Create a new account

It's simple, and free.

Restriction of Cigarette Advertising

President Clinton's arguments are to-the-point, simple, clear, and effective in presenting his case for restriction of advertising for and access to cigarettes for children and teens. He argues that adults, parents, and himself as President, are bound by duty to protect children from the destructive impact of cigarettes and cigarettes advertising. This duty is the duty of the stronger to protect the weaker. The cigarette companies have shown they are willing to sell a fatal product to anybody who has the money, even though those firms know the product is both fatal and addictive. They are proven liars, making claims in sworn testimony that are later proven to be conscious lies (e.g. that nicotine is not addictive, that cigarettes do not do physical harm). Adults, says Clinton, have the right to choose to smoke, but children can be manipulated by seductive images which by-pass their young, undeveloped judgment. Clinton makes a number of suggestions restricting the access of cigarette companies to children, with respect to sales and advertising, and points out accurately that the suggestions do not ban cigarettes and do not bar advertising---except to children. It is a reasonable app


Page 1 of 3 Next >

More on Restriction of Cigarette Advertising...

APA     MLA     Chicago
Restriction of Cigarette Advertising. (1969, December 31). In Retrieved 03:47, August 01, 2015, from