have a general surgeon warning written right on the label. People who use tobacco products, should only use them fully comprehending that they could be risking their own health. If the consumer ignores or dismisses that clearly printed warning, how is the tobacco company at fault? If someone places something into their mouth, without even the slightest knowledge of what it is or what it could do to them, why would we blame the company who holds the item instead of the one who put it in their mouth voluntarily? A chief complaints consumers talk about is how addicting the nicotine in certain tobacco products is.
Retrieved from http://teens.drugabuse.gov/drug-facts/tobacco Banning Cigarettes. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.smokingaloud.com/ban-cigarettes.html http://www.cancer.org/healthy/toolsandcalculators/calculators/app/smoking-cost-calculator.aspx Tobacco Smoke | Radiation Protection | US EPA. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/tobacco.html What is nicotine?
Web. 20 Apr 2011. "Smoke Free Laws Encourage Smokers to Quit and Discourage Youth from Starting." Campain for Tobacco Free Kids 09 Feb 2011. n. pag. National Cancer Institute.
While the other group would say they have the right to advertise their product. The could say that an alcoholic should be stronger in the battle or to remove themselves from the situation of temptation. They would also state that it is a parents responsibility to communicate the dangers of these products. Both groups have reasons... ... middle of paper ... ...26 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-signs-legislation-banning-cigarette-ads-on-tv-and-radio. Plessis, Pierre D. "Should Alcohol and Cigarette Ads Be Banned."
Would anyone like to see caffeine or alcohol banned, just because too much of those substances is harmful? I do not think that anyone would support that ban, so I believe that the government should not ban advertisements, while people should be the ones to regulate their own habits. I will return to this point after summarizing main arguments of the article. There are many arguments in favor of banning tobacco advertising in India. The main reason for launching the ban was to try to reduce the number of teen smokers, as well as to build the beginnings of an official government anti-tobacco program.
The rationale behind banning cigarette advertising is to reduce the influence that adverts have on young and inexperienced smokers. In addition, the adverts have are believed to boost cigarette sales and lure unsuspecting victims do as to increase consumer demand. For this reason, cigarette-manufacturing companies have been using adverts to influence increased consumption without paying attention to the underlying dangers associated with the consumption of this harmful drug. In spite of the effects associated with cigarette smoking and the dangers of influenced consumption of cigarettes, some researchers believe there is no need to ban cigarette smoking. Various reasons exist to support the legalization of cigarette advertising (Blecher 937).
It isn’t legal for people to go around killing each other, so why should smokers be able to affect non-smokers with secondhand smoke, which has the same effect? While comparing smoking to murder may seem a bit extreme, I believe it helps emphasize just how bad secondhand smoke and smoking in general really is. Smoking should be banned in public because of secondhand smoke, environmental damage, and it would influence people to stop smoking. In the following paragraph we are going to dig a little deeper into some statistics about smoking to give a little background for the presented argument. According to a 2012 study by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Cigarette smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S. racking in around 480,000 deaths a year or roughly one in five deaths accounted for in the U.S. per year.
What are the health effects of cigarette smoking?. Retrieved from http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccostatistics/a/CigaretteSmoke.htm Proctor, R. (2013). Why ban the sales of cigarettes? The case for abolition. Retrieved from http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/22/suppl_1/i27.full World Health Organization (2013).
Smokeless tobacco should not be used as a harm reduction strategy because it still causes health problems for the user such as oral cancers, heart diseases, and reproductive problems, while also being able to cause addition to the user (MayoClinic, 2009). Smokeless tobacco and cigarettes both contain harmful chemicals, while smokeless tobacco contains a lower count. Although it contains less harmful chemicals, it still has chemicals that cause concern. Smokeless tobacco contains carcinogenic chemicals such as nitrosamines, which come in the form of nitrosonornicotine, NNK, and nicotine. Nicotine is the main additive chemical in cigarettes, but Passive Voice (consider revising) in smokeless tobacco (Goldberg, 2005).