The class-action suit against "big tobacco" that went to a courtroom this week is a little over-exaggerated on the part of the complainants, and the focus on tobacco companies may be a little misplaced.
Sure, it's bad business to sell a product that may do harm, or will do harm, to the consumers who pay for it. Canada has been in that business for years, selling asbestos to poor countries long after we've learned of its damaging health effects. Our government, over the years, has continued to have a strange idea of what is and isn't dangerous.
There is also always responsibility on the part of the consumer to be aware and know what they are buying.
I'd rather not side with big tobacco on this one, but those guys haven't done a whole lot wrong, which is unfortunate because everything they've done should be considered wrong. These tobacco companies have really done little for us aside from creating all kinds of tax money, so it would be nice to see them dinged for the $27 billion that is up for grabs in this lawsuit.
There is a lot of onus on the government for the state of smoking in Canada. Let's face it, if somebody were selling ham that was contaminated with listeria, which can make people sick and sometimes lead to death a lot like cigarettes, there would be measures taken to remove that product from shelves.
We saw that just a few years ago, when cold cuts were found to be contaminated. The government stepped in and said, "No, this can't be sold to people." Then a Conservative minister, Gerry Ritz, made some horrible comments about how it was kind of funny that people got sick and died. I forgot about that part, but I hear he's still in office.
Regardless, the government stepped up and stopped a company from selling us a product that could be lethal, though those cold cuts were intended to be safe.
The government could have just put a warning on the meats with a picture of one of the sick people on it, but instead it made sure steps were taken so that the products were tracked down and removed from the shelf.
It's that time of year again when we are reminded not to have any Kinder Eggs in our pockets or vehicles when travelling to the United States because those chocolates with toys inside are illegal in that country. That is another example of the government stepping in and preventing a potentially life-threatening product from reaching consumers.
Some people may say that all that is just creating a nanny state, and that Darwinism does a good enough job so that the government can stay out of the private market.
It's really too late to draft some legislation making cigarettes illegal. The amount of money it would take to enforce and prosecute cigarette smokers as though they were serious drug users just isn't worth it, especially with all that lost revenue that the government wouldn't be collecting on the sale of illegal cigarettes.
