“The fight against narcotics and HIV / AIDS is spread by needles hard work over the distribution of cigarettes is not limited to,” said Judge Sorimuda Pohan issue of Tobacco Control Network Indonesia (Indonesian Tobacco Control Network) in Jakarta, Wednesday (8/2).

Nature of tobacco addiction makes smokers dose needed to feel calm will continue to grow from day to day. Sensitivity of the brain to release dopamine, which makes people comfortable and happy grew less. This time, smokers switch to narcotics to get a similar effect.

Although the public health impact of smoking is very large and the Constitutional Court has confirmed addictive tobacco as a substance according to Law No. 36 of 2009 on Health, until now the government has not seriously restrict smoking to approve the draft regulations (RPP) on securing material containing addictive substances form of tobacco products for the health of Indonesia.

“In fact, the RPP which is the mandate of the Health Act was passed in 2010 should have been,” said Chairman of the Tobacco Control Support Center, Public Health Association of Indonesia, Alex Papilaya.

Conditions were assessed Sincere Abadi of the Indonesian Consumers Foundation as the indifference of government to protect the health of residents. “The government cited for disobeying the law,” he said.

The Government is also obligated to protect the consumers of cigarettes from the information that is not intact. Health impacts of smoking are very real, but a vigorous tobacco advertising makes consumers obscured from the potentially devastating effects.

Former Chairman of the Indonesian Medical Association Kartono Mohamad belief some people argue that tobacco regulation would be detrimental to farmers, small cigarette companies, and traders, which caused a surge of unemployed. “No country with a strictly regulate tobacco farmers then die,” he said.

From the first, before RPP, there were many small tobacco companies closed due to not compete with the big tobacco companies. Prosperous tobacco farmers is difficult because of tangled middleman and the import of tobacco from the United States and China by the major tobacco companies.

Smoking restrictions will not reduce state revenues. During this tax paid by the tobacco companies actually paid by the consumer tobacco industry contributions to the national economy is relatively small.

Development Coordinator of Health Warning Shaped Picture, School of Public Health, University of Indonesia, Widyastuti Soerojo, asserted, RPP does not prohibit people smoking, but restrict cigarette smokers to poison does not spread to the non-smokers.

“This rule will not make a cigarette or tobacco farmers close to death. Smokers will still be there because it is difficult to stop smoking due to the addictive substance they contain, “he said.

To reduce the smoking rate was the majority of the members of the AustralianSenate legislation (the Act) a new pack of cigarettes. Under this law should be anybrand pack of cigarettes in Australia and the color of the tobacco companies,without that it just easier.

News channels like BBC, 10 November 2011, the report says, is cigarette packs inAustralia, the future of green cardboard. A company logo or colors of the cigarette brands, only feature pictures warning of the dangers of smoking.

Once the legislation through the Senate to go yet approved by the House. This phase is regarded as a formality. When you have completed all provisions shall come into force in December 2012.

This project demonstrates Australia’s sultry cigarette companies. The company saidit to raise objections in court. A spokesman for the tobacco companies in court costs and time to deal with the threat passed.

However, tobacco companies make the Australian government changed its mind had snapped up. He said the ride that may be.

“We did not move beyond the legislation because the tobacco companies whojudge us. Law is, before we are ready to deal with them,” Australian Health MinisterNicola Roxon said.

Australia’s first country to enforce such rules. The reason these laws in Australia at the lowest rate of smoking may point.
“Absolutely, and many families have more than their family of diseases caused by smoking saved because the members do not lose the meaning of life,” Roxon said.

