Pros And Cons Of Cigarette Advertising Should Be Banned

Also, this showed the government was making an ethical decision and putting the health of it 's people first, because it financially benefitted from taxation on the sale of cigarettes. The Pros

So many people quit smoking each year, it is so ridiculous to think that tobacco products are addicting argues Richard DeGrandpre (39). The facts about tobacco and tobacco products have been shaded by the government and government agencies to make smoking less acceptable and more inconvenient to smokers and tobacco users Sullum argues (55). My opponents firmly believe that there are no risks if a person starts smoking. As you will see, I will show extenuating facts that disprove my opponents views on tobacco products. My opponent states that smoking is not dangerous, however, I intend to prove that smoking is dangerous not just to smokers, but to everyone as well.

Smoking is one of the leading killers in North America and innocent people shouldn't die because of it. For years people have been smoking in public thinking 'it's my body, I can do whatever I want to it,' but now that it has been proven that smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those around him or her, they should not be allowed to smoke around other people in public. Smoking in public places causes a considerable amount of harm to people and the government should be doing more to protect citizens Cigarettes are full of many harmful substances and if many people knew what they were inhaling they would probably quit immediately. Cigarette smoke contains thousands of chemicals, over sixty of which can cause cancer ( http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/tutorials/smokingthefacts/hp099201.html). Many of the ingredients in cigarettes are not substances that humans usually consume, but smokers (and the non-smokers around them) do.

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.

Could you imagine a world without secondhand smoke, harmful effects to the environment, and a world that is more supportive of quitting smoking? As impossible as it seems, it’s actually not as far out of our grasp as you may think. Over the course of this paper I will be arguing for smoking to be completely banned in public places because of the numerous health concerns as well as environmental hazards. To smokers this may seem as an attack on their freedoms. By banning public smoking we are removing their freedoms so to speak.

Although some claim that smoking in a public place is their right and should be kept that, smoking in public places should not be legalized because it will endanger non-smokers from passive smoke and it pollutes our enviroment. The state of New York will remain restricting smoking to designated areas. Cigarettes are the most deadly habit, affecting the greatest number of people in the world today. A ban on public smoking would create a healthier country.

If a law would be passed banning public smoking then the amount of toxins being put into the air could be limited to the ones who need it for business rather than pol... ... middle of paper ... ...onal Cancer Institute, “ Smoking either way causes cancer or some type of heart and lung problems in the future.” For many years to come smoking in public will be a issue discussed by many hopefully something can be done to fix the issue that benefits both parties. If not it might be kind of scary to think about what ill happen to the world, ecosystem, and the future of America. Because according to many people the earth is in trouble if all the toxins that are being released into the atmosphere are being released uncontrollably and this is definitely not the thing that our government and people need to have as a top priority If this is the case smoking should be banned in public due to the effect it has on the air purity, the harming of children health, and people would not have to worry about smelling smoke or smelling like it when eating in public restaurants.

Summarize the arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India Part of the ban on tobacco was based on the "need to protect public health". Cigarettes are not in the best interest of the public, on the contrary they provoke high risk in serious or lethal illness. Also, there was a difference of 0.07% between the contribution (to the G.D.P) of cigarettes and the costs related to health care. The objective of the banning tobacco advertisements was to invert these results so that the health care costs would be reduced in the G.D.P as cigarette sales would decrease at the same time. Based on a study for tobacco consumption and employment, it appears that a band in tobacco advertisements would actually increase employment opportunity

According to Kotz and West (2009),”due to tobacco control policies there has been reduction in smoking in developed countries”. Smoking is not a recreational drug, most smokers do not like the fact they smoke and wish they could quit. Many governments across the world have banned smoking in public places. Smoking is known to be a leading cause for lung cancer, and it has been scientifically proven that it causes other harmful effects to the body as well. Not only for the well-being of those who don’t smoke, has this law benefited even the smokers.

The FDA is taking steps to tighten the rules of tobacco marketing, some of these rules will include prohibiting self-service tobacco displays in stores, restricting vending-machine sales, and forbidding most free samples of tobacco products. (Reid pg. 1) These are just small hits to the big tobacco industry, but the FDA has no intention of stopping there. The question that comes to mind is, why attack the advertising campaign? Although the use of tobacco could send you to an early grave, the advertisement of tobacco does not lead to the death of anyone.