Smoking, when one hears it they automatically thing death, but imagine being in a world where smoking was actually good for the economy. What would the person's expression be like? Smoking is one of the most harmful killers in the United States, but can it be good for the economy? Well as matter of fact, it may be unbelievable to some, but smoking is actually very good for the economy.
Many studies have shown different types of facts of how smoking is erroneous to the economy, but recent studies have shown that the more people smoke, the sooner they will more than likely pass away. By people passing away this makes the United States have to pay less money. Research has shown that there would then be reduced costs for Social Security, Medicare, and long-term health care. Making it to where people who are in their seventies, eighties, and higher, more acceptable to be taken care of.
Consequently, not only does smoking help make the United States money, but it also helps make the economy money too. Economist Kip Viscusi produced a capacious amount of numbers that show smoking is more finical costs for the economy (Is Smoking Good). With this study it shows that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country gets a net cost savings of at least 32 cents (Is Smoking Good).
The Czech government has also a great social benefit of the Philip Morris products. Philip Morris USA Inc. is the nation’s leading cigarette manufacture (Philip Morris USA). For more than 20 years it has had the highest incomes, revenues, volume and market share in the United States cigarette business (Philip Morris USA). Philip Morris USA Inc, has been around for more than 150 years and it is still running great. In 1854, Philip Morris made their fi...
... middle of paper ...
... better place. No matter which way one looks at it, smoking may never be proven to be 100% deficient to the economy or 100 percent congenial to the economy. Smoking is in many cases heinous to one’s health, but can it be proven to be heinous to the economy?
Works Cited
Harris, Paul. “Smoking is good For You-As a Taxpayer.” http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00123.htm. 17 Oct. 2002. Web. 04 February 2010.
Kuneman W. David. “Economic losses due to smoking bans in California and other states.” http://www.smokersclubinc.com/economic.html. March 2005. Web. 02 February 2010.
Perdida. “The Cultural and Economic Benefits of Smoking.” http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.7.22.11466.7770.html. 22 Jul, 2001. Web. 04 February 2010.
“What Diseases can you get from smoking” http://www.smokefreeaces.com/what-diseases-can-you-get-from-smoking/. Web. 02 February 2010
The essay “Thank You for Smoking,” written by Peter Brimelow, is far from an influential essay on why people should smoke. Through this essay, he gives many examples as to why “smoking might be, in some small ways, good for you” (Brimelow 141). A lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, osteoarthritis, and different types of cancer are examples of benefits of smoking given by Brimelow (Brimelow 142).
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.
Peter Brimelow’s article “Thank You for Smoking….?” is an essay that looks at a rather extreme perspective on smoking. Brimelow starts off by describing the many actions that are taken against the tobacco industry; he writes that in some states, the government is trying to make the tobacco industry pay certain health care costs. However, he then goes on to state that smoking may actually be good for one’s health. He uses various sources to show that smoking has positive effects on our bodies; he states the decrease in risk in numerous diseases. Brimelow uses medical journals to show that smoking decreases the risk of diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. He also talks about some of the ways smoking enhances certain skills, “A battery of studies show that cigarettes really do stimulate alertness, dexterity and cognitive capacity” (Brimelow 141). Brimelow does pick a tough subject to talk about, but for the most part he does a good job writing his article and distributing information to the reader to support argument.
Slade, John, “The Tobacco Epidemic: Lessons from History.” University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. 1989.
"Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
There are many explicit premises in this article that I will examine. The first premise is that, Tobacco companies have been and continue to be involved in undermining scientific evidence that documents the health hazards of secondhand smoke. This is more than an hidden assumption, reference from the Los Angles Times reported in November 1999 that the major cigarette companies "are engaged in a far-reaching campaign to discredit evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful to human health." This is my second premise. Here, there is an implied notion that the Los Angels Times conducted a study to find these findings true. The third premise states, Tobacco industry allies recycle old myths and propaganda - and continue to plant the seeds of confusion and doubt as to the economic effects of smoke free air policies - before legislatures and city councils. Here we see the strong initiative that the tobacco companies especially Philips and Morris take to attack policies that go against their business. The next premise is the fourth premise, As in the past, tobacco companies have continued to create and hide behind front groups to lobby against tobacco control and public health policies. This is another implied notion, which we can say that tobacco companies are trying to control the regulations on tobacco.
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.
