Tobacco Products And Its Effects On Children And Young Adults

Tobacco companies denied the health effects of nicotine, knowing fully that the substance was highly addictive. The industry also used misleading advertising that never showed the negative effects of their products. They targeted children with their misleading marketing campaigns causing generations of smokers. As a result of these actions, the public is suffering the consequences. "The government of Canada spends 4 billion dollars in direct health care costs every year because of tobacco" (BGMI, 2005). The settlements resulting from lawsuits against tobacco companies will regain some of those costs and take off some strain on health care system due to the treatment tobacco related diseases. The settlements can also help treat current patients with emphysema, cancer and other smoking-related diseases.

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.

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.

Objections to this new policy might be met with the fact that use of tobacco

At the outset, there are numerous reasons why governments should protect their citizens from Tobacco products but the most conspicuous one being that wastage of funds that could have been used for different purposes for example, build new roads, schools or invest in healthcare itself.

“Loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs.” says King James of England and Scotland, describing smoking in 1604 (Connolly 13). Tobacco use kills millions of people a year but still only has few legal restrictions. Many argue that the use of tobacco is a right we have in the United States but the harm that it does to the innocent may outweigh those rights. Because the use of tobacco negatively impacts the health of both the users and those around them, all tobacco products and their use should be illegal.

It is crucial that tobacco usage in the United States ends because tobacco not only negatively affects the user, but also the people indirectly exposed, and as a result, the economy. Tobacco appears to be very profitable as a consumable product to the nation because of its wide usage, but the costs needed to cover medical charges overshadow the profit. Tobacco usage also demands a high price of human lives. Both the farming and waste of tobacco products damage the environment. The ceasing of American tobacco use will positively affect the country by creating a safer environment, reducing tobacco related deaths and illnesses, and providing cleaner communities.

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.

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.

Nowadays tobacco smoking is on the growth amongst the adults and teenagers around the country. Studies was shown that smoking is not good for your health, so why aren't the government or the World Health Organization not making this illegal since its killing millions of people per year? If the country ban smoking and tobacco than its going to cause serious problems and affect people in many ways, some people might benefit from it while others will suffer. If the government banned smoking, then thousands of people would be without a job. If f factories close than banks across United states will bankrupt and a lot of Americans wouldn’t be happy. I will explain why tobacco should be banned and why it shouldn’t be. Keep this in mind, crime rate

In conclusion, the tobacco industry is very harmful to society’s health. Cigarettes are the only legal consumer products in the world that cause half of their long-term users to die prematurely. Putting a ban on advertisement was just a start to not advertise so the tobacco industry would not solicit children, but the tobacco industry has come up with different strategies to solicit adolescents even more. If a law was passed to ban tobacco completely, citizens of the United States would not have to worry about second hand smoke, reduces the chance of cancer, and health

Tobacco is the leading cause of illness and death in the United States. Tobacco companies should be banned. In other words, tobacco companies hire people who are ill of smoking tobacco and their illness gets into the product, most tobacco companies have lawsuits on ill consumers, and some factories that make tobacco were well aware that their product was lethal but hid it from the public.

One of the commonly used drugs in the world is Tobacco, primarily in the form of cigarettes, with more than a billion adult smoke tobacco daily. The health care costs are high for smokers themselves, and also the society who is bearing both health care cost and lost productivity. Some believes that government plays an important role to regulate citizens from the negative effects of smoking, while others believe the decision is personal. In my opinion, government has all the rights to control tobacco use and set laws for the citizens to follow.

Tobacco is an argument that touches my feeling profoundly as my father used to smoke a lot and passed away because of it. When I read the article I can only see a rhetorical fight between parties where we basically know the truth but we pretend convincing ourselves that there must be a solution to meet everybody’ needs. Obviously the problem here is not just the tobacco; we could mention a lot of other products (specifically drugs) in commerce that are dangerous for our health. In the article, the tobacco companies argue the fact that they do not sell the concept of smoking but that the only role of the marketing is to help adults in making their choices relating the brand of the cigarettes. This concept to me could be translated as:” which brand would you like to get sick with?” (excuse my sarcasm). I definitively agree with the Supreme Court of Canada which states that “The State seeks to control the thought, beliefs and behavior of its citizens along the line it considers acceptable. This form of paternalism is unacceptable in a free and democratic society.” It refers to what tobacco companies argue against a ban where the state is telling smokers that they were not responsible of their own health, therefore comparing the state intervention as a role of a nanny. Well, I say: “Welcome to the nanny!” People need to be shaken. I know smokers that do not even remember why they started this habit. My former boss used to smoke in the office and sometimes he would light a

The people that support the government plan on banning Tobacco Companies from advertising their product, believe state had the right to intervene in the overall interest of the citizens. They also cited the example of drugs like cocaine, which was, banned in the world over. Most of the people that support the ban believe that so far it as happened in some international countries like France, Finland and Norway, it is constitutional to ban the product from advertising.