The person and nobody else. They know the risks, they made the decision to start smoking, and they made the decision to continue smoking.
nintendofreak_2
why wouldn't the provider have some responsibility? how many people do you think would start farming their own tobacco, if they were never exposed to it on a mass scale?
The companies are just trying to turn a profit, they don't care about addicts because addiction is good for them as then they get more revenue over a sustained period as the people crave there products. The smokers decided to smoke and therefore it's there responsibility as well. Both parties are responsible for Cigarette addiction.
why wouldn't the provider have some responsibility? how many people do you think would start farming their own tobacco, if they were never exposed to it on a mass scale?UniverseIX
Tobacco had been widely used long before tobacco companies started selling it in the forms they do today. Unless it were outright banned decades ago, it would still be widely used today regardless of whether big tobacco companies existed or not.
And marijuana, while quite a bit different from tobacco as far as the plant is concerned, is a good example of a drug that people weren't exposed to on a mass scale, and it's one of the biggest cash crops in the US, despite being illegal.
[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]why wouldn't the provider have some responsibility? how many people do you think would start farming their own tobacco, if they were never exposed to it on a mass scale?nintendofreak_2
Tobacco had been widely used long before tobacco companies started selling it in the forms they do today. Unless it were outright banned decades ago, it would still be widely used today regardless of whether big tobacco companies existed or not.
And marijuana, while quite a bit different from tobacco as far as the plant is concerned, is a good example of a drug that people weren't exposed to on a mass scale, and it's one of the biggest cash crops in the US, despite being illegal.
Sure, people have used drugs for a long time. The scale that they use drugs is directly related to the production of those drugs. The producers do have a responsibility, as they make it available for wider scale use than would other wise be possible. Whether it's a black market, or not... has little relevance on that point.
The person and nobody else. They know the risks, they made the decision to start smoking, and they made the decision to continue smoking.
UniverseIX
why wouldn't the provider have some responsibility? how many people do you think would start farming their own tobacco, if they were never exposed to it on a mass scale? They may be a cause but that doesn't mean they hold any of the responsibility.
The person and nobody else. They know the risks, they made the decision to start smoking, and they made the decision to continue smoking.
markop2003
why wouldn't the provider have some responsibility? how many people do you think would start farming their own tobacco, if they were never exposed to it on a mass scale? They may be a cause but that doesn't mean they hold any of the responsibility. why wouldn't they? if there were less drugs being produced, there would be likely less people using. Not everybody would go through the trouble of producing their own. It's all about availability. I think people give too much credit to the consumers, and not enough to the accessibility that the producers allow in general. If I had to start making my own candy, I probably wouldn't bother.
Sure, people have used drugs for a long time. The scale that they use drugs is directly related to the production of those drugs. The producers do have a responsibility, as they make it available for wider scale use than would other wise be possible. Whether it's a black market, or not... has little relevance on that point.UniverseIX
They're making it because the demand is there. Tobacco wasn't even known to be harmful until decades and decades had gone by and there were finally tests run on it. It was already well known and a widely consumed drug, and that's not because tobacco growers just kept on growing it, it's because people wanted it to be grown and they kept buying it.
The risks of smoking are hammered home in people's heads from a young age. There's no one to blame but them if they hear "don't smoke" their whole lives and then do it anyway.
Edit: Actually I take that back; as the above poster points out, parents are the root in a lot of cases.
[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]Sure, people have used drugs for a long time. The scale that they use drugs is directly related to the production of those drugs. The producers do have a responsibility, as they make it available for wider scale use than would other wise be possible. Whether it's a black market, or not... has little relevance on that point.nintendofreak_2
They're making it because the demand is there. Tobacco wasn't even known to be harmful until decades and decades had gone by and there were finally tests run on it. It was already well known and a widely consumed drug, and that's not because tobacco growers just kept on growing it, it's because people wanted it to be grown and they kept buying it. Yep, there is a demand, but that doesn't mean they have to meet it. Who says an industry has to meet demands? Nobody. It's all about making money, and producing affordable drugs that encourages people to buy them so they can make a profit. The producers do have a responsability to their customers.
Why wouldn't they? if there were less drugs being produced, there would be likely less people using.
UniverseIX
Because they are not forcing people to smoke. Sure they are a significant cause for a lot of people so there would be less smoking if they did not exist however that does not mean they are responsible for another person's decision. In the same way a gun manufacturer is not responsible for a murder, sure it would have been more difficult if the murderer had to make their own firearm or didn't use one but that does not make the gun manufacturer responsible for their actions.
The risks of smoking are hammered home in people's heads from a young age. There's no one to blame but them if they hear "don't smoke" their whole lives and then do it anyway.
Edit: Actually I take that back; as the above poster points out, parents are the root in a lot of cases.
kfjl
That wouldn't be correct though. Most parents tell their children not to smoke....and those that do smoke give them all the negatives. So they have a first hand knowledge of the problem....
