Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues with marketing tobacco
Tobacco industry ethics
Negative effects of banning tobacco advertisements
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues with marketing tobacco
Case Study Analysis – Ban on Tobacco Advertising by the Government of India The connections held amongst the Government, the Tobacco Industry and the health of citizens has been a controversial and complicated topic for decades. This case analysis will focus on the ban on tobacco advertising in India. First, the ideas and arguments will be discussed for both the supporters and those who opposed the ban. The next topics will include the conflict of interest in regards to the government of India and my opinion on what governments should be doing in regards to tobacco advertising. Generally, the main concern supporters of the ban have with the tobacco industry and their advertising, is the adverse effect smoking has on an individual’s health. …show more content…
If the product is so terrible the government must intervene and protect the citizens, why wouldn’t they completely protect them. In my mind the entire industry needs to be reevaluated. I look at tobacco no different than I see other drugs such as marijuana and heroin. This is not to say I don’t believe in the right for citizens to choose, this would bring us to a completely different topic, but if one is banned all should be banned and on the contrary if one is legalized then all should in turn be legalized. In my opinion governments should take a look at current policies and see how they treat other substances and retain the equivalent throughout or make changes throughout. Even though I know and understand firsthand the effects smoking has on an individual’s health, I have to stand by and conclude if the product is legal than advertising should be as well. Rather than banning advertisements for tobacco products pushing knowledge and advertising the motives not to smoke are more powerful and will reap greater rewards. The Tobacco industry is a debated topic riddled with conflicting research, health concerns and the fight for protection of rights. In this case study the arguments for and against the ban of tobacco advertising in India was discussed as well as the government’s conflict of interest and my opinion of the government’s proper course of
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.
Sloan Wilson did not publish The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, a classic on 1950's middle-class conformity, until 1955. But, by July 1953, PALL MALL cigarette advertisers appear aware that "society seemed to reward those who lacked rough edges and eschewed eccentricity" (Blum 794). This conclusion seems justified by a TIME magazine advertisement. Here, these promoters apply this conformity principle and other advertising techniques to a specific socioeconomic group. They seek to lure the expanding male, middle-class audience by presenting indecorous fun, an enticing social situation, and smooth smoking delight all stemming from their product.
Ethics: while defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as “the discipline dealing with what is good or bad [through] moral duty”, this concise phrase does not seem to encompass the word’s full connotation. The way ‘ethics’ is defined in the dictionary alludes that there is a black-and-white answer to whether an action, belief, or opinion is ethical. Unfortunately, when applying this term to real life, decisions are almost never as clear cut as right or wrong. Why then, are we so quick to judge things as right or wrong, good or bad, ethical or unethical?
"Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
There is clearly no way tobacco will never be outlawed but I believe there should be tighter restrictions on age limits throughout the world, and restrictions on the materials that are used in cigarette processing. Who is just letting cigarette companies continue to poison people and cause cancer risk? Throughout my essay I will analyze the affects of cigarette use on the society of the world and the elaborate corruption that keeps cigarette companies in business.
Cigarettes to non smokers are commonly thought of, as rubbish. They give off an offensive smell, they stain teeth, fingers, smoke lingers in clothes, hair, cars and homes. Unless a person is already hooked to nicotine, there is almost no reason for them to choose to pick up smoking. The only reason anyone would take up smoking in this millenium, against the constant bombardment of anti-smoking advertisements, is a false sense of self propulsion to a higher popularity. Anti smoking ads have gotten more and more creative, and grotesque in the past several years. A campaign being lead by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) attempts to show the ugly side of smoking through any means necesarry. be that commercial that feature young adults pulling
Some disagree with these motives by claiming that smoking bans have not actually saved any lives or prevented people from taking up the habit. Contrarily, global research now actually shows that smoking tobacco kills people both directly and indirectly; indirectly, of course, referring to second-hand smoke. Another argument against these smoking bans is that a number of people feel as though they infringe upon their individual rights. These people believe they have a right to smoke tobacco anywhere they choose, not unlike many people who also believe they have a right to avoid forced exposure to deadly second-hand smoke. One might wonder which of the two takes precedence.
There needs to be a policy to ban cigarettes, it kills the smoker, in addition, could kill the person exposed to the smoke from cigarettes. “The cigarette is also a defective product, meaning not just dangerous but unreasonably dangerous, killing half its long-term users” (Proctor), cigarettes are not healthy in any way making it a defective product, it mainly kills the smoker rather than helping them. It was produced to be inhalable smoke harming anyone who smokes them making it a defect because in the past the tobacco was too harsh to be inhaled. The policy would help cigarette smokers, especially since they don’t even like the habit of smoking cigarettes, knowing it harms them.
Tobacco companies should be prevented from using advertising tactics that target teenagers. There has always been controversy as to how tobacco companies should prevent using advertising tactics to target teenagers. As controversial as this is tobacco companies shouldn’t advertise teen smoking. Many teens may be lured to believe cigarette advertising because it has been part of the American Culture for years, magazine ads and the media target young people, and these companies receive a drastic increase financially; however, the advertising by these cigarette companies has disadvantages such as having to campaign against their own company, limiting their cigarette advertising and becoming a controversial dilemma as to encouraging teenagers to smoke. From billboards to newspaper advertisements, cigarette promotions started becoming part of the American Culture.
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.
.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.
Every year tobacco is responsible for over 480,000 deaths. That includes people who have died from secondhand smoke. When statistics like this exist it is hard to understand why tobacco is still legal. This number increases every year that passes and most people believe it isn’t shrinking anytime soon. Tobacco should be banned because it’s deadly to not only the users, it’s highly addictive, and the tobacco industry is corrupting information promoting its harmful product. Society shouldn’t have to deal with anymore premature deaths due to a lethal legal product. We should work towards getting this useless product banned everywhere.
Cigarette advertisements give the feeling that smokers are "bursting at the seams with joy" and that smoking is useful to you. Shockingly, nothing could be further from reality. The U.S. government has marked cigarettes as an unsafe medication that causes lung malignancy, coronary illness, and numerous different genuine sicknesses and conditions. Numerous individuals everywhere throughout the nation are discussing whether tobacco organizations ought to be permitted to publicize cigarettes or even to make cigarettes in today 's general public ("Analyzing Assorted Tobacco Advertisements").
Should tobacco and alcohol advertising be allowed on television? The ban on advertising tobacco is already in affect, however, alcohol is another harmful substance. Should liquor be allowed to be advertised, if tobacco can not advertise their product? The ban on advertising tobacco products on television and radio, was passed through legislation in 1970 by Richard Nixon. This argument like others out there has two sides, one side in favor these advertisements and the other against these advertisements. Since both of these substances are highly addictive and costly. Would we like to see these advertisements continued? Are these advertisements the hazard they are communicated to be? Through the research of these two important sides, this essay will explore which side has a stronger stance on the topic.
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.