  Global Arena, Government, Public Policy, and Consumers: New Tobacco Fight

Image by Brooklyn Museum via Flickr

The Domino Effect

The domino effect is when one instance leads to another, then another, and then another in a continuous unstoppable chain of events. It can be agreed upon that the law is valid as far as it requiring the tobacco companies to not advertise near elementary schools. But the t-shirts, and the direct mail to those who actually want it and use the product, and the black and white text is a step too far. But because of all this happening, one thing could actually lead to another and then another.  Next it will be fatty foods, fast food chains, alcohol, strip clubs, underwear ads, and luxury cars… where does it stop? Fatty foods are bad for your health. Fast food chains can promote an unhealthy life style. Alcoholic beverages shouldn’t be sold to minors and is dangerous. Strip clubs are demeaning to women and can be very perilous. Underwear ads are racy and can be offensive. Luxury car ads offend those who cannot afford them. With this law passing it will allow people to stop other companies from doing what they do just because a group of people don’t like it and then throw a rally against it. Now whether what they are rallying against is good or bad is not the point. The point is that these companies have the right to produce these things, and the judgment should be left upon the consumer. Understandably cigarette ads shouldn’t be near elementary schools along with strip club ads and alcohol ads, but to censor them from the consumer who is legally allowed to purchase such items is ridiculous.

On the other hand this notion could be dismissed as a fallacy under the contexts of being a slippery slope. A slippery slope is basically saying that one thing will lead to another when it really won’t. For example the ban of cigarette commercials on television will lead to the ban of alcoholic beverages on television. Well we know that, that did not end up happening (yet). Due to so much research on cancer and health lately it is easy to see why the tobacco industry has been hit so hard. Other industries are quickly learning what steps to take so to not end up in the same boat as the tobacco companies. One example would be with the fast food industry introducing healthy eating choices for consumers to be able to choose between what foods they would like to eat. With a better balance in industries to have to choose or have options of “healthy” and “unhealthy” may be a better way to go so the storms brewing against such giants would hopefully calm down a bit.

Ethical Issues With Lobbyists

When asked if it is ethical for the advertising industry to lobby against the proposed restrictions against the tobacco companies or their advertising, the answer is very simple, absolutely yes. In the world of advertising the single most powerful tool it has is its power of speech. Now whether that speech is in the form of words, pictures, music or so on the point is that they have the right to do it. Therefore it is no mystery what so ever that the advertising industry groups would stand up for the tobacco companies. In actuality the advertising group may even have worked or partnered with the tobacco companies to come up with marketing campaigns with them. In any case the advertising companies are correct to stand up for the tobacco companies and their advertising, because if the tobacco companies get silenced who knows who will be next.

Just like it is completely ethical or acceptable to lobby against the restriction of tobacco advertising it is similarly ethical to oppose the restrictions whether it is fast food, fatty foods, alcohol beverages, or anything else for that matter that the public decides is immoral or not with the standard of their specific living styles. The advertising industry should in their own best interest stand up and voice their opinion when the government is trying to silence them. To stand up for someone else’s rights is a very ethical act and it is good to hear that the advertising industry groups decided to do so. Furthermore, if the government does try to target another market because these companies supported the tobacco company, the tobacco company would probably return the favor in some capacity. Usually actions like these aren’t soon forgotten.

Freedom of speech and lobbying have their limits. For example, the issue of advertisements on billboards near elementary schools makes sense. Children are not of the legal age of smoking therefore exposing them to such things should not be allowed. Though freedom of speech is broad, some things should be considered within reason. The advertising industry groups, though valiant in their efforts, should consider such things as well and be specific in what rights their speaking up against and defending. It’s not always easy to define lines, but sometimes everyone should look at issues and try to come to some agreement that is reasonable. To advertise to those of legal age and attempting to sell them the product that the company is providing is the American way. But there is no reason to bring that game to the school grounds of our neighborhoods. Everything that is done should always be looked upon in limitations.

Part 1

http://socyberty.com/issues/new-tobacco-fight-part-i/

References

Bachman, K. (2009, December 1). Ad groups fight tobacco act. Brand Week, Retrieved from http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3i1305d2cc633a916d81c101a10e72b2fc

Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2006). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western. 

