Crastinate

I’ve recently written about the need for businesses to be cognizant of social issues and how they should try their best to improve areas of social concern when possible, but shouldn’t feel required to hurt their business to make progress in these areas.

In the comments the issue of cigarette companies was brought up and the “ethicality” of their businesses as a whole. The question was posed as to whether I am OK  with cigarette companies choosing to be unethical and ignoring the consequences of their product to the general public. Then, loyal Crastinate reader (Crastinator) Avi sent me an exchange between Rush Limbaugh and a caller on Limbaugh’s radio show. Limbaugh was making the case that if cigarettes were so bad for you, and they really kill people, why doesn’t Congress ban cigarettes. His argument was that the government needs the tax revenue from cigarettes and cares more about their revenue than they do about the health of their constituents.

Let me be clear on my position. I believe that if cigarettes were a brand new product in the market, and we have all the scientific information we have now on the addictivesness and correlation with cancer that we have now about cigarettes, they would be illegal. But that is not the situation. And we can’t just ban something that millions of people are addicted to in our country. I think the government’s approach towards these companies is a good one. You can’t change the current market that much but you can affect the future. Make cigarettes very expensive for potential new users. Create public awareness about the health dangers of smoking. And hopefully have an effect on the future consumption of cigarettes and slowly ween the American consumer off this addictive substance.

Limbaugh implied that cigarettes are not as dangerous as the studies have shown because if they were, then they would be banned. Comments from my previous post implied that if I feel that businesses shouldn’t have to hurt their bottom line to act ethically, than I’m OK with cigarette companies. Both of these statements are wrong. Cigarettes should be banned but can’t be because they have been sewn into the fabric of American culture (and tax revenue stream) for too long. So we’re trying to ease America off cigarettes slowly. I am not OK with cigarette companies and I wish I could shut them down but, because of already stated reasons, we can’t ban their product.

We ARE making progress with cigarettes and have recognized as a society that cigarettes are very bad for you. The tough ethical decision here is a bit easier because the line is so clearly drawn. How do you tell a business that they HAVE to be more socially responsible at a higher cost unless you make it law? I don’t think you can.