This one really isn't hard to understand. Tobacco stocks are recovering probably because the environment of the new administration is less hostile toward them, than the old one was. What you seem to be confusing is, a hostile legal environment toward tobacco companies equals "I care more than you do about kids and smoking". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Clinton and his cronies simply sucked money from tobacco companies and gave it to a bunch of (mostly wealthy) lawyers as a pay back for helping him win the election. Their millions in pack dollars were nothing more than a bribe.
I would much rather see tobacco companies (a legal enterprise by the way) give their workers a raise. Then to see the dollars they raise be siphoned off by a bunch of lawyers looking to retire early.
What you also fail to understand is behind every one of those tobacco companies are hard working truck drivers, dock workers, production line people, salesman and a host of others who depend on that income to support their families. Those people I care about. Not some high priced lawyer working to score another multimillion dollar settlement.
A perfect example is Alan Dersherwits. I read he demanded something like 20 million dollars in the Florida lawsuit for working on the case a little over two weeks. You may believe dumping another 20 million dollars in the back pocket of Alan Dershiwits equates to caring about children. But I certainly do not.
People smoke. It's a fact of life. Smoking is a legal substance. Guess what, companies will go into business to make a profit in order to meet that demand. It's called capitalism.
On the other hand, I'm all for ending subsidies for tobacco companies. And I believe tobacco companies have a fiduciary responsibility to educate the public about the dangers of their product. In particular, they have a responsibility to do what they can to keep their product away from children. To educate children, and allow them to understand what kind of path they're on, if they choose to smoke.
I also think the alcohol industry bears a larger responsibility. Alcohol is a real killer to children under 18. Hundreds, maybe thousands of kids a year die as a result of drinking and driving. And as far as I know, no child has died as a result of smoking.
When I weigh the cost to our society it's not even close. Alcohol is far dangerous to children and adults than smoking is. Yet, I don't see Ted Kennedy harping about the dangers of drinking and demanding the companies which provide the product pay billions in settlement fees.
Ever wonder why?? |
