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.
According to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, it stated that the nicotine in smoking cigarettes can be very dangerous, damaging to the human body. It’s known that smoking can cause chronic lung disease, coronary heart disease and stroke. In addition, smoking also causes cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, mouth, and bladder. Smoking tobacco products is also known to contribute to cancer of cervix, pancreas and kidneys. People that don’t smoke tobacco products can also be harmed by second hand smoke. Women who smoke while pregnant, put their baby at risk of have health problems.
population had been used to gain acceptance and awareness of cigarette smoking, it was time to
... the measure would cost millions of dollars for enforcement. Added sentences explaining each argument set forth by the author of the article would have strengthened the argument against proponent rebuttals. For example, “Measure Q would prohibit development in SLO County of medicines like insulin used by diabetics, and treatments such as for cancer, AIDS/HIV, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease”[2] could have been included to explain why the banning of lab research would be a problem. I feel that my decision to vote against the measure was the right choice, but I do not think that this article could convince me if I was undecided or for Measure Q.
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.
One major point that Sullum tries to emphasize is how people’s health will be disadvantaged once the FDA is given control. When making the decision about marketing safer tobacco products, the FDA is concerned about how the introduction of smokeless tobacco will be interpreted by the “population as a whole.” Sullum, on the other hand, believes the concern should be with individual consumers. He believes smokers could be doing something healthier for themselves if the FDA promoted smokeless tobacco. However, the FDA believes advertising smokeless tobacco as a less harmful substitute for cigarette smoking misleads people and encourage...
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...
"Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
...rictions, and carry out an antithesis campaign against tobacco advertising. With more adds showing teens the harms of tobacco usage and through education, this use of “counter-adding” could go a long way in terms of preventing more youth from picking up such a bad habit. In addition, I think far more legislation should be aimed towards restricting what is actually being put into cigarettes rather than advertisements, as these toxins and poisons are what responsible for the 430,000+ average deaths each year from smoking. Yet, today is today, and as long as companies like Altria and Reynolds American have the money play Washington they’ll get what they want. Now its just up to everyone else, for the sake of the health of our future, to help push legislation that will help deter the aims of companies that basically distribute cancer to hundreds of thousands each year.
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.
Throughout the essay, he was unsure of which side he should have been on. He discussed his opinion and stories that support both arguments. A smoker knows the effects of smoking, as well as the obvious outcomes. Some smoke for the sake of smoking and most continue to smoke due to the effects of nicotine. Everyone seems to have an opinion on smoking, regardless of whether they do or don't.
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.
.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.
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.