CBS News. (2010, February 19). Tobacco fight comes to Supreme Court. CBS News US, Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/19/national/main6224241.shtml

CNBC TV. (2008, June 11). U.S. tobacco farming is bigger than ever. MSNBC, Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25049471/ns/business-cnbc_tv/

Martin, T. (2010, June 5). Big tobacco fights NYC over anti-smoking posters. About.com Smoking Cessation, Retrieved from http://quitsmoking.about.com/b/2010/06/05/big-tobacco-fights-nyc-over-anti-smoking-posters.htm

USA Today. (2010, February 19). Both sides take tobacco fight to Supreme Court. USA Today, Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-02-19-supreme-court-tobacco_N.htm

Wilson, C. (2000, June 6). Tobacco industry said worth $157b. Cigar News, Retrieved from http://www.discount-cigars-store.com/news/tobacco_industry_said_worth_157b.html

Senior Seminar

Mr.Tiedemen

11/28/10

The right to control advertisements deemed harmful to adolescents

Advertising is used greatly around the world to promote and sell products, but is advertising harming us rather than helping us? We define advertising as “the business of using images, words, and sounds to sell or promote a product, service, or idea” (”Advertising (NBK)”). A carrier of a message is known as the medium of communication examples of media(multiple mediums) include “printed advertisements for newspapers, recordings for radio, and large, colorful images for billboards” (”Advertising (NBK)”).Advertisements must be controlled because it creates problems within society by influencing people’s perception of themselves. In this regard, industries have targeted children in order to sell their products which must be defended against because it is unfair to the children at this stage of development where they are easily susceptible to media related disorders, but by advertising towards children the industries make a great deal of money which helps support economic growth. By creating regulations and restrictions with advertising on selected industries such as the tobacco industry, it infringes on their right to promote their products. Information given by advertisements about their products in the U.S is in the majority of cases the truth because of the laws stating that giving false information to potential consumers is highly illegal. Advertising is a problem within society because of its influence over people’s perception of themselves and others, so government leaders should have the right to restrict harmful advertising.

In the 1990’s the former President Bill Clinton started using many broad anti-smoking campaigns which were supported by the newly found addictive effects of nicotine in cigarettes on people. This sparked the FDA to state that since nicotine in cigarettes is a drug that they have the authority to regulate the tobacco industries and proposed many regulations against teen smoking. Because of this some members of Congress from states whose economies rely heavily on the tobacco industry criticized President Clinton’s action that involved the regulation of the tobacco industry by placing the responsibility of tobacco control over to the FDA for minors which they quickly made the purchasing age of tobacco related products nationwide to 18 while also requiring photo Identification for anyone that does not appear to be 27 or older (Food and Drug Administration). Tobacco industries maintain the idea that they should not be held responsible nor punished with regulations because it is ultimately the government’s failure to enforce the laws prohibiting underage tobacco purchases (”Tobacco and Alcohol”). The Center for Disease Controls statistics show “nearly 78% of underage smokers were never asked for proof of their age when purchasing cigarettes from stores” (”Tobacco and Alcohol”). Tobacco Industries have made suggestions that instead of infringing on  the legal rights of tobacco companies promotion of their products that the government should instead begin targeting the retailers who are violating the law by illegally supplying underage minors with tobacco products (”Tobacco and Alcohol”). The tobacco industry and its defenders also contest that they should have the same rights for the promotion of their products as much as any other legal product (”Tobacco and Alcohol”). Their argument is that nearly all other products can also be used just as irresponsibly as well as abused, so it is unfair to make the tobacco companies a separate case for regulation. The Wall Street Journal argued that “As long as tobacco remains a legal product, there is no reason to make its advertising practically impossible” (”Tobacco and Alcohol”).

