The Tobacco Industry Sources of Power
Capital resources are the tobacco industry’s primary source of power that gives them the substantial power to control. For instance, they employ people with high-level of political connections and direct them as a board of directors. Imasco; Rothmans, Benson and Hedges (RBH); and RJR McDonald (RJRM) are the three leading companies accounted for almost all tobacco products produced in Canada (Irvine and Sims, 1997). These corporations had politician’s people on the board of directors. Particularly, the Imasco has executives that have a considerable level of political connections namely, Bernard Roy, Rob Pritchard and Paul Martin (Lexchin, 2015). Thereupon, Imasco is the dominant manufacturer in Canada with
…show more content…
They are recognized as the protector of the nation’s health because they advocate and educate the public awareness concerning the tobacco's harmful effects on health. For instance, there was research that smoking causes a lot more deaths than alcohol (Cohen, Guia, et. al, 2003). Furthermore, they use the tactics of shifting the debate on the secondhand smoke and emphasizing the right of individuals not to expose in smoking. Thus, legislator’s limits smoking in some public areas being a complete ban on smoking in hockey arenas, restaurants (Cohen, Guia, et. al, 2003). Tobacco control lobby’s influential depends on how they submit and present their scientific research findings with a credible evidence to counter false or misleading claims against the tobacco industry for legislators to implement a regulation. Also, tobacco control lobby’s primary power comes from the coalition building on health advocacy groups. Interest groups engage in health advocacy provides public and policy-makers with technical and scientific information and lobbying policy-makers both in public and private forums to support particular positions (Hastie and Kothari, 2009). Therefore, the tobacco control lobby is prominent when they form an alliance of health advocacies …show more content…
The liberal welfare state is the most market-dependent that emphasizes income economy (Coburn, 2004). Therefore, there is a tendency of incentives that Canadians government may oppose to support the tobacco control. For instance, in 1994, Canada’s estimated total consumer expenditure for tobacco products was about $2.902 billion dollars (Choi and Pak, 1996). As results, the incentives of tobacco industry assets may prohibit government interventions to take an action on implementation of tobacco control policies. Likewise, there is research findings show tobacco control initiatives at Canadian undergraduate universities handle a series of hurdles including a lack of dedicated and relevant tobacco control personnel, ownership issues, funding, and enforcement and monitoring dilemmas (Baillie, Callaghan, et. al, 2009). Government's do not implement policies applicable, which needs further investigation into the evolution of the roles and functions. Also, they need desirable policy objectives and domains that implements and design a strong legislation to facilitate better measurement of tobacco
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.
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.
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...
"Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
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.
Essentially, interest groups use many different tactics to accomplish their central goals but this paper will detail 2 of them. The first being lobbying, which is the act of persuading businesses as well as government leaders to help a specific organization by changing laws or creating events in favor of that group. Interest groups use this technique by hiring someone to represent them and advocate their cause to on the behalf of the entire group. These hired representatives usually have more than enough experience within the political field and are able to persuade connections within the government for help with their concerns. This method gets a lot of criticism because although lobbyist offer their input to government officials on pending laws, they only look at what is favorable for their cause. When trying to make a difference you have to not only reflect on your argument but on the side affects of that argument as
...fected as secondary smokers. Universities, public places, and stores have laws to control smoking in their locations, but since there are thousands of people, customers and the public in general who smoke, it is a very controversial topic and it is difficult to have a final decision about it. Many people argue that why it is possible to drink beers in some activities the university organizes, as a result we can see there are no laws that is focus one single aspect and many people believe that the administrative of the university want to have that market of students who do smoke instead of sending them to other location so they loss people, so loss money. The most important aspect is to take into account that health disorders can take place and smoking is not a specifically and advantage. Smoking is actually a negative variable for any heath problem we can have.
Every year cigarette smoking is responsible for 500,000 premature deaths (Nugel), you do not want to be just another statistic, do you? America’s first cash crop was tobacco. That means that tobacco has been around for a really long time. It was not until 1865, though, that cigarettes were sold commercially. They were sold to soldiers at the end of the Civil War (Dowshen). From then, cigarettes spread like wildfire, and it was not until 1964 that anyone made a stand about the negative effects of tobacco and cigarettes. People start smoking for all different reasons, some to fit in and some to “escape”. Regardless, it is a horrible habit. 3900 children will try their first cigarette today. Amongst adults who currently smoke, 68% of them began at age 18 or younger, and 85% at 21 or younger (American Lung Association). And of all those people, 70% say if they were given another chance they would never have picked up that first cigarette (Tobacco Free Maine). Smoking is responsible for 1 and 5 deaths in the united states, and is the number one preventable cause of death (NLH). Smoking burns and there is no doubt about that, but before one picks up that cigarette, understand the negative effects on not only oneself, but others affected by ones poor choices, like second-hand smoke. Because of smoking cigarettes, many types of cancer, decrease of life quality, and negative health effects have become all too common in the world today.
The tobacco industry consists of many competitors trying to satisfy a specific customer need. Companies such as Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown and Williamson, and Lorillard hold almost the entire market share in the tobacco industry. While each company has different advertising and marketing techniques, they all target the same customer group. Tobacco companies try their best to generate interest in their particular brand or brands. Companies market a number of attributes that usually include, but are not limited to: taste, flavor, strength, size and image in order to distinguish themselves from competitors (Business Week 179, November 29, 1999). However, all tobacco companies are satisfying the same needs. Many long-time smokers are addicted to the nicotine in cigarettes. They smoke because the nicotine is needed to help them feel normal (Focus group). Many addicts go through withdraw without nicotine. All tobacco companies have nicotine in their cigarettes, which fulfills the need of long-time smokers. Other smokers depend on cigarettes in social settings. Many smoke to look sophisticated and mature. Tobacco companies make many kinds of cigarettes that target different groups. Social smokers may perceive certain brands as more sophisticated, and therefore they shy away from other lesser-known brands. For example, a person who smoked generic cigarettes at the bar may be perceived as uncultured. On the other hand, the smoker with the Marlboro Lights may be more socially accepted because they have a brand name product (Focus group). Many types of cigarettes cater to the many markets of smokers who want to portray a certain image in social settings. Tobacco companies do not create the need to smoke, but try to generate interest in their particular brand (Hays, New York Times, November 24, 1999). Overall, the tobacco companies satisfy consumer demand for the millions of adult Americans who choose to use tobacco by providing differentiated products to different target markets of smokers.
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.
Cardador, M.T., Hazon,A. PHD, Stanton. G. PHD., (September 1995).Tobacco Industry Smokers’ Rights Publications: A Content Analysis. American Journal of Public Health
charged with covering up the addictive properties of nicotine and finding ways to exploit it to increase profits. For example, in Wigand’s interview for 60 Minutes, he says that tobacco companies view cigarettes only as a delivery device for nicotine. He also says they take advantage of the addictive properties by manipulating and adj...