Labeling Of Plain Packaging On Cigarette Cases, By Harry Clarke And David Pentice 's Article Essay

If 90% of United States smokers could have another chance to redo it, they reported that they would not even have their first puff that initiated their tobacco addiction (Winickoff, Gottlieb, and Mello 2014). The Tobacco 21 bill is a fairly new legislation and already it has shown a decline in underage smokers as a result of its implementation. The results of the survey presented that the public opinion was largely accepting and supportive of the bill. The main argument against the bill is the harm that will come to retailers of tobacco products. Correspondingly, the argument is proven inaccurate and in favor of the bill. The past has shown the improved outcome of the country from the raise in the minimum alcohol age, and researchers regard

The article “To regulate or not to regulate? Views on electronic cigarette regulations and beliefs about the reasons for and against regulations” brought forward on the regulation of vapes and electronic cigarettes. This article shows studies that were taken through online polling of adults from Amazon mechanical Turk. The polls took place in May of 2015. Overall the article is about whether to or not to regulate electronic cigarettes or vapes. As most people disagreed with most of the reasons to not regulate the vapes, most did agree with one idea that should be implied if the regulation of vapes and e-cigs “electronic cigarettes” continued. That was if they continued to be regulated then a label warning exclaiming that the products contain nicotine should be added to all devices and products that go along with it.

History has proven that government penalties, in the form of taxes, deter smoking. The 2000 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report, Reducing Tobacco Use, found that raising tobacco-product prices decreases the prevalence of tobacco use, and tobacco tax increases produce significant long-term improvements in health. From its review of existing research, the report concluded that raising tobacco taxes is one of the most effective tobacco prevention and control strategies (7). Along with price increases, mass-media campaigns and smoking bans have made cigarette smoking pretty much unacceptable in today’s society. “Today, approximately 22 percent of adults age twenty-two and older are smokers, compared with 33 percent in 1979” (Thorpe 1440). It is clear, from these examples, the use of penalties to deter the unhealthy behavior of smoking is a successful intervention.

Smoking, one of America's favorite pastimes, has fallen under constant fire from legislators who are contending that electronic cigarettes are not only as harmful as their non-electric counterparts, but that the former ought to be regulated as tobacco products. The cases made upon either side stand firm, though legislators find themselves splitting hairs defining upon what is and is not a tobacco product, with vaporizers being such intricate pieces of technology, with only portions of which contain nicotine. The case against the vaporizer stands that while they help users of traditional tobacco kick the habit, they leave an addiction to nicotine, fueling the economy of the vaporizer instead of that of big tobacco. While many will denounce

Many drugs are used, misused, and abused in American society today. Some of these carry stigma in the general population, forcing users into an underground drug subculture. Others are accepted and almost promoted under certain circumstances. Tobacco is one of those drugs. Tobacco will be discussed in the context of cigarette smoking. This is not to undermine the existence or danger of other forms of tobacco, but instead to have an exhaustive discussion of cigarette smoking and its societal impact. Cigarettes are a means of inhaling tobacco, where it enters the lungs and is absorbed through the blood vessels, traveling to the heart, from which it is finally pumped to the brain (Hogan, Gabrielsen, Luna, and Grothaus 2003:76). Cigarettes are detrimental to society because they not only affect the user who chooses to smoke; they impact people around them through second-hand and residual smoke. The damage done by cigarettes is not impossible to address. Successful prevention measures are already in place, but this paper intends to suggest other more direct measures, especially related to statutory regulations.

hazardous chemicals that regular cigarettes do. It is unfair that electronic cigarettes are not always included in laws pertaining to the use of nicotine based products in public places. Bystanders should not have to face problems that a change in legislation could fix. The authors of this article went on to describe a study that was conducted to show how often users smoked cigarettes, how many cigarettes they averagely smoked at once, and where users received second hand smoke. Many of the places that users smoked and were around other smokers, were public areas. Second hand smoke will drastically decrease if clean air laws included electronic cigarettes under the same category as traditional smoking. After the results of the study were

However, in the early 2000s, scientists and health specialists all over America began publishing research journals and propaganda stating how detrimental smoking was to one's life. Coincidentally, smoking rates and death also began to go down simultaneously. This propaganda paired with scientific facts provided by various laboratories, nicknamed anti-smoking propaganda, began to immediately change the atmosphere of smokers within America. Therefore, one must wonder how the changing trend in smoking-related propaganda and the newly introduced anti-smoking propaganda has affected its American populous. This research will analyze that exactly, and come to a conclusion on how the changes in smoking-related propaganda have affected the American populous.

