Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on tobacco policies
Essay on tobacco policies
Essay on tobacco policies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on tobacco policies
Should big tobacco be sued for health bill? An analysis
A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada on the subject of smoking is the main topic of my articles. The landmark ruling made on September 30th gives the province of British Columbia ammunition against big tobacco companies. "The decision allows British Columbia to sue tobacco companies for damages related to smoking-related health care costs dating back 50 years" (Bell Globalmedia Inc [BGMI], 2005). Many expect the ruling in BC will act as a model for other provinces to follow suit. The resulting lawsuits could potentially cost Canadian tobacco companies like Benson & Hedges, Imperial Tobacco, and Rothmans hundreds of billions of dollars. Similar legislation passed in Florida in the early 90s and resulted in a 245 billion dollar settlement spread over a twenty five year period. A similar settlement in Canada would bankrupt the smaller Canadian tobacco industry. Canadian tobacco companies also argue that the ruling is controversial since the government has been profiting from the collection of billions of dollars in cigarette taxes. I will be analyzing the articles from the functionalist and conflict perspectives, focusing on how tobacco products affect people's health, life expectancies, and mortality rates (Schaefer, Floyd & Haaland, p.384, 2003).
From a functionalist's point of view, the Supreme Court ruling is beneficial to society while it is also harmful to tobacco companies. Canadian tobacco companies, in part should be held accountable for the damages resulting from their tobacco products. The tobacco industry marketed tobacco products while they refuted the "hidden" ...
... middle of paper ...
...land, Bonnie. Sociology: A Brief Introduction, First Canadian Edition, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. 2003.
The Ontario Lung Association. Homepage. Stop Smoking! Youth and Tobacco. 2003.
http://www.on.lung.ca/nosmoking/youth.html
Top court fires up provinces for smoking lawsuits. (2005, October 2). The National Post.
http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=aaa74655-77c1-4b0d-a2c1-0bd9b1b2de
51
Top court rules B.C. can sue tobacco companies. (2005, September 30). CTV.ca.
http://www.ctv.ca/serlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20050929/bc_tobacco_lawsuits_05
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.
Renneboog, R. M. (2016). Cigarette Smoking Bans: An Overview. Canadian Points Of View: Cigarette Smoking Bans, 1.
The decision is also good as it is in line with the corporate social responsibilities. It is socially ethical for the company to reduce or eliminate the tobacco products in the company’s drugs stores and shelves. Moreover, it is the social responsibility of the business to ensure a healthy living of the society. Production and distribution of tobacco products will, however, be an irony for the organization whose sole mandate is to ensure healthy and productive society.
In conclusion, ethics has no place in the tobacco business and the rights and obligations that usually would apply for any other company would not apply to a tobacco company as the right to trade secrecy, information privacy or the right to get a customer to buy its products is nullified by the fact the tobacco industry itself is absolutely built to sell products that are scientifically proven to be carcinogenic and harmful to its users.
In December 2006 after a long drawn out case. The Florida Supreme Court put new life into the case against the tobacco companies. The court case has been ongoing since 1994. The supreme court up held a landmark jury verdict holding the Big Tobacco accountable for smoking related injuries and deaths. In the trial the tobacco companies were found guilty on numerous accounts. And was fine 145 billion dollars in punitive damages.
The Insider, an award winning film directed by Michael Mann and starring Al Pacino and Russell Crowe, tells a story about a "whistle blower" that works for tobacco giant Brown & Williamson (B&H) teaming up with a CBS 60 Minutes producer/journalist. Working together they bring to light the fraud and health risks that the Tobacco industry knowingly commits on the general public. Based on a true story, Jeffrey Wigand, a senior scientist originally employed at B&H (played by Russell Crowe), and Lowell Bergman, a respected CBS 60 Minutes producer (played by Al Pacino), take on enormous personal and professional risks fighting their respective corporate employers to bring the truth to the world. Having worked for B&W as Head of Research and Development and as a corporate vice president, Wigand has the key information to bring down the company, and being an esteemed producer of CBS 60 Minutes, Bergman possesses the ability to inform the public of Wigand’s knowledge. However, the journey to reveal the truth is not so easy, as the two men are set against CBS corporate’s unwillingness to air the story and B&W’s ironclad confidentiality
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.
The harmful carcinogens in cigarettes cause about 480,000 deaths each year. These amounts of casualties seem to me as a serious problem, which needs to be addressed and reduced immediately. Cigarettes are known to have a variety of chemicals inside of them ranging from acetone to tar. The chemicals inside of cigarettes have been directly linked to cancer related effects. Due to the poisonous effects and numerous complications involved with cigarettes, they should be made illegal to sell and consume within the United States. Although there are thousands of reasons why cigarettes should be illegal, in this argumentative essay I will closely examine three. The effects of carcinogens, stress of addiction and death prevention are the three main reasons why cigarettes should be illegal.
Smoking tobacco in the cigarette form was extremely popular in the early part of the 20th century. Many people joined in the popular habit, got addicted, and had no fear of the future consequences or health concerns. Many people were under the impression that smoking was good for their bodies, and were unaware of the unhealthy side affects that cigarette smoking caused. Some famous people like Walt Disney, Ty Cobb, and Babe Ruth all were killed from their love of tobacco. Soon enough more and more cases of lung, throat, and mouth cancers began popping up all over the place, but people were reluctant to blame their beloved tobacco. It wasn’t until 1964 when Surgeon General Luther Terry stated that smoking causes lung cancer in people who smoke and inhale the fumes, that perceptions on smoking began to change. Since the findings of the Surgeon General, there has been an on going battle between pro-smoking, and anti-smoking groups over the rights of smokers. As the non smoking movement is growing at a rapid pace, and smoking bans have been ruled to not violate the 1st Amendment. In the last decade we have banned smoking in almost all public areas from bars and restaurants, offices, malls, and living quarters. The smoking bans are one effective way to abolish smoking, but it fails to address the major component in smoking; addiction to nicotine, and the psychological effect it has on users. Unfortunately, there isn’t an easy way to end smoking. This is because treatment plans have such a small level of success. Medical treatment such as prescription medication often have more side effects than positive effects for the user. But one product has been making huge gains in the fight to quit tobacco, and that is the electronic cigarette...
The question is, who should be held accountable? And what should be done? 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.
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.
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.
In the period of Obamacare, there is a sound argument that there is a need for greater restrictions on who has access to healthcare on the normal premium’s minimum premium model or through Medicare/Medicaid. The question that has to be asked is if those individuals, which assume a risk through an unhealthy lifestyle, should pay the same premiums as those individuals who live a healthy lifestyle. There is obviously a discussion of degrees in such a debate (i.e. the individual who eats unhealthily in a manner that has limited health impacts is different from the smoker or the obese person). Eating and obesity are a contentious subject when it comes to health care restrictions, because food is a necessity. However, tobacco is not a necessity and is known to be a significant detriment to the individual’s health. Inferentially, the case supporting a health tax for cigarettes, smoking and tobacco is different the debate over the tax for unhealthy eating and obesity. Thus, there should be a health tax in the case of tobacco consumption is necessary, because the individual who smokes is assuming risks that are detrimental to his or her health.
.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.
Cardador, M.T., Hazon,A. PHD, Stanton. G. PHD., (September 1995).Tobacco Industry Smokers’ Rights Publications: A Content Analysis. American Journal of Public Health