Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Should they have any responsibility to anyone but their shareholders in this hypothetical?
|
Yes. But unless they are actually hiding the harmful effects from their customers, they're not violating any law, and the government doesn't have any reason to interfere. Their personal ethics are an important consideration, but they aren't under governmental oversight.
Jack Daniels kills too, and in far more sudden, heartbreaking ways (along with the longterm illnesses it causes). Yet, people know what alcohol is, and what the potential outcomes of its use are. And the government has already seen the folly of trying to declare war on people's desire to be inebriated.
On a little more philosophical tack:
When you make a choice, you are actually choosing a
set of outcomes, not a single outcome. Choosing to take the first sip of alcohol exposes you to a set of negative outcomes that wouldn't be on the table had you made a different decision. Choosing to smoke a cigarette does the same thing. No one is unaware of the potential dangers of smoking. The companies who make the product are under no further obligation to beat their customers over the head with lawyer-spawned crap.
In regards to the health of their customers, tobacco execs are no more liable than purveyors of other unhealthy things, like sharp sticks and hairspray.