The Tobacco manufacturing and sales industry is highly regulated due to high taxes and health problems smoking would cause. These regulations and laws limited the marketing capabilities of Tobacco manufacturing companies as a whole. But almost all of them handled these delicate situations in one way or another. Reynolds American Inc. states on the company’s website that they market responsibly through three main guidelines: Standards and Safeguards, absolutely certifiable and responsible advertising and promotion. The company explains these points by stating that, they do not market to consumers without confirming their ages to be above 21, training their employees on how to approach only existing tobacco consumers and not to encourage consumers who do not consume tobacco products to engage in its consumption. Also, the company mentions straightforward and transparent approach to marketing their products, for example “Cigarette smoking is harmful to your health. No additives in our tobacco do NOT mean a safer

Firstly, the denormalization approach tackles the smoking issue at its core by addressing the key concerns. These concerns are the manipulative marketing strategies of the tobacco industries and the popularity of smoking among today’s youth. The tobacco industry knows how to market its drugs and who the target audience is. If governments understand the mechanism of how tobacco products are marketed, they can use this knowledge and design campaigns that work in reverse.

Cigarette advertising has changed throughout history from how it has been advertised, what is being advertised, and who the intended audience is. In the 60’s seeing a cigarette advertisement in the Sunday paper would just be like any other advertisement, but recent generations would be appalled to see such a gruesome product being publicized. The annual deaths from smoking cigarettes are increasing each year and doctors and scientist are teaming together to try and help prevent more. Realizing that advertising may be playing a role the controversy over cigarette advertising has lead to the censoring of harmful products in other public advertising which still has a lasting effect today.

In the article ‘Cigarette tax hike sparks panic buying’, Hall (2010) discusses the effects of tax increase on cigarettes. The government has decided to raise the tax on cigarettes by 25%, costing $2.16 more on a pack of 30 cigarettes. This government intervention is an attempt to stop people from smoking and reduce the health bill caused by those who smoke. The increase in tax is expected to save $5 billion more of the people’s tax dollars and the government decided that it will be put into a better use for its health and hospitals reparations. This contractionary fiscal policy is expected to reduce the total tobacco consumption by approximately six percent and drive down the number of smokers by 87,000.

In 2003, 432 individuals completed a 3-month follow up survey (Hammond, Fong, Mcdonald, Brown, and Cameron, 2004). Of which 19 percent reported that the warning symbols made them smoke less, 1% reported they smoke more, 63 percent reported positive benefit, while only 6 percent reported negative impact (Hammond et al., 2004).

The use of tobacco is a very controversial topic here in the United States. The harmful side effects of tobacco are well known and consequently, many believe that it should be outlawed. Though this has not yet occurred, constant regulations on the industry and

However our concern here is not only about the cigarette as a product but with the ethics of cigarettes as well, that affect the social process of marketing. This is because marketing process makes things worse and is also considered as unethical, and as a result has a significant negative impact on the societal welfare. Multinational tobacco companies apply sophisticated strategies ( such as putting flavor in the cigarettes and placing cigarettes in the shops near the sweets to make them more appealing) and invest huge amounts of money for marketing, in order to establish brand familiarity and future loyalty among young peoplem, to secure profits in the long run. 'The tobacco epidemic is a man-made international health crisis, created and sustained by multinational tobacco corporations.' (Yach, Brinchmann, Bellet page 2).

This problem of creating a trendy stylish image of cigarettes are hurting many people by recruiting new young smokers from all around the world, winning over sales due to the false image and then addiction. Third world countries are hurt the most by this unethical way of advertising because they don’t have money for this extra expense that they now need due to addiction. Critics claim that sophisticated promotions in a unsophisticated societies entice people who cannot afford the necessities of life to spend money on luxury- and a dangerous one at that. Every cigarette manufacturer is in the image business, and tobacco companies say their promotional slant is both reasonable and common. They point out that in the Third World a lot of people cannot understand what is written in the ads anyway, so the ads zero in on the more understandable visual image. Due to actions such as this and the negative effect it has on people economically and physically, this is a good example of how the tobacco industry is unethical.