Printer FriendlyPage Cigarette smuggling funds terrorists

Indian Country ^ | February 8, 2003 | Indian Country Staff

[SSN558]

"Unintended Consequences of greedy politicians who raise cigarette taxes to obscene levels"

The fact that there is a war on terror at the same time greedy politicians and lawyers created another illegal market is just coindcidence. Prohibition has always created illegal markets regardless of the comodity....and illegal markets usually fund and breed more illegal activity. The lessons of the 21st ammemdment were purged from grade school history books so another generation could learn from experience. It's the money stupid.

[carbon14]

Does this mean we can attack and annex these sovereign nations?

If Pres Bush and NS adviser Rice start receiving news that a lot of Muslims are marrying American Indians, then it is conceivable that they will have to think about first strike doctrine.

Casino money has bought off investigations from the CA attorney general Bill Lockyer regarding campaign donations, and everyone will have to wonder if it will shield radical Indians from investigations into terrorist activities.

[MrLeRoy]

Cigarettes should either be completely legal, taxed at a normal rate, largely unregulated, and subject to product liability like any other product out there, or completely banned. This halfway banning and taxing scheme is an open invitation for mischief.

Completely banning other drugs has also led to mischief, e.g., financing of terrorists and other criminals. FREEDOM is the only way to go---for every recreational substance.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[gridlock]

I'm all for complete freedom WRT tobacco. But I'm warning you, the second after the tobacco industry is no longer under the Government's protection, the lawyers will be all over it like a pack of sharks. And they will leave over about as much as a pack of sharks usually leaves over.

An industry just cannot go on killing that many people so cavalierly for so long. Eventually liability will catch up. The only thing that has saved them thus far is that the government stepped in and negotiated exclusive deals to shield them from general liability. If free markets were allowed to take their course, this protection would be stripped away, and the tobacco industry would be bankrupt within a year.

As well they should be. Product liability is the way companies are forced to shoulder the burdens of suffering and death that result from their activities. The tobacco companies have been able to duck this burden for decades. It is time for that shell game to end.

[MrLeRoy]

Product liability is the way companies are forced to shoulder the burdens of suffering and death that result from their activities.

To the extent that they denied and concealed the harmfulness of their products, they should be held liable. But when new tobacco suppliers come along to meet the ongoing demand for tobacco products, full disclosure should yield complete protection from lawsuits.

[gridlock]

full disclosure should yield complete protection from lawsuits.

You really think so?

Get real. The tobacco industry is selling a product that people are supposed to stick between their lips, light, and suck on. This is inherently dangerous. No amound of disclosure can change that fact. They will fall under the doctrine of strict liability for an inherently dangerous product.

The analagous situation would be that a warning label on a stick of dynamite does not mean that it can be left uncontrolled. The person who owns or distributes the dynamite is responsible when somebody blows themselves up, no matter how many labels there are.

Tobacco, absent government protection, will fall under exactly the same designation.

[MrLeRoy]

The person who owns or distributes the dynamite is responsible when somebody blows themselves up, no matter how many labels there are.

That's wrong, too---laws of this sort need to be changed.

[gridlock]

I don't see why the law should be changed for Dynamite. It seems to work. The number of accidental Dynamite deaths is kept to a minimum.

If you own or keep Dynamite, you just have to handle and store it in a responsible manner, or face strict liability. What's wrong with that? If some schmuck leaves Dynamite sitting around unsecured on a construction site, and somebody takes it and blows themselves up, the owner should have some liablity.

[MrLeRoy]

The number of accidental Dynamite deaths is kept to a minimum.

Protecting adults from the consequences of their own actions is not a proper function of law or government.

you just have to handle and store it in a responsible manner

I can go along with that, which is a much weaker statement than, "The person who owns or distributes the dynamite is responsible when somebody blows themselves up, no matter how many labels there are."

[gridlock]

Actually, the statements that you have to handle and store it in a responsible manner, or face strict liability and the statement that the owner is responsible when somebody blows themselves up are largely the same.

The reason for careful handling and storage is to prevent injury, and thus to prevent liability. If injury occurs, the owner is screwed, no matter how many labels there are.

So the prudent owner is very careful about how he handles and stores his dynamite.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to be a prudent manufacturer or distributer of cigarettes, since the very nature of the product is to have somebody stick it between his lips, light it, and suck on the smoke, which is inherently dangerous, no matter how many warning labels there are.

[MrLeRoy]

the statements that you have to handle and store it in a responsible manner, or face strict liability and the statement that the owner is responsible when somebody blows themselves up are largely the same.

Now here's your THIRD statement, which is different from your previous "you JUST have to handle and store it in a responsible manner."

If you ever decide what legal principle you wish to support, do let me know. Trying to nail jello to a wall is not my idea of a good time.

[gridlock]

I am sorry. Perhaps I was not being clear.

Safe storage and handling of Dynamite will not absolve the owner from liability, since the doctrine of strict liability holds the owner responsible for all injuries, regardless of external factors. So my use of the word "just", in as much as that would imply that by "just" doing something would get the owner off the hook for liability was a mistake.

What I meant to say was that the owner just had to make sure that he stored and handled the Dynamite safely so that he could prevent any injuries. Because if there were injuries, he would be liable. That is the way it is with inherently dangerous materials.

Sorry if I was being unclear before.

[MrLeRoy]

the doctrine of strict liability holds the owner responsible for all injuries, regardless of external factors.

That's wrong and should change. Protecting adults from the consequences of their own actions is not a proper function of law or government.

[tacticalogic]

Sorry if I was being unclear before.

It still isn't particularly clear. If a "distributor" sells dynamite to someone, and he blows himself up with it, who's responsible? The distributor, or the owner?