Should tobacco companies be held responsible and liable for costs associated with lung cancer and other smoking-related illnesses?

What would a socially responsible tobacco company look like? It could certainly not be defined as such if it did not address the harm its products cause. It would be engaged in research and development seeking to develop less harmful versions of it product that would remain acceptable to its customers. It would have a clear code of conduct about how it seeks to market it's products and to whom it would aim to tackle …

…the issue of smoking, they inform us. Each company devotes millions of dollars to a variety of causes, including feeding the hungry, aiding victims of natural disasters, and protecting women who are victims of abuse (of the nonsmoking kind). In 2000, industry behemoth Philip Morris, with domestic tobacco revenues of $23 billion, spent $115 million on such worthy endeavors--and then spent an additional $150 million on a national advertising campaign to inform the public about the company's largesse.(n6)