Leading Article: Yes, smoking kills, but litigation is ruinous

Share
Related Topics
The American tobacco industry has just agreed to hand over pounds 220bn, enough to keep our National Health Service going for five years. It is an astonishing sum of money. The amount earned by lawyers working on a percentage boggles the mind. But then, the tobacco industry has done wrong. It concealed information about the link with cancer and the addictiveness of nicotine. So should it not pay? And, if the answer is yes, then the next question is, should British tobacco companies not pay here?

No sooner had the monster American settlement been reached than a health authority spokesman was on our television screens saying they intended to look at whether such an action could be taken to the courts here. Yesterday, the doctors' trade union, the British Medical Association, urged them on. Well, hold on a minute. This is a case not so much of running before they can walk but of trying to fly. It would be extraordinary, and a dramatic change to our legal system, if health-care providers in this country could sue tobacco companies for the cost of treating their customers.

There is a case already, due to go to the High Court next week, in which a group of cancer sufferers is suing Gallaher and Imperial Tobacco. It is already pushing at the boundaries of British legal practice: it is the first case brought by a group of litigants - a foretaste perhaps of the "class" actions which so dominate the American system - and they have to prove that the companies showed negligence in failing to cut tar levels in their cigarettes when they knew this would reduce the number of cancer cases. Given that these cases concern people who knew cigarettes caused cancer and yet chose to smoke, that is a tough charge to make stick.

What is unthinkable is that English or Scottish courts should hold that the tobacco companies owe a duty of care at one further remove, not just to their consumers but to the health-care providers who have to treat them when they start coughing up blood. Certainly, the makers of cigarettes have wider obligations than simply to their customers, as do the makers of fast cars, motorbikes and everything else. But these are not obligations which should be enforced by individuals through the legal system. That is what we have politics for. Of course there is a public interest in minimising lung cancer and road accidents. That is why we have laws to discourage smoking and make the roads safer.

The problem in America is that individuals have to pay for their own health care. And here was a clear case of manufacturers concealing information about the safety of a product. In fact, the American settlement is limited to the period when the tobacco companies knew things that the rest of us did not. They suppressed findings on the link to cancer and consistently lied about the impact of cigarettes on health. For that, they should pay. By all means let us punish British companies if they have behaved as badly as their American cousins. The principle of reparation is right. It is the scale of the US settlement that seems strange. It is disproportionate to the culpability of the tobacco giants - wicked, greedy and, well, capitalist as they might have been. After all, we are talking about cigarettes. You do not need a laboratory full of corgis dosed up until half of them die to know that smoking is not particularly good for you. You do not need to read research papers to know that it makes you cough. You do not need a PhD in pharmacology to know it is addictive.

Now we know about cancer, it is up to the individual to choose whether to smoke or not (although the tobacco companies might want to contribute to schemes focused on the causes of smoking among young women). But it should also fall to smokers to pay the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses. In America, they now will. Here, they already do.

Yes, that's right. And no, we have not suddenly swallowed the tobacco industry's propaganda. In Britain, four-fifths of the price of cigarettes goes in tax. In America, the average is around one-third. In this country, the pounds 10bn annual revenue from tobacco taxes easily covers the cost to the health service of treating tobacco-related illnesses, which is usually put at under pounds 1bn a year.

We are not prejudiced against the United States in proclaiming the superiority of the British way. We are only prejudiced against lawyers. It is a paradox that the Land of Free is actually a land chained by excessive legislation, litigation and pettyfogging nannydom. As Charles Arthur wrote in our pages last week, you almost expect paving stones there to be marked: "Danger: falling on this sidewalk can cause injury." It has become fashionable - not least in the Labour Government - to complain about excessive bureaucracy in the NHS. This is nothing compared with the vast, rickety network of pen-pushing, form-filling insurance companies, doctors and lawyers which "manages" health care in the US. This consumes a much larger proportion of America's much larger income than the NHS does in Britain, and yet it still fails to provide cover for some 35 million American citizens. These have to fall back, if they become ill, on the publicly-funded safety- net service known as Medicaid, and it was these Medicaid programmes which were at the centre of both the litigation against and the settlement with the tobacco industry. In a sense, the American legal system was ensuring a measure of social justice that we have secured in this country through our political system. The US tobacco companies will now have to put up the price of cigarettes by about 50 cents a packet in order to pay for some of the health-care costs of the less-well-off. The combination of tobacco taxes and an NHS free at the point of need achieves all this and more in Britain at a fraction of the cost in lawyers' fees.

