3 ms·
Let's see how expensive that decision turns out to be [1]. EDIT: to be clear since there seems to be some confusion, I agree with this. The tobacco industry is
by cletus 5y ago
Let's see how expensive that decision turns out to be [1].
EDIT: to be clear since there seems to be some confusion, I agree with this. The tobacco industry is quite literally cancer. I'm objecting to the ability for companies to sue governments about it.
[1]: https://theconversation.com/when-even-winning-is-losing-the-surprising-cost-of-defeating-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging-114279 https://theconversation.com/when-even-winning-is-losing-the-...
- w-j-w 5y agoThe Swiss government pays for it's citizens' healthcare, which is likely cheaper than damages paid in international tribunal. Also, these laws are typically very popular, even amongst smokers. Pursuing these laws is a no brainer for the lawmakers.
- noxer 5y agoHell no! Health insurance in Switzerland is mandatory, its NOT paid b the gov. Beside that even if it would be paid by the gov, where do you think does the money comes from? Its still paid by the people.
- nix23 5y ago>The Swiss government pays for it's citizens' healthcare, Wow haha, that's some massive false information you have.
- elil17 5y agoA$24 million is an absolute drop in the bucket compared to the economic cost of tobacco - an estimated A$137 billion per year in Australia alone from lost life, diseases, and lost productivity for tobacco victims and their families.
- cletus 5y agoNot to poorer countries it isn't. The cost of legal action quite literally scared off South American countries from adopting similar measures. And I wasn't clear: I don't oppose the Swiss government's action. Not in the slightest.
- elil17 5y agoWell it’s still a drop in the bucket compared to the economic costs, the governments just don’t have access to the funds needed. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be worth it for society if they could do it.