Analysis of Editorial About The Correct Use of the Tobacco Settlement Money
"The Bottom Line" is an opinion which makes a claim stating the correct uses of tobacco settlement money. The money should be spent on smoking related health care and prevention, according to the claim. In order to support his claim the writer resorts mostly to using assumptions.
The title of the article gives the first assumption made by the writer. The catch phrase used for the title, "The Bottom Line", is immediately at work trying to convince the reader that whatever the content of the article, it is the truth. The writer smartly tries to set this tone even before the reader begins reading the first sentence of the piece. The statements made by the writer might
…show more content…
The tobacco settlement money awarded to the states is argued to be needed "…to fight off the scourge of tobacco-related illnesses…". Whether we need to do this or not is a pure assumption. Specifically, the paragraph outlines three separate areas we need to put this money towards. Statistics could defend the need to replenish money lost to youth illness and state funds. When the writer states the need for the money to be used to fight off tobacco related illnesses that sap our potential, he assumes we know what the word potential means in this …show more content…
In order to fill this budget gap, the counties are spending some of the initial settlement money given to them before the payments began since the reduced payments will not balance their budgets alone. The decision made by the state to spend the settlement money on the budget, and not on anti-smoking is wrong according to the writer. This restates the assumption made in the beginning, and in paragraphs twelve and thirteen. The last paragraph restates this assumption again, adding to it the new assumption that this course of action by the state will be costly in the
The smoking issue is very complicated and some of the arguments are beyond the scope of this essay. Still, we can obtain a balanced outlook if we consider the following: the facts of smoking, individual right, societal responsibility, and the stigma of smoking. Haviland and King write essays which contain very important points, but seem to contain a bias which may alienate some people. To truly reach a consensus on the smoking issue, we must be willing to meet each other halfway. We must strike equilibrium between individual right and societal responsibility.
The tobacco industry seems like a beneficial addition to our economy. It has basically been a socially acceptable business in the past because it brings jobs to our people and tax money to the government to redistribute; but consider the cost of tobacco related treatment, mortality and disability- it exceeds the benefit to the producer by two hundred billion dollars US. (4) Tobacco is a very profitable industry determined to grow despite government loss or public health. Its history has demonstrated how money can blind morals like an addiction that is never satisfied. Past lawsuits were mostly unsuccessful because the juries blamed the smoker even though the definition of criminal negligence fits the industry’s acts perfectly. Some may argue for the industry in the name of free enterprise but since they have had such a clear understanding of the dangers of their product it changes the understanding of their business tactics and motives. The success of the industry has merely been a reflection of its immoral practices. These practices have been observed through its use of the media in regards to children, the tests that used underage smokers, the use of revenue to avoid the law, the use of nicotine manipulation and the suppression of research.
In the beginning of Brimelow’s essay, he lists a number of organizations that are fighting against the tobacco industry, such as the Food & Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Then out of nowhere he throws out his major claim, which is the thesis or the main point of the essay (McFadden 41). Every paper has a major claim; it is the central idea of the paper. The major claim says, “smoking might be, in some small ways, good for you” (Brimelow 141). This is a rather shocking thesis, due to the fact that generally when we think of smoking, we think of something very negative to a person’s health. Brimelow’s major claim is very difficu...
To address the statement that selling cigarettes is unethical due to the danger associated with it, one must determine what separates this manufactured good from other harmful products. It is true that tobacco is a dangerous drug and can do damage to a person; how...
"Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
It is important to provide a brief history of the Tobacco policy and a comprehensive description of the ethical dilemma before going into the examination of the dilemma, which will be provided in the following paragraphs using Gortner’s Framework for Anal...
Peter Brimelow brings to light an interesting idea in his essay “Thank You for Smoking…?” Brimelow’s purpose of his essay is to defend smoking. He provides the audience with information that is worthy of their consideration and valid enough to make them think twice about how they stand on the issue of smoking. Unfortunately, some flaws in Brimelow’s technique distract the audience from his message that smoking is not as unhealthy as it appears. A few mistakes transform his work from a well-written argumentative essay to an unsuccessful attempt to spread his beliefs. What started as an essay to rouse new views on the issue of smoking swiftly lost all merit and became a means to assail the people in opposition of the author’s views.
