Should manufacturers selling harmful products be legally obligated to compensate states for health problems their products caused?

  • Mkkjj jhj h h

    D d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ddddddddd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d dd d d d sup losers

  • Yes they should.

    In economics there is a term for positive and negative externalities. It basically means that there are good and bad consequences that can come from the production of your good. If there are negative consequences such as air pollution or other things, then the company should pay for them because they want to make their product.

  • Yes, manufacturers should be held responsible for unsafe products.

    Companies who sell products that are unsafe should definitely be held responsible for any negative impacts their products have. In some cases, this might be a government-mandated recall, followed by families who were hurt by the product suing, so not everything is necessarily done through the government itself. Companies have an obligation to make sure that the products they sell are safe for consumers.

  • Manufacturers Are Obligated.

    Manufacturers selling harmful products should definitely be legally obligated to compensate states for health problems their products have caused. Regulations should be in effect so that these things are kept in check, and people will not suffer consequences of using a product that has otherwise been labeled safe for use.

  • Tobacco Settlement Set Example

    The tobacco settlement worth billions of dollars to states was the prime example of manufacturers selling harmful products that paid money to the states in order to compensate for the harm their products caused. Too bad alcohol companies or bars can't do the same thing for drunk driving accidents. Too bad abusers can't be sued for monetary damages for their harmful products such as beatings, whippings and rapes.

  • No they shouldn't.

    I don't think the manufactures should be obligated to compensate states for the health problems. I think they should be legally obligated to compensate those who were harmed. The state would just spend it up on frivolous things. A person who was harmed could spend it on health care to make themselves better.

  • Of a product has a warning label and people still buy it, then the user is at fault.

    Let's take for example smoking. At this point, pretty much everyone knows that smoking cigarettes is bad for you and leads to all types of illnesses and health complications. There is actually a warning label printed on the side of most packs of cigarettes that says that the surgeon general has determined that cigarettes cause cancer. If someone sees all of this and still decides to smoke, i believe that the company manufacturing the cigarettes should not be responsible.

  • Using harmful products is a personal choice.

    Engaging in the use of harmful products such as alcohol and cigarette smoking is a personal choice. There are clearly countless numbers of advertisement and label warnings stating possible consequences and side effects . People can stop using the product anytime they choose so the manufacturers should not be responsible .

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.