by Charlie H.

Created on: June 27, 2008   Last Updated: July 03, 2008

People who choose to smoke are choosing something that is known to be harmful to themselves and to others in close proximity to them, and, as such, they are certainly accountable for choosing to smoke.

However, we know now that the tobacco industry manipulated and enhanced their products toward keeping users addicted or otherwise attached, thereby ensuring continuing profits. And, they have so altered the original, natural tobacco that it is difficult to know just what it is that is so dangerous.

Is "certified organic" tobacco as dangerous as the tobacco that is processed, enhanced, manipulated or otherwise re-designed for profitability? Or, is the real danger in the burning and inhaling of the chemicals and additives that are used?

I am certainly in favor of peoples' freedom of choice, but I am also in favor of holding accountable those industries that knowingly and repeatedly produce, promote and profit from dangerous substances. Tobacco is just one of thousands of dangerous products that people choose to use every day. Tobacco is perhaps the most publicized, since insurance companies and governments alike are trying to get out from under cost burdens created by people who choose to use it and ultimately need costly medical treatments.

California's Proposition 65 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition _65_(1986)], enacted in 1986, attempts to inform consumers of known dangers of certain products or substances sold in that state. All products sold there that are known to contain or emit or otherwise expose consumers to damaging substances must bear warning for consumers to understand the risks associated with their choices to use those products.

The primary drivers for such warning requirements might not be so much for consumer protection as for state or manufacturer or insurance industry protection; but the fact that California enforces such requirements is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction toward accountability of producers of damaging products.

The main problem, as I see it, is that industries are not required to produce safer products; rather, they are allowed to produce pretty much anything they want, as long as those who choose to use the products are "warned", thereby "accepting all blame" for possibility of damages from using those products.

Someday, hopefully, industries might be less focused on profits and more focused on safety. Then, California's Proposition 65 (or other similar caveat type legislation) might not even be

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>