React Now

  • Get to the point
Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Recruitment Genius: Sales Executive - OTE £38,000

£16000 - £38000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Due to continued expansion, an ...

Ashdown Group: Senior .Net Developer - Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey

£65000 - £70000 per annum + benefits : Ashdown Group: A long-established, tech...

Ashdown Group: Editor-in-chief - Financial Services - City, London

£60000 - £70000 per annum + benefits : Ashdown Group: A highly successful, glo...

Ashdown Group: Software Development Project Manager - Kingston Upon Thames

£55000 - £60000 per annum + benefits : Ashdown Group: Experienced Software Dev...

Day In a Page

Read Next
 

i Editor's Letter: Most powerful woman in British politics

Oliver Duff Oliver Duff
All the major parties are under pressure from sceptical voters to spell out their tax and spending plans  

Yet again, the economy is the battleground on which the election will be fought

Patrick Diamond
Revealed: Why Mohammed Emwazi chose the 'safe option' of fighting for Isis, rather than following his friends to al-Shabaab in Somalia

Why Mohammed Emwazi chose Isis

His friends were betrayed and killed by al-Shabaab
'The solution can never be to impassively watch on while desperate people drown'
An open letter to David Cameron: Building fortress Europe has had deadly results

Open letter to David Cameron

Building the walls of fortress Europe has had deadly results
Tory candidates' tweets not as 'spontaneous' as they seem - you don't say!

You don't say!

Tory candidates' election tweets not as 'spontaneous' as they appear
Mubi: Netflix for people who want to stop just watching trash

So what is Mubi?

Netflix for people who want to stop just watching trash all the time
The impossible job: how to follow Kevin Spacey?

The hardest job in theatre?

How to follow Kevin Spacey
Armenian genocide: To continue to deny the truth of this mass human cruelty is close to a criminal lie

Armenian genocide and the 'good Turks'

To continue to deny the truth of this mass human cruelty is close to a criminal lie
Lou Reed: The truth about the singer's upbringing beyond the biographers' and memoirists' myths

'Lou needed care, but what he got was ECT'

The truth about the singer's upbringing beyond
Migrant boat disaster: This human tragedy has been brewing for four years and EU states can't say they were not warned

This human tragedy has been brewing for years

EU states can't say they were not warned
Women's sportswear: From tackling a marathon to a jog in the park, the right kit can help

Women's sportswear

From tackling a marathon to a jog in the park, the right kit can help
Hillary Clinton's outfits will be as important as her policies in her presidential bid

Clinton's clothes

Like it or not, her outfits will be as important as her policies
NHS struggling to monitor the safety and efficacy of its services outsourced to private providers

Who's monitoring the outsourced NHS services?

A report finds that private firms are not being properly assessed for their quality of care
Zac Goldsmith: 'I'll trigger a by-election over Heathrow'

Zac Goldsmith: 'I'll trigger a by-election over Heathrow'

The Tory MP said he did not want to stand again unless his party's manifesto ruled out a third runway. But he's doing so. Watch this space
How do Greek voters feel about Syriza's backtracking on its anti-austerity pledge?

How do Greeks feel about Syriza?

Five voters from different backgrounds tell us what they expect from Syriza's charismatic leader Alexis Tsipras
From Iraq to Libya and Syria: The wars that come back to haunt us

The wars that come back to haunt us

David Cameron should not escape blame for his role in conflicts that are still raging, argues Patrick Cockburn
Sam Baker and Lauren Laverne: Too busy to surf? Head to The Pool

Too busy to surf? Head to The Pool

A new website is trying to declutter the internet to help busy women. Holly Williams meets the founders