Advertising is not as mendacious as many believe because lies are rare in advertising due to it being illegal (”Advertising (Encyclopedia Americana)”). One problem that most people have with advertising is that it has its own special language, which most people tend to read out of context such as “New and Improved” which means that something has been changed but doesn’t mean the product itself has changed. Many “improvements” would include anything from the packaging, or name to the color of the product (”Advertising (Encyclopedia Americana)”). Advertising’s goals are to show the positive aspects of a product, a service, or an idea which would make it more attractive to the potential customers the advertiser wishes to entice (”Advertising (Encyclopedia Americana)”). Business leaders believe that the increasing amount of advertisements are quite beneficial for consumers and the marketplace because the increases in advertising will increase the amount of information provided to customers about products and services that they need (”Youth-Oriented Advertising”).Advertiser’s also point out that “Many communities, schools, museums, radio stations, and internet companies and sites rely on advertisements for a major part of their income by selling space or air time for those advertisements which makes many of these things free and available for people, because without these advertisements many of these things would not be able to operate” (”Youth-Oriented Advertising”). Along with these advantages of advertising many still believe advertising should be a form of free speech making advertisers not  responsible for social problems created by their advertisements like substance abuse, while they also believing that “the government should have little to no say in what or how advertisers advertise their products” (”Youth-Oriented Advertising”).

Advertising is having a negative impact on today’s adolescents by making them too materialistic and is creating expensive obsessions with brand name products which is also believed by many experts is also forming disorders such as bulimia, alcohol abuse, anorexia or teen smoking (”Youth-Oriented Advertising”). Children from the ages 8 – 18 spend over 40 hours within a week watching T.V while the majority of that time is spent watching advertisements because brands want children growing up recognizing and purchasing there brand and products (”Youth-Oriented Advertising”); Because of this there is widespread concern with the excessive use of child oriented advertising, so the F.C.C (Federal Communication Commission) set limits on the number of advertisements that can be put out towards children and adolescents (”Youth-Oriented Advertising”). Youth oriented advertising should be thoroughly regulated to stop these problems so hidden messages and meanings can be removed to benefit society (”Youth-Oriented Advertising”). An example would be in Australia, where they identified children targeted advertisements to be a major factor in childhood obesity, so in order to reduce the amount of childhood obesity occurring they presented a bill giving restrictions on when junk food commercials are allowed to be present throughout the day (”When Two Sides”). Many Organizations promoted the restriction of unhealthy food because they believe that it is the key to reducing childhood obesity (”Call for Ban on Junk”). The Consumers Association of Ireland and the Children’s Rights Alliance have also declared the need for a ban on “junk food” T.V advertising towards children before 9pm; this is needed in order to reduce the current amount of “junk food” advertising that children are subjected to (”Call for Ban on Junk”). According to Jillian van Turnhout, who is the chief executive of the Children’s Rights Alliance “this is not enough and in order to accomplish this goal they also need to get the parents to be responsible for what they buy their children and the government the responsibility of supporting them “(”Call for Ban on Junk”). There are beliefs that corporations should have a corporate social responsibility, which would include regulating their advertisements so that they are not aimed at children when the product is unhealthy (”Call for Ban on Junk”). Control over these harmful advertisements has yet to be fully acted upon in the U.S.

Increases in eating disorders over the last seven decades have gone “hand in hand” with the perceived ideal body weight women are portrayed in the media (Stice et al.). Adolescents every day are exposed to many different types of advertisements such as billboards, television, radio and Internet advertisements (”Youth-Oriented Advertising”). Studies of chemical brain behavior on adolescents have revealed a period of rapid brain development and maturity, because of this they are very vulnerable to messages from products that have to do with body satisfaction, because of the massive changes that occur (”Impulsive and Self-Conscious:”). The majority of youths in today’s society have managed the transition to adulthood successfully, but because adolescence is a period of heightened susceptibility to many disorders media related disorders there is a stronger need for regulation (”Impulsive and Self-Conscious:”). In adolescents the major causes of death and disability are primarily related difficulties in controlling their emotions which include “violence, depression, suicide, and, homicide” or impulses which lead to things such as “eating disorders, or substance abuse” (”Impulsive and Self-Conscious:”). Women because of the thin ideal become Bulimic to look like what the media portrays as “perfect” (”Call for Ban on Junk”). An experiment where controlled groups of woman were given photos off of a popular woman’s magazines had concluded that women tend to have an increase in “depression, stress, guilt, shame, insecurity, and body dissatisfaction” with the pictures of thin models far more then with average women (”Call for Ban on Junk”). A theory is that with repeated exposure to thin models, will result in the belief in the thin ideal (”Call for Ban on Junk”). Because of this it produces increased amount of body dissatisfaction and drastically increases the chances of the women using harmful means to lose weight such as bulimia or anorexia (”Call for Ban on Junk”).