From the above few paragraphs, we are able to learn how young smokers can be affected by smoking cigarette especially young smokers that are legally allowed to smoke. Currently the age limit of smoking cigarette is starting to change from 18 to 21; according to the New York Times Needham, Mass.., Boston and New York, raised the smoking age to 21 (Hartocollis). States start to increase the age limit of smoking cigarette to 21 because they have realized they were using the wrong age limit for smoking cigarette. The united states spend a lot of money on health care concerning cigarette smoking, but if the age limit is raised to 21, The country might save millions of dollars.
One of the largest and most problematic health issues in our society is smoking. Smoking is currently the leading cause of death in our country, due to its harmful and addictive contents, such as nicotine and tobacco. Although millions die from it each year, smoking is the single most preventable cause of death. Without smoking, a tremendous amount of money and lives will be saved. I think that our country should ban smoking and the production of cigarettes in order to maintain a healthier nation, help save the environment, and prevent the almost 1000 deaths that they cause in fires each year.
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.
This year alone cigarettes will kill over 420,000 Americans, and many more will suffer from cancers, and circulatory and respiratory system diseases. These horrible illnesses were known to come from cigarettes for years. Recently the Food and Drug Administration declared nicotine, the main chemical in cigarettes, addictive. This explains why smokers continue to use cigarettes even though smokers are aware of the constantly warned about health dangers in cigarettes. Some researchers have also found out that smoking by pregnant women causes the deaths of over 5,000 babies and 115,000 miscarriages. The only way to get rid of the suffering and loss of life by cigarettes is to ban them. . For years cigarettes have been known to cause cancer, emphysema, and other horrible illnesses. The deaths of over 420,000 of Americans this year will be do to cigarettes. With all the other causes of deaths, alcohol, illegal drugs, AIDS, suicide, transportation accidents, fires, and guns, cigarettes still count for more deaths than those do combined. We can’t stand and watch people die because they smoke cigarettes. Thousands of smokers try to rid themselves of cigarettes but can't because of additive nicotine. Nicotine was recently declared addictive by the Food and Drug Administration, which explains why many smokers continue to smoke despite the health warnings on cigarette smoking. Nicotine makes it almost impossible for cigarette smokers to quit smoking because of its addictive nature, and with the cigarette manufacturers putting just enough nicotine in the so they cant be outlawed. The benefits of outlawing cigarettes greatly outnumber the disadvantages, for example, many scientists believe a link between smoking and a shortened life span exists between the two, a ban on cigarettes could increase life spans. Many studies suggest that billions of dollars now spent on smoking related. Smoking related illnesses could be reduced by outlawing cigarettes, families could save money by not purchasing cigarettes, and accidental fires costing millions of dollars caused by cigarettes would stop. Although a complete ban on cigarettes currently remains almost impossible, several organizations recently helped create a bill that could control cigarettes much in the same way the government now controls drugs. One such organization, the Food and Drug Administration, headed by David Kesslar drafted a major part, which would require manufacturers to disclose the 700 chemical additives in cigarettes, reduce the level of harmful chemicals, require cigarette companies to warn of the addictive nicotine, restrict tobacco advertising and promotion, and control the level of nicotine cigarettes contain.
Although it is beneficial for the economy for the production of tobacco products it is extremely risky to use the product. According to researchers second-hand smoke is terrible for everyone in the world who walk by someone who is exhaling. In the article by Robert Proctor “Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition” he states that cigarettes are the “most deadl...
The sale of cigarettes and tobacco is a multi-billion dollar industry, but is it truly worth all the problems that stem from their use. Health care costs are extremely high due to all the health problems associated with cigarettes and tobacco. Even though research has proven time and time again the harmful effects of cigarettes, and the rising cost of health care caused by cigarettes our government will not take a stand and stop all manufacturing of the horrible toxins.
Cigarette smoking has been identified as the most important source of preventable morbidity and premature mortality worldwide. Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 440,000 American lives each year, including those affected indirectly, such as babies born prematurely due to prenatal maternal smoking and victims of "secondhand" exposure to tobacco's carcinogens. Smoking costs the United States over $150 billion each year in health-care costs including $81.9 billion in mortality-related productivity loses and $75.5 billion in excess medical expenditures.
Those opposing a smoking ban say that freedom of choice would be affected by such legislation. Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business. A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places, and the ban is a limitation for smokers’ rights. Businesses, smokers, publicans, tobacco industries, stars, and some of the non-smokers oppose public smoking ban. Smokers light a cigarette because they need to smoke, not because they want it, because nicotine is physically addictive. Therefore, some smokers think that the public smoking ban is oppressiveness. They see the ban as a treatment to smokers as second-class citizens. Smokers agree that the smoking ban benefits the world, but cannot support the ban, because effects of nicotine obstruct them.