The Pros And Cons Of The Tobacco Industry

Big tobacco is losing in a war for the public to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and The Truth Initiative. Big tobacco being the large tobacco companies in the world like Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Imperial Brands, Japan Tobacco International, and China Tobacco. The CDC is a government operated agency that contributes to the overall health of the public. The Truth Initiative is the largest non-profit public health organization in the U.S. whose goal is to inspire tobacco free lives. Not only is Big tobacco losing, they may have already lost.

Winning the war against cigarettes. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2015, from American Cancer Society: http:www.cancer.org

When information was released to the public in 1939, tobacco companies found ways to discredit, and silence the public concern. In fact, previous to this tobacco manufacturers claimed an increase in health and medicinal properties for tobacco products. With the formation of the Council for Tobacco Research, in 1954, a direct link was sought between smoking and health related problems. Upon the finding of such evidence major cigarette manufacturers unite.

Tobacco use and the effects of second hand smoke have been an ongoing issue for many years. Looking at the attitude of the 1950’s and 1960’s when smoking was thought of as cool, suave, mature, etc., there has been a major turnaround in the way society looks at the use of tobacco. Now the issue is not just smoking and the damage to health that it causes, but now there is the additional awareness of what second hand smoke can do to individuals.

Consumption of Tobacco is a worldwide phenomenon. Nearly every country is planning to raise more restrictions around the consumption of Tobacco. The awareness about its ill effects is rising through the corridors of Parliaments of many countries with the help of governmental and non-governmental organizations. There are some internationally recognized organizations like the “World Lung Foundations” that are striving hard to reduce the consumption of tobacco to a bare minimum. There are numerous reasons that support the argument that tobacco should be completely banned from the United Sates.

The movie, “Thank You for Smoking” is a comedy with a tobacco industry lobbyist, Nick Naylor as the lead. The movie has an eerie comic theme which tackles the serious issue of the addicting substance of tobacco, or to be more specific, nicotine. The idea which the movie was trying to portray was that this lobbyist was a great speaker who is able to manipulate many a feeble-mind. A lobbyist, to begin with, is one who is employed to persuade all-concerned of the employer’s concern(s), in this case, the marketing of tobacco products.

Facts: The Food and Drug Administration issued a rule in 1996 that prohibited the tobacco products labeling, promotion, and availability to young people (children and adolescents). The FDA claimed that as per Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), it had authority to regulate tobacco products because nicotine is a drug and devices such as cigarettes and smokeless tobacco deliver nicotine to the body. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation sued challenging the FDA regulations over tobacco product under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. They claimed that history of the Act did not allow the FDA to regulate the tobacco products. The United States District Court ruled that the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act allowed the FDA to regulate tobacco product as a device, but under section 360 (e) the agency had overstepped its authority to promote and advertise tobacco products. The Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit reversed the decision of District Court, holding that FDA had no jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. Because, the description of tobacco (as a device) was imperfect and the agency could not verify that the impact of tobacco products on the body was intended under the act.

Tobacco is one of the world's dangerous drug which is haunting human lives to death. Over a billion adults are addicted to this drug and wasting their money, time and health. Nowadays there has been an ongoing debate/discussion among many people about the role of government in restricting the usage of Tobacco and thereby safeguarding the health of the public. In my personal opinion, both government and the Individual together needs to work to overcome this problem.

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).

The Commonwealth of Australia replied in its statement of defense JTI’s arguments. They recognized that the trademarks were property but they rejected to recognize that status to the get-up rights said to be associated with them. They also replied to JT International SA that, in any event, both trademark and get up rights were susceptible to federal regulation through laws like the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act. In addition, the Commonwealth pleaded that the products of that company and other tobacco groups were bad for the public interest and that therefore, they had a commitment to the society and that their actions were based on a rational and cogent basis.

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.

Disclaimer: It is against the The Negotiation Experts' principles to offer its services to the tobacco industry. The Celanese case study has been reproduced for the purposes of study only, and is in no way a condonement of the damage the tobacco is causing.

This case deals with the ethical dilemma that Tobacco manufactures face when selling tobacco products in third world countries. First, there is the ethical dilemma of business versus health. The opening and development of the tobacco business in Third World countries like China, Malaysia, Indonesia, India and Africa, is considered against the health consequences of tobacco use which according to an Oxford University epidemiologist, has estimated to cost 3 million lives annually rising to 10 million by 2050 without effective tobacco control program A second ethical dilemma is employment versus impoverishment, where the opportunities for work in the tobacco industry are considered against a background of malnutrition. This is a problem that

The impact of cigarette advertising on consumers was another contentious issue. A World Bank report published the details of a comprehensive study of over 100 countries, comparing the consumption trends over time in those countries where relatively complete bans on advertising and promotion were and where were no such bans. In the countries with nearly complete bans, the downward trend in consumption was much steeper. In 1992, the Department of Health (DOH), UK reviewed various forms of evidence to assess whether tobacco advertising affected the aggregate demand for tobacco products. Four countries (Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand) were chosen, as these countries had already imposed