Those crazy cigerette companies

Hobbes

http://europe.cnn.com/2001/BUSINESS/07/16/czech.morris/index.html

You have to read it to believe it!

Blitzkrieger

That's cold

Manach

So, that company would be good to buy shares in.

Yes, that was heartless, but no one makes people smoke the damn things. (non-smoker)

C B

What is wrong with that?

Tabacco is regulated in two ways:
a) a ban on those under 16 as it is deemed that they will not be able to assess the information available to them
b) a tax on those who choose to smoke.

We would probably all accept that a) is a good idea and should be better enforced. Why should we accept b). In my opinion there are three reasons.
1) To pay for the enforcement ofthe ban on minors.
2) To pay for the external costs of smoking i.e to compensate those who suffer due to passive smoking
3) To cover the public health implications of smoking.

If it can be proven that smoking does not cost the state anything in extra public health costs then why should this portion of the tax be levied??

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by C B:
3) To cover the public health implications of smoking.

If it can be proven that smoking does not cost the state anything in extra public health costs then why should this portion of the tax be levied??</font>

The report shows that the cost reduction due to lowered life expetancy combined with the tax revenue means that the govt is not losing money.

Philip Morris were asked to produce a report, by the government, showing the costs that smoking was imposing on the country. This was presmably so the govt could either raise taxes, ban ciggies, or sue PM for damages.

They have 2 choices in what to put in their report :

1) We are costing you billions a year, but please dont spank us
2) We are costing you nothing / making you a profit.

While option A may have been more honest, it is a bit stupid from the business sense. Therefore, they have to produce a report which shows that they are not costing the government billions. This is exactly what they have done.

So far today, I have seen this story in a number of places, and everyone seems to think there is something sinister or cold about it.

There would be something sinister about it if the government saw this report as a good thing.

Look - whether you like them or not, the tobacco companies are a business. No business will ever stand up and say "we are bad people and should be closed down", or "of course we caused all that damage. Bill us billions please."

You can also not fall back on the "but cigarettes harm people" argument here, because that is old news. This report does not reveal anything new. PM and the other manufacturers, once they gave up on the smoking is not harmful argument have stated that they do not MAKE anyone smoke. Yes, they supply, but they are not responsible for demand.

Arguably, governments are equally/more liable than the tobacco companies, for refusing to take the brave step of banning a harmful substance for public good. But why blame our elected officials, when we can blamne the big faceless corporation.

Its called spin. Morris tried spinning the cost/benefit analysis to make them look somewhat "less evil". The papers seem to be spinning it to seem like PM are out to be part of a population-control exercise.

Its a financial report. It points out financial data. Its conclusions are
flawed, as it assumes that the consumer would not spend their money on anything else were they not to buy cigarettes. It tries to show the govt that the money raised thru cigarette taxes matches or surpasses the health-care and loss-of-revenue costs caused by smoking. In other words, it tries to show that smoking is not costing the country money, and therefore the government shouldnt need to take drastic action like banning it or sueing PM.

Jumping on something like this as sinister or cold is doing the anti-smoking argument an injustice. There are enough solid arguments to go on, rather than using such shaky spin to defend the anti-smoking cause.

jc

azezil

i couldn't believe it when i heard about that, ok its like something i'd say but for a company to say it to a government!! DAMN!!!

---

"just because you're not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after you!"

Victor

I wonder if they count lost productivity.

Say 5 minutes a cigarette x 10 cigarettes a day x 230 days a years x 45 years = 8625 hours. Say £40,000 pounds in a life. Nevermind the wheasiness and tardiness.

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

Bard

http://www.adcritic.com/content/thetruth.com-tobacco-industry-recall.html

---

Bard

---

Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.