugs" are illegal if they cause harm only to the user. Maybe it's because the drugs impair judgement so much that a user might become a menace. Smokers probably are not menaces, but they do emit smoke that contains harmful carcinogens. To me, that's reason enough to outlaw smoking.

So you ask who should be responsible. I say the law should certainly be. But I think all the other persons (entities) concerned should be aligned. After all, the law stems from other things--from people's decisions about what is right or wrong. It exists to enforce these decisions: to offer consequences when people forfeit their responsibilities. So, individuals have to be responsible, too. This "choice" not to smoke has to be the rule for individuals, so that the law can punish the exceptions.

Tobacco companies should be responsible too. In a perfect world, they wouldn't even exist. Now that they do exist, and they appear to be doing well (financially) because of people's addictions, maybe they should also share in the cost of curing all these lung cancers that people develop because of their product. I do believe that nuclear plants and other companies that emit harmful wastes have to compensate employees and other people who are affected by their actions. Of course, those people don't elect to be affected like cigarette smokers do. But why any company should be allowed to purposefully manufacture and market known carcinogens is beyond me. They should be held responsible, either by closing them down or forcing them to pay for the medical costs of treatment.

But maybe we have a third option. Can cigarettes be made without the carcinogens?

I'm not even sure if I've answered your question. I think my argument suggests that the moral issue should take precedence over the legal one. In fact, the moral issue regarding smoking should direct legislation. In my opinion.

-- posted by tinuviel

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» P_Al - Leading Cause of Cancer Deaths

In response to Leading Cause of Cancer Deaths posted by tinuviel:

I think you're right that the responsibility is a shared one. Government via its legislature, tobacco companies and ourselves are the important players.

It's comforting to think that the moral road will take precedence. However, the issues are complex and there's a lot at stake on all sides.

As for a cigarette devoid of carcinogens, I am not sure about that. I guess it would'nt be a cigarette by definition which implies a tobacco based product. Nice thought though.

-- posted by P_Al

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds