The following is a supporting
defense for my previous blog Cigarette
Tax - Sin Tax or Blood Money?
Parallel arguments are often used in courtrooms
by lawyers to support a defense and maintain consistent justice. Here
you will be required to act as judge and jury to determined whether
or not my argument has merit.
Ok, let's first take a look at Coca Cola. We all know that Coca Cola
once contained cocaine, but the story behind the removal of cocaine
is significant and directly applies to cigarettes.
Coca Cola, at one time contained a relatively significant amount of
cocaine in their product. There were 3 different manufacturers of this
product at one time. All of them producing it on the premise that it
had medicinal use. In 1888, two of the producers were forced to shut
down, and from that point Asa Griggs Candler, the original owner of
The Coca Cola Company, held all rights to the product.
In 1891, public attitude toward cocaine became increasingly negative.
Stirrings of a national debate became likely, so Candler and the Coca
Cola Company listened to the public and began to reduce the cocaine
levels in their product. By 1902, cocaine levels had been reduced to
an insignificant trace - 1/400 of a grain per ounce of syrup. When technology
increased in 1929, they were able to remove all traces of cocaine from
their product, while still using spent coca leaves for flavor and maintaining
their trademark.
I found the following most interesting: there was no need for government intervention; no need for lawyers; The Coca Cola Corp. was a company accountable.
I found the following most interesting: there was no need for government intervention; no need for lawyers; The Coca Cola Corp. was a company accountable.
Now, let's look at tobacco companies. As far as I know Coca Cola was
never accused of killing people, but on the mere attitude about an ingredient
in their product THEY opted to remove it. Tobacco companies, on the
other hand, kill hundreds of thousands of Americans each year with NO
accountability, and their product is known to be as addictive as heroin!
Sadly, people have tried to rise against this big conglomerate and failed, lawsuits were filed and lost, and government turned its back on us. Does anybody else see a problem with this picture? Doesn't this show a major breakdown in our society where a manufacturer can produce a deadly, addictive product - without guilt, without accountability, and without change?
Sadly, people have tried to rise against this big conglomerate and failed, lawsuits were filed and lost, and government turned its back on us. Does anybody else see a problem with this picture? Doesn't this show a major breakdown in our society where a manufacturer can produce a deadly, addictive product - without guilt, without accountability, and without change?
It seems to me, we can all learn a lot about ethics in business by
taking a walk through history. Coca Cola was an upstanding example of
how to handle a dangerous substance in question. Why is this decision
so difficult for tobacco companies? Why is this product still addictive?
Simple, M-O-N-E-Y - sad but true. And consequently, our government got
all wound up in a big wad of cash. Unfortunately, it's not that we're
not complaining, and it's not that public opinion isn't negative. It
all boils down to a lack of accountability, a lack of business ethics,
and no value for human life. Does this sound like America to you?
So what's YOUR verdict?
View Related Blog: Cigarette
Tax - Sin Tax or Blood Money?
Footnotes: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola
Snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp
Snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp