Good Honest Dollar $$

Under normal circumstances, I would not have a great deal of empathy for litigation on the part of consumers who suffer adverse consequences as a result of their own consumption related habits and decisions.

But there is one group of litigants for whom I have a considerable degree of empathy – tobacco litigants. I have a considerable degree of empathy for those who acquired the habit of smoking perhaps during the 1960s or 1970s, and are now trying to sue tobacco firms for compensation as a result of adverse health conditions with regard to which their consumption of tobacco is believed to represent a significant contributing factor.

Why – simply because of the way that the tobacco industry so blatantly mislead the public with about the health implications of smoking over the course of several decades.

 
To be sure, consumers are responsible for their own decisions ..
Under one plausible viewpoint, consumers who have smoked cigarettes for decades have only themselves to blame for any smoking related health problems which they may contract.

Such a viewpoint asserts that the scientific community had long warned about the dangers associated with cigarettes, and that those who chose of their own free will to continue the habit in spite of the known risks must take responsibility for any adverse health related consequences of their actions.

Though I do not agree, there does appear to be some degree of validity to this argument. Personally, I was not around during the 1960’s and early 70s, and I am therefore not in much of a position to make a great deal of informed comment about whether the dangers of smoking were generally well understood during that time. But from what I have read in Wikipedia, it would appear to me that the global scientific community has been actively warning about the link between smoking and lung cancer from as far back as the 1950s (refer article).

For this reason, there would be a somewhat reasonable argument (though I don’t agree) that those who adopted the habit should have been more than aware that their behavior was not safe.

 
.. but the industry also had a responsibility to tell the truth
But I cannot agree with this viewpoint, simply because of the role which the tobacco industry played in terms of creating confusion about the health impact of cigarettes by repeatly making blatant misrepresentations with regard to the scientific evidence on the subject.

It is a well documented fact that big tobacco gave repeated public assurances that consumption of tobacco related products was safe, even despite mounting opinion to the contrary amongst the scientific community. It is almost certain that by doing this, they created doubt in the minds of some smokers as to the question of whether or not smoking was expected to have a serious impact upon one’s health.

(Click here to watch a video showing Statements by the tobacco industry about the health issues of smoking)

This is one of the key differences between tobacco litigants and some other forms of consumer related complaints. McDonalds, for example, have never to my knowledge denied that eating a Big Mac every day would not represent a particularly healthy habit from a dietary viewpoint. Nor to my knowledge have casinos ever denied that excessive gambling behavior can result in serious financial, personal and emotional consequences.

But big tobacco most certainly assured smokers that cigarettes were safe – assurances which consumers surely had some right to place a degree of reliance upon.

In doing so, the tobacco industry failed to fulfill one of their fundamental basic fundamental obligations as a manufacturer – to provide truthful and accurate information with regard to the health and safety of their merchandise. They also opened themselves up to what I would have thought would have been a more than fair case for compensation claims from consumers who have suffered adverse health related conditions for which there is substantial reason to believe that consumption of cigarettes represents a significant contributing factor.

(Image via Wikipedia)

Piracy off the coast of Somalia represents a very serious problem.

But putting armed security guards on board vessels which travel through the area is not the best solution.

Such an action would place the safety of crew members, as well as the guards themselves, in further jeopardy in my view.

 
Two important points
First, I feel that it is important to clarify two critical points:

 
• Crew safety is the most important consideration.

Granted, the increases in shipping costs which results from piracy is a serious concern, as is the unfair burden which it imposes upon ship owners.

Granted also, the impact of piracy in terms of inhibiting the delivery of food aid represents a more serious problem still.

But you can’t put a price tag on human life. And for this reason, the safety of crew members must surely be the overriding concern in terms of dealing with the piracy issue.

 
• Crew members themselves should never be armed.

Whilst there may be some merit in proposals to employ armed security personnel, crew members themselves should not be armed.

Arms should only be provided to those who are properly trained to use them, and under no circumstances should arms on board shipping vessels be placed in the hands of those who are not trained to use them properly.

 
A weak case for the proposal
The case for the use of armed security personnel does not appear to be particularly strong in my view.

It revolves around the notion that their presence (and that of their arms) would help to deter would-be pirates.

From the viewpoint of an individual ship owner, this may indeed be the case. Indeed, pirates may well be tempted to leave armed vessels alone, preferring the somewhat easier prey of unarmed vessels.

But from an overall perspective, the presence of armed security personnel on board shipping vessels is not likely to cause any significant decrease in piracy activities. Pirates who are sufficiently bold so as to continue to operate in spite of the proximity of large warships are hardly likely to be put off by a few armed guards. This is particularly the case as the shotguns carried by the guards are not likely to be any match for the extensive weaponry carried by many pirates.

For this reason, the case for having vessels manned with armed security personal would not appear to be particularly strong.

(Apparently, weapons carried on board ships is subject to the legal requirements of (a) both the ship’s flag carrier; and (b) the nations in which it intends to dock. In many cases, this means they are limited to shotguns (refer article)

Pirates, on the other hand, are typically armed with long range assault rifles capable of firing up to six hundred rounds per minute)

 
Very serious drawbacks
In contrast, there are at least two very serious drawbacks of the idea:

 
• Potential for escalated confrontation.

As it stands, the vast majority of crew members do not suffer any form of serious harm or injury in these ordeals. Nor do they typically suffer any form of inhumane treatment at the hands of the pirates.

That could change if there was an increase in cases of escalated confrontation resulting from the presence of armed security personnel.

 
• Possibility of accidents.

Misfired or stray bullets could easily result in serious accident, particularly where ships carry explosive material as cargo.

 
Over to you
In my view, the dangers presented by each of these risks far outweighs any deterrent benefit which the presence of armed security personnel on vessels which sail through pirate infested waters.

What do you think?

I have a question for you.

How and when do you think the world might have found out about a massive explosion which killed thirty-five workers at an illegal Chinese mine on July 14 last year?

Immediate reports from grief-stricken relatives? No. The mine owner acted very swiftly to purchase their silence.

Local officials? Not likely. They issued a false report after pretending to investigate.

Journalists? Nope – bribed also.

The mine owner? Naturally, no.

So how and when did the world find out? Two months later via some brave soul in an internet chat room, according to a report in the International Herald Tribune.

As a result of this brave soul, twenty-five local officials were fired, twenty-two of them now under criminal investigation.

The debacle described above highlights two important points:

• continuing problems in China with respect to accountability; and
• the constructive role which online media can play in terms of whistle-blowing.

 
China’s never-ending accountability problems
The fact that an incident like this was exposed only through an internet chat room shows just how diabolical the situation really is with respect to accountability and worker safety in Chinese coal mines.

Even at the official rate, according to the article, the average death toll rate for Chinese coal miners stands at nine per day – a staggering forty times more than America. The problem is most acute in small mines, many of which are illegal, operate in more dangerous areas and have little apparent incentive to invest in safety. Apparently account for three quarters of the deaths but only one-third of production.

And even then, these are only the official figures. They do not take into account the scores of deaths which go unreported because local officials and journalists are so easily paid off.

The situation is completely unacceptable and international governments and unions should continue to apply pressure on China to undertake some form of meaningful action to address this downright awful situation.

 
The whistle-blowing role of online media
But on the bright side, the episode also highlights the constructive role which online forms of media can play in terms of corporate accountability.

As access to online media expands, so too will the capacity of individuals to blow the whistle on cover ups. It is one thing to lock in the loyalty of local officials and media (using handsome financial incentives), but persuading every single person who has access to a blog or some other form of online media to do the same would be extremely difficult.

In the new world, online media provides a wonderful mechanism to support whistle-blowing, and in many cases it, is only a matter of time before someone exploits this capability to expose even the most intricately planned conspiracy.

Of course, online media can also be a platform to spread misinformation, perhaps with malicious intent.

And unfortunately, the sad reality is that some firms will continue to attempt cover-ups of various kinds in spite of the increase risk of being exposed due to online media. Cover ups are a reality today, and will continue to be a reality throughout the foreseeable future.

But even so, the benefits of online media in terms of a whistle-blowing mechanism cannot be underestimated, and I would think that these benefits would far outweigh any associated drawbacks.

Where other mechanisms of accountability fail, it is wonderful that the online media provides those who wish to blow the whistle with an effective medium to do so.

Especially with respect to a grave tragedy like this.  

 
Over to you
Do you think online media helps to promote better practices in terms of corporate governance? Why/Why not?

Should owners of pubs, bars and nightclubs who are unable to control the behavior of their patrons be provided with a free, taxpayer funded security service?

Most people would probably say no, yet this would appear to be exactly what happens whenever a taxpayer-funded police force is required to respond to incidents which occur on or around the premises of such establishments.

To be sure, security staff employed by the establishment are usually able to handle the majority of incidents, say a couple of blokes getting into a bit of push and shove, without too much difficulty.

Nevertheless, where matters escalate out of control, police are left to clean up the mess, necessitating the use of a taxpayer funded service and costing the taxpayer money.

This is of little concern to owners of the establishments concerned, as they do not have to pay a dime even if their security procedures are lax and/or police involvement is required on a frequent basis.

This should not be the case, according to Rolf Gerritsen, a researcher the Charles Darwin University in Australia. Mr. Gerritsen, who has proposed that nightclub owners be charged a fee whenever police assistance is required at their venues.

Under Mr. Gerrison’s plan, owners of nightclubs, pubs or bars, would be would be required to pay a set fee any time police have to be called as a result of disturbances which occur within a ‘buffer zone’ around the immediate vicinity of their establishments.

 
Pro’s and Con’s
Rather than express a definitive viewpoint with respect to such a proposal, I would like to throw open the floor and see what you, the readers, think.

For starters, here are a few of my ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of the idea:

 
Pro’s:
(1) Financial incentive to improve security.

Charging a fee whenever police assistance becomes necessary provides an incentive for owners of drinking establishments to adopt a more diligent approach with respect to security measures. These could include, for example, use of metal detectors for purposes of locating concealed weapons, or denial of entry to patrons who had been involved in security incidents in the past.

These types of incentives could lead to safer environments for the majority of patrons who wish to enjoy a harmless social event in a sensible fashion.

 
(2) Fairness.

It would seem to be fair enough that owners of establishments, rather than taxpayers, should foot the bill for their use of the police force as a public resource.

The principle of ‘user pays,’ which operates in many other areas of public service, is generally considered to be fair, and it could be well argued that owners of drinking establishments, not taxpayers, should assume the financial responsibility for the public safety risks which are inherent within their business activities.

In addition, it would also seem fair that owners who are able to maintain a reasonably safe environment should be entitled to enjoy a cost advantage over competitors with less safe environments, as they would if owners were charged for use of police on a per visit basis.

 
Con’s
(1) Reluctance to call police.

Charging owners of drinking venues for police assistance may result in an undue level of reluctance on behalf of some venues to call the police, potentially placing the safety of patrons and staff in undue jeopardy in the event that a serious incident does occur.

The police force is better equipped than internal security staff to deal with incidents where patrons are placed under severe threat of serious injury.

 
(2) Patrons, not establishments or their staff, cause the trouble.

This is a pretty weak argument in my view, but some may feel that it is the conduct of patrons, rather than staff, that result in the need for police involvement, and that it is unfair that venue owners should be punished for the conduct of those who merely use their premises and consume the services which they provide.

Drinking venues, some would argue, should be held accountable for the actions of their staff – not for their customers.

 
Over to you
What do you think? Do you support the charging of fees where drinking venues require police assistance?

Under normal circumstances, I would oppose government restrictions which prevent or limit the expansion of legal business enterprises.

However, the recent decision by the Los Angeles City Council to impose a one-year moratorium on the granting of permits for new fast food outlets is a perfectly reasonable decision, and any legal challenges from the fast food industry (which have not been ruled out) would be counter productive from a viewpoint of public health.

The moratorium, covering a 32 square mile area in the city’s south, represents part of the city’s effort to tackle obesity problems in the area.

Although not an outright solution in itself, the moratorium has two main objectives: to provide a window of opportunity to stimulate growth in areas such as grocery stores and fresh food outlets, and as a temporary means of stopping the proliferation of fast food outlets, whilst the city attempts to devise more permanent solutions to prevent obesity.

Both of these are worthy aims, and there is good reason to support the measure.

The case for the moratorium

South L.A. does have a serious problem, with obesity rates standing at 30% for adults and 29% per cent for children, compared with rates of 20.9% and 23.3% respectively for the country overall (refer article).

Given the potential consequences from a public health perspective, this is a serious problem which requires concrete action steps.

The problem may have several causes. High levels of crime and gangland violence dissuade outdoor exercise, and high poverty levels as well as the local pop culture are not conducive to positive nutritional habits.

But the local food supply is a critical aspect of the problem. The area has approximately four hundred fast food outlets and very few grocery stores or outlets for fresh food (refer article), leaving a very restrictive choice for residents who wish to eat healthy food.

Addressing this problem is critical – dietary habits will only change if residents are able to source nutritional food in a convenient manner at affordable prices. The area badly needs more grocery stores and fresh food outlets.

The moratorium will not accomplish this in itself. However, what it will achieve is a temporary halt to the proliferation of fast food outlets. Provided it is accompanied by other measures, such as consumer education about the importance of balanced diets, the measure may just provide a window of opportunity for grocery stores to get a foothold in the area.

Objections

The fast food industry’s opposition to the measure is understandable. From their viewpoint, the moratorium unduly places limitations on their ability to expand their fully legal business operations.

But their objections are not particularly strong.

Contrary to industry claims, the moratorium does not represent an attack on consumer choice. It applies only to new restaurants, and consumers who wish to eat fast food will still have approximately four-hundred outlets in a 32 square mile area to choose from.

Moreover, if the plan to attract grocery stores and fresh food is successful, the net result will be an increase in real consumer choice, not a decrease.

In addition, the measure is unlikely to have much impact upon prices, contrary to industry claims, according to which the measure will increase the cost of food in an area with high poverty levels.

Given the socio-economic status of the area, any new grocery stores or fresh food outlets are not likely to charge unaffordable prices. Besides, consumers will still have the option to frequent existing (low cost) fast food outlets if they wish.

The industry also argues that the measure ignores positive initiatives which it has already put in place, including healthier menu options and the elimination of trans fats in many restaurants. (refer article)

Whilst these are positive initiatives, fast food outlets still represent places where vast amounts of junk food are consumed, and there further proliferation in the area is unwarranted from a public health viewpoint.

The strongest objections are that the measure will be successful in attracting fresh food outlets, and that there are more effective approaches toward tackling obesity.

To be sure, there is no guarantee that the plan will produce a significant expansion of grocery stores in the area, particularly given its socio-demographic status.

Moreover, the plan in itself is unlikely to have a significant impact upon dietary habits in the near term future.

But what does achieve a temporary stoppage on the proliferation of fast food outlets whilst the city attempts to devise more permanent measures to encourage the establishment of grocery stores and fresh food outlets.

Furthermore, the moratorium is not in itself a solution to poor nutrition. However, if it is accompanied by other measures, such as consumer education and changes to school lunches, it may have a positive impact.

Conclusion

The moratorium on new fast food restaurants in South L.A. is a step in the right direction and any legal attempt by the industry to thwart such an initiative would be most unproductive.

More fast food restaurants, at least for the time being, are not what the doctor ordered.