5 ms·

I don't understand what makes people disdain freedom so much that they'll deem this sort of state overreach as reasonable. Holding Tobacco producers liable is

by sandov 8y ago

I don't understand what makes people disdain freedom so much that they'll deem this sort of state overreach as reasonable. Holding Tobacco producers liable is paternalist & wrong, this is almost totalitarian.

neom 8y ago
Tobacco sellers failed to educate the public of the dangers of smoking, and in some instances advertised it as healthy. To a point that society considered it beyond ignorance and into disingenuous. Are you saying that designers != studios?
- sjroot 8y ago
  Why is it the job of the tobacco seller to educate the public on the dangers of smoking? Why would they invest their money in such an anti-marketing campaign? Advertising with factually inaccurate information, of course, should be punishable by law. Consumers need to be educated from an early age on how to identify legitimate sources of information. That is becoming more apparent every single day.
  - smallnamespace 8y ago
    > should be punishable by law. That's exactly what happened, e.g.: 'For example, Pennsylvania brought suit alleging a "conspiracy in concealing and misrepresenting the addictive and harmful nature of tobacco/nicotine[,] . . . industry control and manipulation of nicotine to foster addiction and thus profits[,] . . . intentionally attracting and addicting children to tobacco products," and "targeting African Americans" (complaint in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Philip Morris, Inc.). These claims encompass civil conspiracy, willful and negligent breach of a special duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligent design, strict liability, unfair trade practices, public nuisance, and negligent and intentional entrustment.' [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      But the terms of the Master Settlement Agreement apply to all tobacco companies regardless of whether they existed at the time. You can't argue that a new tobacco company did anything wrong. But they're fully as liable as the old ones, somehow. It's also hard to see how the punishment for misconduct, even misconduct that actually occurred, can be a fine paid every year for eternity.
  - rco8786 8y ago
    > Consumers need to be educated from an early age on how to identify legitimate sources of information. That is becoming more apparent every single day. Absolutely right. And a huge part of that involves rooting out those who publish misinformation and pay money to get that misinformation published in what is otherwise a reliable outlet for information. Like in the case of tobacco.
  - namlem 8y ago
    If your product is hazardous, it should at the very least include warnings on the package. We require this of medication, why not other products like tobacco. It's unrealistic to expect consumers to be able to thoroughly research everything they buy. Warning labels are not paternalism, they're a way of correcting information asymmetries.
tlb 8y ago
I haven't heard a good defense of tobacco producers. For decades they suppressed evidence that their product caused lung cancer, which seems a rather bad thing to do. Even ultra-libertarians seem to agree that dangerous products should be labeled as to how dangerous they are, so that consumers can make an informed decision. Can you summarize or link to an argument that tobacco producers did nothing wrong?
- robertAngst 8y ago
  Crazed libertarian an-cap here. When your product damages people, you should be responsible to label it as such. I'll even say the government was one of the reasons they have been immune up until the recent few decades.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  I don't think the solution is to ban tobacco/sugar/alcohol/weed/opioids/new-drug-of-the-day, and I honestly think they should all be legal. The plain packaging law instituted in Australia and other places is a good way to do it. Plainly state what product is inside the pack and the dangers it presents. No "hip" and enticing designs to lure the impressionable, but let people make an informed choice for themselves.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    What would the average pay-to-win game look like without the hip packaging? Basically just a collection of buttons to click with cooldowns before you can click the button again and a way to pay to click it sooner?
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      Something like that, yeah. (I know you're being sarcastic) I'm not sure I buy the idea that pay-to-win games are anywhere near as addictive as tobacco or alcohol or opioids or similar substances.
cma 8y ago
> Holding Tobacco producers liable is paternalist & wrong, Wasn't what they did with studies basically fraud? (Not sure that was what they were held liable for though)
Barrin92 8y ago
Ironically this radical conception of freedom is in itself totalitarian in the literal sense of drowning out all other values but one. Health both on an individual and social level is a precondition for deeper freedoms that go beyond simple choice. Choice without restriction is paralysis, and there is nothing empowering about leaving addicts to their own vices and the guilty parties unpunished.
rco8786 8y ago
Please. They knowingly sold harmful products and paid tons of money to miseducated the public about the harms. They are 100% liable.

