Should the tobacco industry be held liable for illness and death caused by smoking? Currently, the Federal government is looking into this in numerous court cases, scientific studies, and a never-ending battle between national health, and the big tobacco giants. But to make an educated opinion, both sides of the argument must be heard.

We hear about it all the time: Smoking causes this and smoking causes that. Not a day goes by that the media frenzy doesn't find something bad about smoking. Another reason why smoking will shorten your life span, increase stress, and kill you 5 minutes faster. The truth in the matter is that smoking is just generally bad for your health. There's no way in denying it, the Federal Drug Administration has hundreds of studies on the effects of smoking; "nicotine in cigarettes... is a drug", "cigarettes... lead to addiction", etc. But why, then, all the fuss about lawsuits? Actually, why would cigarettes still be legal? A bit odd they still exist, and generate so much money, don't you think? A while ago, in the 1950's, the FDA passes a regulation that forced cigarette companies to place warning labels on the

Tobacco brands though, like Marlboro, glamorized smoking, some say. The Marlboro man, and Joe Camel, are almost cultural icons. Movies show smoking as something 'cool'. Surely this warps young children's minds, and causes them to partake in something addictive. The ultimate marketing scheme, right? Wrong. Most everyone says Joe Camel made children want to smoke, but the reality is totally different. Advertisements effect choice of brand name, not the initial decision to smoke, studies show. Banning advertisements would actually increase the number of smokers, an international poll showed. So the tobacco companies aren't liable then, right?

But even if they did, the entire mindset that created the Florida Medicaid Third-Party Act would not have it stand for long in court. The Florida Supreme Court allowed this outlandishly unconstitutional act to pass, and the Federal Supreme Court will not challenge it. It "meets the rationale of the times". Sure, it may be good for society, but isn't the legality of it an issue? It seems not, to the hundreds of millions of tobacco sufferers across the globe. Not to mention it won't tear apart the deep pockets of Big Tobacco, which is what the state governments are really after.

"Assumption of risk" means, in a nutshell, that if you knowingly participated in something, and were fully aware of or had full access to a list of the consequences of your actions, the owner or producer of that something is not liable for what happens to you. Since there were warning labels on cigarette packs, and FDA investigations are publicly available, why should the tobacco companies be held responsible for something you did, knowing that it causes cancer, etc? This defense has withstood scrutiny for decades, and no one could pinch a penny from the large tobacco corporations becaus

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, York Times, Drug Administration, Joe Camel, Currently Federal, Actin Florida's, Federal Insurance, Industry Liable, Morris Inc, tobacco companies, assumption risk, Third-Party Act, tobacco industry, assumption risk defense, liable illness death, joe camel, cigarette companies, florida medicaid, medicaid third-party, supreme court, insurance company, industry held liable, held liable illness, rock hard, death caused smoking,
Approximate Word count = 1245
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)