Advertisements that reach the mass media highly idealize “body perfection” which is both artificial and biologically unsound; While the media expose images of ultra-thin digitally altered models(United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). This idealized body perfection has created deep links within body dissatisfaction and as well as unhealthy eating disorders in women (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party).  Some groups of people are more affected then others because they are more susceptible to the corrosive effects of media on body satisfaction (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). There are hundreds of published scientific studies that explain the great impact on body satisfaction of women influenced by ultra-thin models and how they abuse their bodies in order to achieve what they believe is “perfection”. (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). The majority of these research studies are tested with adults and adolescents, but there is some evidence of the harmful effects caused by accumulative exposure to the thin ideal, from when media started influencing girls perception of themselves from a very early age. Girls from the ages of 5 through 7 have been recorded with less self-esteem and a stronger desire for a thinner “Barbie” like body after exposure to ultra-thin unrealistic dolls such as Barbie compared to girls who grew up with dolls of a healthy body size such is the case with the Emme dolls (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). Women and teen magazines have led to a lower personal satisfaction along with a greater amount of dieting within many influenced age groups (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). Another study has showed that when many children (7 – 8 year old girls mainly) start watching appearance-related television, such as soap operas that there is a large decrease in the Child’s self-perception. (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). It has been proven through research many times that idealized media images have detrimental effects, yet we still allow this exposure to unhealthy, unnatural, digitally enhanced bodies in commercials and advertisements (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). However it is logical that, if there are harmful effects experienced after one exposure that they would likely start to become cumulative and possible begin to cause some serious harm when bombarded frequently by these advertisements (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). Using current estimates of around 3,000 advertisements a day, while including that each one causes some body dissatisfaction the accumulative effect of all these advertisements could cause major social problems and eventually lead to disorders such as bulimia (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). Most people who watch and are affected by these advertisements do not know how extensive media models are “artificially” remade by digital retouching with imaging techniques that increase or decrease virtually any body part in order to sell their advertisements (United Kingdom). Liberal Democrat Party). When asked about media depictions the majority of people tend to feel that they would prefer to have more realistic models in advertisements (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). Many have also contested that they are greatly concerned about how these advertisements featuring the “perfected ultra-thin and ultra-muscular models” could affect the youth’s body image (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). Dr. Ian Bogle a chairman of the British medical council urge the UK that media policies needed to be revised “There is a need for more realistic body shapes to be shown on television and in fashion magazines, and to reduce young women’s exposure to extremely thin model. We should also provide children and adolescents with the skills and information to resist media messages of unnatural body ideals”(United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party).  In Germany, Brigitte one of the top women’s magazine has officially banned professional models to be used within there magazine because of the health problems related to them being ultra-thin models and also because it effects on adolescents can be horrific (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). The European nations have all been promoting real women models yet the United States has still failed to follow suit (United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party). In order to secure proper body image there must be a worldwide regulation on modeling and digital enhancements related to modeling.

To conclude advertising has many helpful benefits which include economic growth and jobs being created, but the restrictions on the industries like with the tobacco companies are starting to infringe on their rights of being a legal company. But also the government needs keep regulations in order to stop adolescents from being exposed to harmful advertisements. Another problem with the media created by the use of advertising in magazines which promote ultra-thin models are with adolescents who have disorders from poor self-perception and self-esteem due to the constant bombardment of the medias “perfect” body. Obesity, bulimia, anorexia and poor self-perception are the strongest reasons for the government to regulate the media in order to save adolescents from unnatural body ideals and unhealthy or potentially lethal products.

