Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday July 26 2021, @07:45PM   Printer-friendly

Tobacco firm Philip Morris calls for ban on cigarettes within decade:

The chief executive of tobacco business Philip Morris International has called on the UK government to ban cigarettes within a decade, in a move that would outlaw its own Marlboro brand.

Jacek Olczak said the company could “see the world without cigarettes … and actually, the sooner it happens, the better it is for everyone.” Cigarettes should be treated like petrol cars, the sale of which is due to be banned from 2030, he said.

Government action would end the confusion felt by smokers, some of whom still thought the “alternatives are worse than cigarettes”, Olczak told the Sunday Telegraph. “Give them a choice of smoke-free alternatives … with the right regulation and information it can happen 10 years from now in some countries. You can solve the problem once and forever.”

Philip Morris International (PMI) recently said it wanted half its turnover to come from non-smoking products as it morphs into a “healthcare and wellness company” with executive pay tied to its new mission to “unsmoke the world” by phasing out cigarettes.

Nonetheless the company has come under fire from anti-smoking campaigners who accused it of hypocrisy after it launched a £1bn takeover bid for Vectura, a British pharmacy company that makes asthma inhalers.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by NASAdude on Tuesday July 27 2021, @02:46PM

    by NASAdude (1677) on Tuesday July 27 2021, @02:46PM (#1160362)

    If the company wants to stop selling tobacco products, they don't have to wait for regulation. Or is money the issue?

    If hurting people is ethically wrong, depending on the existence of regulation to keep you from doing it seems disingenuous. It seems like they're saying, "I agree that X (murder, robbery, slavery, racism, misogyny, rape, child labor, castes, (selling tobacco), etc.) is horrible, but since X isn't illegal I'm ok with taking advantage of it when it benefits me."

    The lack of codified law doesn't excuse the actor when they continue doing what they profess is wrong. If anything, it brings into question whether they really believe it is wrong.