Menashe, L. (1998). An analysis of Newspaper Coverage of Tobacco Issues. Journal of Health Communication, 3, 307-325
In one of the article of Baltimore Sun that entitled “Time for the feds to raise the cigarette tax”, it informs us about the government activity on the taxation of cigarettes and how it benefits Maryland by saving lives of smokers, as it’s stated that more than 70,000 lives has been saved due to the lower smoking rates. Maryland has collected revenue of nearly $400 million from tobacco and alcohol. Between the period of 1998 and 2009 there has been a decline in adult smoking rates by 32.6 percent. The congressional budget office have come into conclusion that hike in the tax of cigarettes from $1.01 to $1.51 per pack would help trim costs to Medicare, also there would be a decline in death rates and improve health, this would therefore make the citizens of the US live longer and paying taxes longer. It’s a possibility that tobacco companies are to make a riot, by making statements such as tax revenue is not the dependable source of revenue, and increasing tax will only inspire smuggling. If poor people are the ones who’ll quit the habit of smoking, so much better for them as they’ll benefit a better quality of life, but there will be a raise in the cost of Social security as there are healthier individuals who are likely to live longer, and hat would result in more retirees.
Each year 440,000 people die, in the United States alone, from the effects of cigarette smoking (American Cancer Society, 2004). As discussed by Scheraga & Calfee (1996) as early as the 1950’s the U.S. government has utilized several methods to curb the incidence of smoking, from fear advertising to published health warnings. Kao & Tremblay (1988) and Tremblay & Tremblay (1995) agreed that these early interventions by the U.S. government were instrumental in the diminution of the national demand for cigarettes in the United States. In more recent years, state governments have joined in the battle against smoking by introducing antismoking regulations.
In 2008, 21% of adults in America aged 18 and older were current cigarette smokers while another 21% had been former smokers and 58% had smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their life, according to a CDC survey (Pleis 10). These statistics result in almost half of the United States population being smokers at one point in their life. The tobacco industry is huge in order to provide cigarettes to the quarter of Americans that currently smoke. The statistics that resulted from the survey did not even include other types of tobacco products, which are just as harmful. However, even realizing the harm that tobacco products can cause, tobacco companies use a variety of devious methods to draw people in to buy their product, especially younger people. With all of the money flowing in from their consumers, tobacco companies lobby very heavily in Congress and the House to prevent laws and regulations that will cut into their profits. According to tobaccofreekids.org, the tobacco industry spent $10.6 million to lobby Congress in the first half of 2003 (Tobacco-Free Kids). Organizations such as the American Legacy Foundation are annoyed by the lies that big tobacco companies tell; they decided to bring the truth out into the open. The aptly named “truth” campaign opposes the tactics that tobacco businesses use to advertise their product, and the campaign has decided to fight against the lies to provide the truth about cigarettes and tobacco. The truth campaign’s anti-smoking ads present a stunning portrayal of smoking that reflects the influence tobacco companies have on youth while also illustrating the consequences of addiction and use.
Smoking cigarettes is a detrimental practice not only to the smoker, but also to everyone around the smoker. According to an article from the American Lung Association, “Health Effects” (n.d.), “Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., causing over 438,000 deaths per year”. The umbrella term for tobacco use includes the use of cigarettes, cigars, e-cigs and chewing tobacco. While tobacco causes adverse health consequences, it also has been a unifying factor for change in public health. While the tobacco industries targets specific populations, public health specifically targets smokers, possible smokers, and the public to influence cessation, policies and education.
The topic area is overly vague. The speech argues for a point that most would agree to anyway (it is doubtful that even smokers would argue that smoking is a healthy activity). This leads to odd points like II. An attack on Phillip Morris simply feels out of place in this particular speech (especially since the thesis aims to persuade people to stop smoking).
.I believe that the Tobacco industry is unethical, They provide a product that causes addiction and eventual death if smoking continues thought the majority of a person’s life. I think that the tobacco industry needs to take more responsibility for their product. I believe they should do this by not advertising on the false image of being a cigarette smoker and focus on what consumers are actually going to receive for their money when purchasing cigarettes. They should focus on the feeling it gives people, and what the cigarette experience actually is in the most literal terms. Also cigarette companies should tell costumers upfront in easy to read labels the long term and short term effects of smoking to let people clearly know what they are buying and what it’s effects are.
Cardador, M.T., Hazon,A. PHD, Stanton. G. PHD., (September 1995).Tobacco Industry Smokers’ Rights Publications: A Content Analysis. American Journal of Public Health