What should be the limits on the liability of a business for its products?

Option: Hold manufacturers, distributors and sellers of goods responsible for the effects of those goods in the hands of the buyers.

Pro: Laws hold certain parties responsible for letting events get out of control. For example, they hold drivers responsible for losing control of their vehicles when driven at excessive speeds. Laws could give responsibilities for protecting the public to a wider circle of citizens. If laws punished the suppliers of potentially hazardous products when accidents or crimes involving those products occur, the suppliers would limit their sales and otherwise oversee the actions of consumers to prevent undesired consequences; they would help to control events with a view toward preserving the safety of the general public.

Many automobile accidents could be prevented if laws held the manufacturers, distributors, sellers and providers of alcoholic beverages responsible for the performance of drivers who have consumed those beverages.

Violent crimes would be reduced if laws held the manufacturers, distributors and sellers of weapons liable for the crimes committed with those weapons.
And countless cases of life-threatening diseases would be prevented if the manufacturers, distributors and sellers of tobacco products were required to pay for the health care costs of patients afflicted with illnesses brought about by the use of tobacco.

Con: Agents ought to have responsibility only for the actions over which those agents have control. The manufacturers, distributors and sellers of alcoholic beverages and weapons have no control over the actions of the buyers of their products, so those who supply the products should not be held responsible for the actions of those who use them.

Option: Hold tobacco companies responsible for the adverse effects on the health of the users of tobacco products.

Pro: For many years, tobacco companies advised the public that tobacco products were safe, even beneficial to the health of users. The companies thereby motivated many consumers to take up practices that turned out to have devastating effects on human health. In particular, the smoking of cigarettes is a strong factor in the development of emphysema, lung cancer and heart disease. The smoking of pipes and the use of smokeless tobacco is linked to the onset of cancers of the lips and oral cavity.

As those adverse consequences became better known, the manufacturers, in some cases, distorted or concealed the truth about the dangers of their products. Even worse, in some cases, the manufacturers of tobacco products adjusted the amount of nicotine in those products to produce addiction in consumers. Since the manufacturers of the offending products are in part responsible for the damages caused, they ought to bear at least a portion of the financial burden of providing medical care to those who suffer the adverse effects of using those products.

Pro: The adverse effects on the health of the users of tobacco products cost insurance companies and agencies of government millions of dollars. Tobacco companies ought to share at least some of the cost of medical treatment for those with maladies attributable to the use of tobacco products.

Con: Customers exercise their own wills when they buy tobacco products; no one coerces the buyers of cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, and smokeless tobacco to make their purchases. Nowadays adequate information is available regarding the potential adverse effects of using tobacco products. Customers therefore ought to bear the greatest share of responsibility for the consequences of their actions.