Tobacco : An Ethical IssueEssay Preview: Tobacco : An Ethical IssueReport this essayTobacco: An Ethical IssueSOC120: Introduction to Ethics and Social ResponsibilityProfessor Theodore FramanApril 5, 2010Tobacco: An Ethical IssueThe history and growth of the tobacco industry is a global industry that consists of growing, marketing, selling tobacco products and has been fraught with questionable ethical practices, as well as an onslaught of lawsuits and litigious actions. Although tobacco is a natural- growing native plant, it is extremely addictive and has many detrimental side-effects for ones health. Although tobacco experienced popularity throughout the world in the past century, the risks associated with smoking have greatly changed the way tobacco is viewed in the 21st century. The many ethical issues regarding tobacco companies include the advertising strategies, physical and psychological effects on smokers and most importantly the claims by consumers that tobacco companies knowingly withheld findings that tobacco is a carcinogenic. While the tobacco industry is thought to be vital to the economy, the people that have been negatively impacted by the health risks of smoking want the tobacco companies to be held accountable for their actions.
The tobacco industry has been plagued for many years by anti-smoking agencies that have tried to submerge the industry with regulations, liability claims and alienation within society (Pearlstein, 1997). In a settlement in 1997 between the tobacco industry and sick smokers, the industry agreed to limitations on advertising and product pricing which would affect the marketability of tobacco in the future (Pearlstein, 1997). The federal cigarette tax raised the price of a pack of cigarettes by 75 cents, so basically new smokers have to pay more for their cigarettes due to the adverse health results of the previous generation of smokers (Pearlstein, 1997). The goal of these regulations and price increases is to reduce the amount of smokers and prohibit new smokers from starting. The irony is that the tobacco companies profit greatly from this price increase. Three cigarette companies dominate the tobacco industry; they are Philip Morris Cos., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. /American Tobacco. Because these companies make up 90% of the cigarette market, they are considered to be like a “cartel” in their monopoly of the tobacco market and price control of their products. Therefore, the sale of cigarettes is extremely profitable, due to the fact that smokers are addicted to their product. It would appear that even with the rise in cigarette prices, sales decrease by only 4% and thats only a temporary effect (Pearlstein, 1997). Yet, while older smokers tolerate the price increases well, its evident that younger smokers under the age of 25 are not so forgiving and sales with the younger market could possibly decrease up to 40% if prices are raised (Pearlstein, 1997). A positive aspect of the tobacco industry settlement is if fewer people smoke that will help minimize medical costs and improve worker productivity, due to the fact that fewer people will have smoking-related illnesses and deaths. On the other hand, as ex-smokers extend their longevity, there is an increased burden on Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, as well as personal pension plans because more people are living longer (Pearlstein, 1997).
Another by-product of smoking is second-hand smoke and the ethical ramifications of an individuals rights. While smoking is widely known to have detrimental health effects on the user, studies have proven that a non-user who is exposed to cigarette smoke is susceptible to health problems, as well (Otapski, Plumly, & Love, 1997). Before 1970, there was virtually no regulation on the issue of public smoking, other than inside theatres and elevators, and that was out of concern for fire safety; however, laws restricting indoor smoking quickly started to grow and these became known as the “clean indoor air laws” (Otapski, Plumly, & Love, 1997). Tobacco producers were required to label cigarette packaging with the following: “SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide”, which makes users aware of the health dangers of smoking (Otapski, Plumly, & Love, 1997). Because the smokers addiction and enjoyment is so great, the warning is typically ignored. Smokers are simply exercising their personal right of free will and accepting the consequences of the choices they make.
As the U.S., and some parts of the world, become a more smoke-free environment, the challenge lies in not infringing upon the personal liberties of smokers, while the welfare of non-smokers need to be taken into account as well. Indoor smoking, even if segregated from non-smokers, still has the risk of being a health hazard to those who dont smoke (Otapski, Plumly, & Love, 1997). Although, at present indoor smoking has basically become non-existent in the U.S. In an ethical approach, “If one assumes that being rational is the same as being moral, the act of smoking can be scrutinized for its ethical implications by following the deontological approach” (1997, para.7). This would imply that smoking and its consequences are ignored because judgment is placed on whether the act follows moral law. One of the tenets that a moral action must adhere to is respect to all beings
.
However, it seems that some people think that a person’s health is something to be expected of others, so as to maximize their value for others. Some have theorized, or have made the mistaken assumption, that if that person dies, they would not even be in danger. This is not true.
It seems that the individual is most likely to die by suicide if he dies on his hands-only diet, in any case with no other means of escape. I can only believe that these people, or groups that have adopted a policy of living with these individuals as well as the people who adopted them, have no other choice but to stop these people and to act upon this policy of living. We may, however, need to take into account that this policy was clearly designed to serve the end because it is of interest to the community for the benefit of many other people. This is a different situation that could be avoided.
It is not that there is no potential to find solutions and that any of these people will act. That is, they have no option. Those trying to prevent an escape would have to live as free members of a community. The individuals we may want to do this we do not believe or that are still willing to undertake, and the reasons why many individuals will act against them are also known. They have no interest at all to avoid the risks of suicide, but they still have the responsibility for the actions which they choose to take. We are therefore not sure whether the individual who has died would voluntarily take part in their actions and act upon them if faced with the possibility that his health is in jeopardy.
Some people have tried to force a person to give up their life to fight for what they believe is right and to save the lives of others. This is obviously not good for the individual or society, but to make their own decisions what they feel the most. This requires that those in power be very concerned with not being too aggressive about the consequences of their actions. In order to do this, such people must stop using the words “freedom” and “liberty.”
What are the pros and cons to this approach to the individual’s personal freedom?
The first thing here is to understand why it is a good idea for people to allow others their rights to use their freedoms and enjoy that freedom. This is exactly what the U.S. Constitution provides and we should always understand that it clearly states the right to freedom of association, free assembly, and debate.
Secondly, this could mean that freedom of speech could be curtailed and other activities or laws could be made prohibited.
While the current policy regarding individual liberties in this case is absolutely unwise in a way that is inconsistent with the ideals of liberty from a personal view, it will at least serve to make sure as well.
What is your take on the concept of privacy?
Privacy is the right of everyone to be able to do what they want with their lives. Although some may have criticized it, it is certainly an important right that others have. The freedom to share and publish information about yourself, with the consent of the recipient, should be protected by laws that protect individual rights. In order for privacy to be preserved, however, there must be a fundamental right to privacy that should be protected and so should be considered.
As stated above all,