Pro and Con Publishers With Tobacco Regulation, Research Paper Example

Introduction

It was 11.56 a.m. when they heard a continuous peep of the life support system. Several days later, 50 closest friends and relatives of Bryan Curtis, 33 years old man, could see the consequences of the innocuous habit. Bryan started smoking when he was only 13 years old. Louise Curtis, his mother, remember that her son used to say “Mom, don’t worry about me. Worry about yourself. I’m healthy” (Polito, 2009). At the age of 33, Bryan Curtis was diagnosed lung cancer, which was caused by continuous smoking habit. According to the US smoking statistics, 400’000 American citizens die every year from tobacco-related diseases (Smokers Rescue System, 2008). For the last fifty years, tobacco regulation has become one of the most controversial and doubtful issues in the United States. Though many attempts were aimed to stop selling tobacco products on the territory of the country and to change the legal status of the cigarettes, this case remains open. Both Pro and Con publishers with tobacco regulation offered evidence and statistics to prove their points of view. Nonetheless, smoking remains unhealthy and harmful habit that should be banned, in order to save the health of the whole nation. Writer of this paper not only supports strict government regulation policies against tobacco companies, but also justifies all of the legal actions aimed to change the status of tobacco for “Drugs”.

In her attempt to eliminate smoking as a habit and to increase government regulations over tobacco industry, Marsha Blackburn addressed several questions regarding this issue. According to the author of the document, smokeless tobacco companies did not only utilize free samples to increase the number of people buying their products, but also used promo actions against smoking to achieve the same goal. In fact, “US Smokeless Tobacco publicizes its donations in the United States” (Blackburn, 2003). On the one hand, it is evident that it has become another tobacco promo action legalized by the government. On the other, it increases the company’s good image and publicity. Historically, many US soldiers have become addicted to it and died of lung cancer, as a result of free sample delivery of tobacco products during the World War II. There is a risk that such situation may repeat if smokeless tobacco is promoted for free among the US nation.

Chairman Henry Waixman opposed the 201 Section of the US Food and Drug Administration bill, stating that it would violate tobacco companies’ rights. “By “seizing” a substantial portion of every tobacco ad for government – mandated disclosures, the bill raises First Amendment concerns about “compelled speech” and could result in an unconstitutional “taking” of a company’s commercial property in violation of the Fifth Amendment” (Waxman, 2009). In other words, any actions used to limit the amount of tobacco ads in mass media would directly affect tobacco companies’ profit and development. However, considering exceptional status of this particular product, minimizing advertisement is one of the effective ways to limit the spread of the habit among American citizens. Therefore, the conflict between two sides – tobacco companies and the nation should be resolved on behalf of the US nation, and not on behalf of merchants.

Chairman Frank Pallone opposed Section 102 of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which would result in “de facto ban” on tobacco advertisement campaign. According to the chairman, such actions would violate the First Amendment and would be considered unjust and illegitimate. He has offered several additional sanctions to be provided instead. All tobacco companies should sponsor campaign aimed to stop smoking among underage people, eliminate ads near educational institutions, used multiple warnings on tobacco products, etc (Pallone, 2007). Though F. Pallone, as well as H. Waxman, offered compromise in relation to this issue, they did not propose adequate solutions to stop smoking and to minimize the size of the problem.

The Honorable Steve Buyer supported strict government regulations aimed to eliminate tobacco promotion campaigns and advertisement. According to this publisher, government should not neglect 400’000 annual deaths and soften its policies against smoking. Moreover, he considered H. Waxman’s actions false and misleading. “[Waxman’s approach] will allow the cigarette makers to cloak themselves in the mantle of being “FDA Approved”, shielding them from liability for their irresponsible marketing schemes and manipulation of cigarettes’ addiction capabilities” (Buyer, 2009). Firstly, any compromise will lead to immediate reaction from the side of tobacco producers, who will definitely use a chance to implement new marketing campaigns. Secondly, the idea “to quit or die” works much better than “to choose less harmful habit” (as in case with smokeless tobacco)

Pro and Con tobacco regulation publishers operate different resources and laws, in order to prove their points of view. However, law itself is not perfect. Even this particular regulation policy does not solve all of the problems. For instance, in attempt to protect US citizens and improve health of the nation, government opposes merchants, who are interested in getting profit. The most important point to consider is that smoking and tobacco production should not only be judged from the viewpoint of law and legal rules, but also form the viewpoint of ethics and morality. If every single case is a contradiction of interests, government should provide such regulations that work for the greater good for the greater number of people. In case of smoking, people of the United States, and not tobacco producing companies, suffer from smoking addiction. Therefore, publishers who support strict tobacco regulation are right.

“I’m too skinny. I can’t fight anymore”, Bryan Curtis told to his mother during one of his last days in the hospital. Was he thinking about million profits from tobacco selling? Did he realize that his life would end that early? No. He was just an ordinary man, who has a wife and a son, willing to spend the rest of his life with a family. If that was the price of smoking, why not to ban it or just try to.

References

Blackburn, M. (2003). Letter of Support. Committee on Government Reform.

Buyer, S. (2009). Letter of Support. American Council of Science and Health. Last retrieved October 9, 2009 from http://stevebuyer.house.gov/Assets/pdfs/ACSH_letter_of_Support.pdf.

Congressional Digest. (2008). Tobacco Regulation. Health and Education. Last retrieved October 9, 2009 from http:/ /congressionaldigest.com/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4256%3Atobacco-regulation&Itemid=1.

Pallone, F. (2007). Letter of Opposition. American Association of Advertising Agencies.

Polito, R. (2009). He wanted you to know. WhyQuit. Last retrieved October, 9, 2009 from http:/ /whyquit.com/whyquit/BryanLeeCurtis.html.

Smokers Rescue System. (2008). US Smoking Statistics. Sunburst Enterprise. Last retrieved October 9, 2009 from http:/ /www.quit-smoking.net/smoking-statistics.html.

Waxman, H. (2009). Letter of Opposition. American Association of Advertising Agencies.