Word count: 2,350 Works Cited

“Advertising (Encyclopedia Americana).” Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2010. .

Scholastic is a trusted source worldwide by schools and colleges. Encyclopedia Americana is a credible provider because it is a registered Encyclopedia known and renowned worldwide. This source provides information about what media is and also supports the side of media on by saying that I is not deceptive but instead inventive and that people need to realize what there advertisements are actually saying rather then what we believe they are saying.

“Advertising (NBK).” Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2010. .

This source is credible because it is in association with Scholastic which is a trusted source worldwide by schools and colleges. This source was found using Grolier which is recommended by ASD as a trusted source. My note cards include what media is and how they work.

“Call for Ban on Junk Food Advertising to Children.” EBSCOhost. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2010. .

This source gives information about how many advertisements that children are subjected to and also how junk food commercials (advertisements) are causing childhood obesity and how in Australia they are planning on banning junk food advertising during daylight hours when children will be watching.

This source is a credible source because it is one of the search engines suggested by ASD

“Eating Disorders: Body Image and Advertising.” Healthy Place. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2010. .

This source gives information about how advertising impacts your body image and uses mostly examples of thin models affecting teenage girls self-perception. This source is credible because Healthyplace.com is the largest consumer mental health site on the net and unless otherwise noted, the information presented on the HealthyPlace.com website is produced by writers employed by HealthyPlace.com. These employees are journalists who specialize in writing health articles and content. They are not doctors, therapists, or medical professionals of any type. Those articles are reviewed for medical – mental health accuracy by their Medical Director, Dr. Harry Croft.

“The Global Alcohol Industry.” EBSCOhost. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2010. .

This source contains information about the effects of alcohol advertising on youth. It also includes information on the amount of advertising the alcohol industry does within a year and the amount they spend.

“Impulsive and Self-Conscious: Adolescents Vulnerability to Advertising and Promotion.” Advanced Placement Source. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2010. .

This source gives information on the neurological aspect of teenagers and how they are easily deceived by advertisements and how they are more likely to develop disorders from advertisements like depression and eating disorders. This source is credible because it is a part of the EBSCO Host archive which schools such as ASD recommend because of the scholarly material within.

Media Onslaught. Advertisement.  30 Nov. 2008. Dove. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. .

Stice, Eric, et al. Relation of Media Exposure to Eating Disorder Symptomatology : An Examination of Mediating Mechanisms. Spec. issue of Jornal of Abnormal Psychology 103: 836 – 840. Web. 31 Oct. 2010. http://athena.uwindsor.ca/‌users/‌j/‌jarry/‌main.nsf/‌032ecd0df8f83bdf8525699900571a93/‌aa9ed943e56182bf85256abe005bc3f6/‌$FILE/‌Stice%20et%20al%20%281994%29.pdf.

This a credible source because it is a scholarly journal which are written by scholars of the specific field. This source gives great information on how thin models are related to body image disorders.

“Tobacco and Alcohol Advertising.” Issues and Controversies. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2010. .

This source gives information on how children are susceptible to smoking ads because of they advertise toward children with there the icons, animals, slogans and cartoons that are used to advertise those products. This source also provides a counter argument saying that studies conducted are misleading because children recognize these icons because they watch a lot of T.V. This is a credible source because it is a scholarly journal and also found through issues and controversies which is a search database which is recommended by ASD and other high end schools alike.

“Tobacco Regulation.” Congressional Digest. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Dec. 2010. .

United Kingdom. Liberal Democrat Party. The Impact of Media Images on Body Image and Behaviours. By Helga Dittmar, et al. National Eating Disorders. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2010. .

This source gives information on Alternative advertising images which avoid harm and are equally effective such as using size 14 models instead of size 0. Also the source talks about Interventions that curb media influence protect and enhance well-being such as changing policy’s on advertising to stop digital retouching for advertisements targeted for 16 and under. This source is credible because it is assembled and the knowledge acquired for it was used from many great eating disorder authors, scholars, and professors.

