Tobacco — Long Callousness to Public Health
Because of the addictive nature of the product and the high profit margin, the morality of the tobacco industry has long been suspect. Anti-smoking sentiment has waxed and waned over the years (the demand for the prohibition of tobacco goes back nearly five hundred years) and has experienced an extended upswing from the mid-1980's to the present day.
Singled Out
In a number of ways, tobacco companies have been singled out for castigation when they engage in activities that are considered unobjectionable in most industries.
The present charge against tobacco is fed by state governments, who seek alternately to tax the sale of the product and, at the same time, to seek "damages" from the tobacco companies to compensate them for Medicaid expenses to treat aging smokers for conditions that have been ascribed to the consequences of smoking. No such lawsuits are filed against any other product due to the statistical correlation of its use and health effects.
Tobacco companies have been beset by lawsuits from human rights groups as well. Segmenting by age (targeting children), gender (tar4geting women), race (targeting African-Americans) or income (targeting the poor) are common practice in any industry - but when it comes to tobacco, it's portrayed as harmful.
Tobacco companies have also experimented with modifying the levels of nicotine, tar, and other substances in their product with an eye toward developing a blend that appeals to consumers. But because the product is addictive, this is portrayed as "rigging" the dosage with the intention of intensifying and exploiting the addiction.
As a result, tobacco companies have been secretive about their operations, and this secrecy has only exacerbated accusations of wrongdoing. They have also taken an extremely defensive posture, denying that their product is addictive, and denying the statistical evidence that their product causes cancer and other conditions.
The Tobacco Deal
In 1997, Liggett broke ranks with the rest of the industry, and settled a lawsuit with 22 states. As part of the settlement, the company was compelled to publicly admit that smoking was addictive and caused cancer, that the company had actively targeted children for tobacco sales, and a number of other damaging admissions.
Over the next few years, other companies caved, and there have been negotiations with congress over the terms of the settlement. In spite of the cost of the suits and settlements, the tobacco companies remained very profitable. States did not ban tobacco sales, but instead heavily taxed the product, allegedly for the ongoing cost of treating citizens suffering from tobacco-related illnesses (though the funds were often found to be going for other uses).
Beyond the self-interests of states that wish to continue receiving tax revenues from citizens who smoke, the tobacco industry has long had great clout in the national legislature.
Lessons Learned
One of the core dilemmas to consider is whether it is ethical to promote a product that is seen by many to be unsafe. The Liggett admission aside, there has been no proven causal link between tobacco and cancer, though there is significant statistical evidence. The question remains as to where one draws the line.
Dos a militant minority represent acceptable behavior in promoting its own self-interests? The anti-smoking movement has always represented a small but vocal minority.
Is public image of little consequences if a firm has a loyal body of customers? It's worth noting that the majority of protest against tobacco companies comes from nonsmokers, non-customers - which is the reason the companies have been so quick to dismiss their protest.
EN; This is a bit of a wreck, and the author admits that the insights "have raised more questions than answers"