by sandov 8y ago

neom 8y ago

Tobacco sellers failed to educate the public of the dangers of smoking, and in some instances advertised it as healthy. To a point that society considered it beyond ignorance and into disingenuous. Are you saying that designers != studios?

sjroot 8y ago
Why is it the job of the tobacco seller to educate the public on the dangers of smoking? Why would they invest their money in such an anti-marketing campaign? Advertising with factually inaccurate information, of course, should be punishable by law. Consumers need to be educated from an early age on how to identify legitimate sources of information. That is becoming more apparent every single day.
- smallnamespace 8y ago
  > should be punishable by law. That's exactly what happened, e.g.: 'For example, Pennsylvania brought suit alleging a "conspiracy in concealing and misrepresenting the addictive and harmful nature of tobacco/nicotine[,] . . . industry control and manipulation of nicotine to foster addiction and thus profits[,] . . . intentionally attracting and addicting children to tobacco products," and "targeting African Americans" (complaint in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Philip Morris, Inc.). These claims encompass civil conspiracy, willful and negligent breach of a special duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligent design, strict liability, unfair trade practices, public nuisance, and negligent and intentional entrustment.' [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    But the terms of the Master Settlement Agreement apply to all tobacco companies regardless of whether they existed at the time. You can't argue that a new tobacco company did anything wrong. But they're fully as liable as the old ones, somehow. It's also hard to see how the punishment for misconduct, even misconduct that actually occurred, can be a fine paid every year for eternity.
- rco8786 8y ago
  > Consumers need to be educated from an early age on how to identify legitimate sources of information. That is becoming more apparent every single day. Absolutely right. And a huge part of that involves rooting out those who publish misinformation and pay money to get that misinformation published in what is otherwise a reliable outlet for information. Like in the case of tobacco.
- namlem 8y ago
  If your product is hazardous, it should at the very least include warnings on the package. We require this of medication, why not other products like tobacco. It's unrealistic to expect consumers to be able to thoroughly research everything they buy. Warning labels are not paternalism, they're a way of correcting information asymmetries.

tlb 8y ago

I haven't heard a good defense of tobacco producers. For decades they suppressed evidence that their product caused lung cancer, which seems a rather bad thing to do. Even ultra-libertarians seem to agree that dangerous products should be labeled as to how dangerous they are, so that consumers can make an informed decision. Can you summarize or link to an argument that tobacco producers did nothing wrong?

robertAngst 8y ago
Crazed libertarian an-cap here. When your product damages people, you should be responsible to label it as such. I'll even say the government was one of the reasons they have been immune up until the recent few decades.
KozmoNau7 8y ago
I don't think the solution is to ban tobacco/sugar/alcohol/weed/opioids/new-drug-of-the-day, and I honestly think they should all be legal. The plain packaging law instituted in Australia and other places is a good way to do it. Plainly state what product is inside the pack and the dangers it presents. No "hip" and enticing designs to lure the impressionable, but let people make an informed choice for themselves.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  What would the average pay-to-win game look like without the hip packaging? Basically just a collection of buttons to click with cooldowns before you can click the button again and a way to pay to click it sooner?
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    Something like that, yeah. (I know you're being sarcastic) I'm not sure I buy the idea that pay-to-win games are anywhere near as addictive as tobacco or alcohol or opioids or similar substances.

cma 8y ago

> Holding Tobacco producers liable is paternalist & wrong, Wasn't what they did with studies basically fraud? (Not sure that was what they were held liable for though)

Barrin92 8y ago

Ironically this radical conception of freedom is in itself totalitarian in the literal sense of drowning out all other values but one. Health both on an individual and social level is a precondition for deeper freedoms that go beyond simple choice. Choice without restriction is paralysis, and there is nothing empowering about leaving addicts to their own vices and the guilty parties unpunished.

rco8786 8y ago

Please. They knowingly sold harmful products and paid tons of money to miseducated the public about the harms. They are 100% liable.