General Medicine

» tinuviel - Leading Cause of Cancer Deaths

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