Judge denies compensation to former smoker claiming that no free will to addiction

Alberto Joao Lopes Rodrigues is health officer

Foto: Irene Roiko/ASCOM/PSB
John is a doctor AlbertRodrigues sanitaristao Lopes
John is a doctor AlbertRodrigues sanitaristao Lopes

<b> Judge denies compensation to former smoker claiming that no free will to addiction and to justify the sentence presents some technical arguments </ b>

Judicial decisions in matters relating to smoking, almost entirely, always bring issues such as individual liberty and free will; concepts here that are being overcome, but still used by the Brazilian judiciary to define the tobacco consumption. In this logic, there is a sentence that I find emblematic - Case No. 2009.001.121.070-5 of September 2, 2011. Thus, I hope to contribute to the debate and guide the noble fellow physicians to consider these issues relevant to tobacco control, unfortunately, the doctors themselves have contributed to the misunderstandings of Justice. With this, too, would like to collaborate with members belonging to the noble Justice of our country to have a more modern issue.

To begin discussion, I ask: what is the mind of the magistrate stating that no free will to addiction, in reality what this means? The issue is not the merit of the sentence itself, but the form and content; presents misconceptions, particularly with regard to the evidence of science to smoking - addiction to the nicotine present in tobacco products. The judge is fully entitled to deny the claim. However, I think your argument to justify the sentence was very disrespectful and extrapolated to the object judged, without any care or even sympathy for the applicant that the judge claims to be a tobacco chemically dependent and also suffers from lung cancer ; serious illness and often fatal.

In saying that the applicant is an addict intentional or that the disease is the result of mismanagement of his nefarious conduct, must bear alone the consequences of his lack to you, the magistrate said in the light of science, that we are facing a severe chemical dependence tobacco, but does so with the clear objective to disqualify the demands for compensation by the applicant and therefore disqualifies the sentence itself, it should not fit as value judgments.

Addiction is a chronic, is not a personality trait, requires attention and respect as any other health condition, not moralizing. The applicant does not ask for compensation from the government, much less society, but the industry that produces a product that causes severe dependence, disease and death. The applicant has consumed cigarettes for many years to be chemically dependent tobacco, been acquired, including lung cancer. It has become dependent on cigarettes most likely in his youth, when it is still very vulnerable to external influences - there has been and continues to promote the consumption of cigarettes, 90% of adult smokers become addicted to tobacco before age 19 of age.

Unlike alcohol, there is no safe level of tobacco use, including smoking cigarettes very few, here is the very rare use not associated with dependence (recreational use of tobacco), one in two regular cigarette smokers die tobacco-related disease.

Consider the statement that the applicant has done everything for free will of course head of the magistrate, the primary reason that the applicant deliberately chose to have a lung cancer, that is, by pure free will, want to get sick from disease and limiting often fatal to consume a product that has been glamorized and promoted by intense and misleading advertising and publicity. In this case, if we completely ignore the context of life, free will, here, the claimant was to begin in the cigarette and become an addict of tobacco (deliberately according to the judge) just to buy all that industry has offered to sell him: a rare pleasure, freedom, confidence, sensuality ... never the reality of lung cancer and a severe addiction.

The fact that part of the responsibility of the applicant in his illness, not in any way relieve the industry's share of responsibility in the applicant's illness, because the tobacco companies produce a product that science has shown unequivocally that is as addictive as hard drugs and causes lung cancer. Here the causal link was determined for both the addiction, which the judge said in sentencing, the etiology of cancer.

Thus, it is our duty to propose some reflections. Only the applicant should be penalized? Is it fair? Where is the Justice, which frees the tobacco industry's liability to the state, including that there was environmental damage by the applicant? (Says the judge in sentencing the applicant every time you smoked was contributing to environmental pollution of the Earth). And to further punish the applicant, the judge revoked the previously deferred gratuity of justice, believing that the author was able to buy thousands of packs of cigarettes over many years, certainly would be able to afford the fees and expenses attorneys.

So, it sounds like the tobacco industry is beneficial for Public Health, Environment, Economy, Sustainable Development and the planet. In fact it is essentially a very primary. Why? For the powerful tobacco industry remains lawful, but with severe and strict limitations to increasingly damaging your product (to paraphrase the judge) has fall of consumers, in order to decrease significantly cigarette addicts (addicts intentional second magistrate) and this occurs with lower rates of disease and tobacco-related deaths.