Why wouldn't they? if there were less drugs being produced, there would be likely less people using.
markop2003
Because they are not forcing people to smoke. Sure they are a significant cause for a lot of people so there would be less smoking if they did not exist however that does not mean they are responsible for another person's decision. In the same way a gun manufacturer is not responsible for a murder, sure it would have been more difficult if the murderer had to make their own firearm or didn't use one but that does not make the gun manufacturer responsible for their actions.
You don't think people are more likely to take advantage of opportunities that are made more readily available to them? The government stepping up and imposing larger taxes on the tobacco industry over the past decades has had huge success in reducing the number of smokers. People are more likely to use drugs that easy to get. There is no way around this reality. Just as likely people are more likely to consume poor quality foods if they are cheaper. IT's all about availability. Companies have a responsibility in this.
Yep, there is a demand, but that doesn't mean they have to meet it. Who says an industry has to meet demands? Nobody. It's all about making money, and producing affordable drugs that encourages people to buy them so they can make a profit. The producers do have a responsability to their customers.
UniverseIX
So would you say that nature has to take responsibility for originally producing it?
Before, when the risks and dangers were not well k own by the public, I blame the companies. Now that we have more info and people still choose to light up, I blame he smoker. Anyone who has started smoking in the last 15 years can blame nobody but themselves. This from an ex-smoker.
[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]You don't think people are more likely to take advantage of opportunities that are made more readily available to them?UniverseIX
As i've said that makes them a cause, that does not mean they hold responsibility.
Both parties are responsible.How does a cigarette company force an individual to start smoking? And if they had that ability....wouldn't we all be smokers? I know if I had the ability to maximize my profit....I'd take it.
[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]You don't think people are more likely to take advantage of opportunities that are made more readily available to them?UniverseIX
As i've said that makes them a cause, that does not mean they hold responsibility.
Both parties are responsible. Why? Are industrialists responsible as their work resulted in an increase in wages allowing people to buy luxuries such as tobacco? Is the government responsible because it supplies welfare and enforces minimum wage laws so that all can afford tobacco? Are the ship builders responsible for facilitating international trade? If you say every cause holds responsibility where do you draw the line?
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]Before, when the risks and dangers were not well k own by the public, I blame the companies. markop2003
For the lobbying and cover ups yes, but I'd say the real responsibility of testing such things lands with the government or FDA in the US. Not sure about the blame on the FDA unless they did do test and such. But even then, the worst effects of smoking takes years to really show. Plus smoking was already heavily entrenched in society before the FDA existed.
As i've said that makes them a cause, that does not mean they hold responsibility.
LJS9502_basic
Both parties are responsible.How does a cigarette company force an individual to start smoking? And if they had that ability....wouldn't we all be smokers? I know if I had the ability to maximize my profit....I'd take it. I never said that cigarette companies force anyone to do anything. I said they share a responsibility by making the product available to consumers. As for what you'd do personaly thats you'r perogative.
As i've said that makes them a cause, that does not mean they hold responsibility.
markop2003
Both parties are responsible. Why? because they provide the means for a person to engage in a specific behavior? Why is it only the consumers responsibility? I don't see how you could say it is. There is a interconnected relationship between the two.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="UniverseIX"] Both parties are responsible.UniverseIX
How does a cigarette company force an individual to start smoking? And if they had that ability....wouldn't we all be smokers? I know if I had the ability to maximize my profit....I'd take it. I never said that cigarette companies force anyone to do anything. I said they share a responsibility by making the product available to consumers. As for what you'd do personaly thats you'r perogative. So you don't believe in personal choices/responsibility?
Because the consumers drive the demand. If every big tobacco company stopped producing tobacco today, people would find a way to get some, and there would eventually just be another big tobacco company or a large network of smaller producers.
The person? Today if you smoke cigarettes, your the one responsible. There is more than enough anti-smoking propoganda everywhere for you to know the risks. Nobody is to blame but the person themselves.
Also what's wrong with that kind of a choice? Just because somebody chooses to smoke doesn't make them a bad person. It's like somebody who chooses to drink. What's wrong with it? They know the potential harm in the long run. It's their choice.
As someone who has lost 5 relatives to smoking related cancer and someone who has only recently stopped smoking himself i will be the first to say that the only person to blame are the people who smoke.
The companies are only supplying a product that people wish to buy. If the at fault smokers stopped buying they would cease to exist. Are they peddling a product they know to be extremely harmful? Yes they are. But that fact is irrelevant since i have yet to see them force a single person to light up.
The ONLY arguement that can be made to the contrary is for those individuals that started smoking before it was widely known to be hazardous. I'm talking 50 or 60 years ago and most of those people are dead by now.
The individual - just as the individual rat's to blame for eating poisoned cheese. TBH, I don't think blame is the issue here; I think the important question is: what steps can society reasonably take to prevent unnecessary deaths without making people feel like they're being nannied or stripped of basic liberties?
I'd say both, but at this point, you'd have to be living in a cave if you didnt know that smoking is highly addictive. Granted cigarette companies intentionally try to increase the addictiveness of some brands.
Log in to comment