Tobacco Advertising
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The issue facing the tobacco industry today is whether or not their product will be stringently regulated or even banned. The product is already subject to a number of restrictions in American cities, and both the Canadian and U.S. governments have placed severe restrictions on the ability of tobacco companies to advertise their products in the media. The companies have found a way around the ban on television advertising of cigarettes, however, by sponsoring sporting and cultural events where the name of the product is prominently featured so that it appears almost constantly on the screen during the event. We can assume that this has an effect on the consumer, and certainly the tobacco companies have made this assumption given the amount of money they are spending to make their name visible to viewers. The companies point out that they are producing a legal product in compliance with all laws and regulations and that they and their product should not be discriminated against or demonized by legislators. They sometimes also claim that the rationale for such legislative attacks, that tobacco is harmful to health, may be based on false or flimsy scientific evidence, though this is a position that is becoming more difficult to defend all the time. Opponents of tobacco advertising see the issue in terms of the protection of children, claiming that advertising recruits new smokers and thus perpetuates this health problem from generation to generation. In deciding whether
. . .
individual autonomy, as both common decency and equal opportunity laws require? Or must they function as what historian Paul Johnson called the "Universal Nanny," as modern tort law demands? They cannot do both (Huber 276).
The government started the process of change, after being prodded to do so by medical evidence of the harm caused by smoking, by banning cigarette advertising on television. As Calfee notes, more recently the government has been asked to ban all cigarette advertising in magazine and billboard form. Calfee believes that such a ban is counter-productive and that indeed the earlier regulations on cigarette advertising have actually reduced health messages that were once part of the advertising. This misses the point that the ban had less to do with the message than with sending a new message--smoking is in itself a bad thing. Our society has apparently taken this message to heart and has shifted from a culture of smoking to a culture of non-smoking in only two decades or so (Calfee 35-45).
Tobacco companies rightly point out that efforts to ban advertising are often only the beginning, and again the U.S. shows how this process works. In terms of smoking, businesses were first expected to provide non-smo
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Universal Nanny, Kline Smally, , Europe Fletcher, Control Act, Guerrilla Media, United Congress, Jazz Festival, Maclean's February, Philip Morris, tobacco products, tobacco advertising, tobacco companies, cigarette advertising, tobacco industry, ban advertising, du maurier, smoking hazardous health, smoking government, federal government, health smoking hazardous, tax reduction, maclean's february 21, february 21 1994, leis kline smally,
Approximate Word count = 2113
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Tobacco Advertising
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