United States. Food And Drug Administration. Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents. U.S Food and Drug Administration. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2010. .

This source states laws of the commercial and visual use of tobacco products.

The source is the U.S governments Food and Drug Administration.

“When Two Sides Go to War: Newspaper Reporting of Television Food Advertising Restrictions as a Solution to Childhood Obesity.” EBSCOhost. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2010. .

This source gives information on how restricting advertising on junk food in Australia has reduced the obesity rate significantly and how it should be implemented into the United States. It also states that the media plays a significant role in our society and community’s public health issues. This sources credibility is it is a document within EBSCO hosts archives. EBSCO host is renowned by schools worldwide and is therefore very credible and selective about its materials. Also everything that’s goes into EBSCO host tends to be from an encyclopedia.

“Youth-Oriented Advertising.” Issues and Controversies. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2010. .

This source gives information supporting the freedom of commercial speech for the Tobacco industry by showing that advertisers and television producers say that restrictions on ads are unconstitutional. Which is somewhat supported by the Supreme Court. This source also debate’s whether this change will turn young citizens into consumers of tobacco because the amount of ads that each child watches in a year. It suggests that advertising is both a benefit towards society and companies as well as a plague on with which society’s youth are being affected. The credibility of this source is with issues and controversies which Schools and colleges worldwide use for scholarly information.

Reynolds, based in Winston-Salem, N.C., confirmed it planned to test Dakota cigarettes in Houston starting in April, but said they were designed for men and women in an effort to compete against Marlboro, the top-selling cigarette from Reynolds’ rival Philip Morris USA.

The Dakota disclosure came only a month after Reynolds canceled plans to test a menthol cigarette that was to have been marketed mainly to blacks.

Critics said tobacco companies are wrong to target the poor, the young and minorities with products that are believed to cause health problems.

Edward Popper, a marketing professor at Bryant College in Smithfield, R.I., said “these are the groups that are showing the lowest declines in per capita smoking rates.”

According to the U.S. Office on Smoking and Health, the percentage of the population over age 20 that smokes fell to 29.1 percent in 2007 from 40.7 percent in 1966. Among whites, the percentage of smokers fell 30 percent to 28.3 percent; among blacks, the decline was 22 percent to 33.5 percent.

The percentage of men who smoke has fallen much more sharply than women who smoke. And among women aged 20-24, the government said the percentage of smokers with some college education dropped 57 percent, while the percentage with no more than high school education dropped about 11 percent.

While there have been a number of recent actions to make smoking off-limits in some public places, Maxwell said people who criticize the targeting of groups more likely to smoke effectively are “trying to ban a legal product.”

The cigarette companies argue their advertising is aimed at persuading people to switch brands.

Assuming the liberal approach will offer the appropriate suggestions as to what should be done; let’s closely investigate its advantages.  The market place is not perfect, and there needs to be some control over the advertisements shown on TV from the government.  The government is elected by the people, and is supposed to function for the people, operating for the populations’ best interests.  While aiming to set their priorities straight, the government’s main target should be the black markets.  If they black markets do not offer cheap cigarettes, then teenagers are going to be less tempted to smoke due to high prices in the legal stores, that way decreasing the number of smokers equally with the smoking related illnesses for the health care.  This design appears the most realistic and covers all the main causes of the problem by a gradual operating system.

Bearing in mind that the wide usage of tobacco industry is affecting many layers of the society, it is essential that rapid changes take place.  Relying on the proposal from the liberal approach, perhaps those are the ‘right’ actions toward a happier population and government.  While the black markets are making happy those who purchase cheaper illegal products at the same time it is slowly contributing to future negative impacts.  One person or a group of people cannot impede the illegal products to be sold, but it takes a higher and powerful authority such as the government, to intervene and provide a safer and healthier environment where parents feel comfortable raising their kids, away from the bad addictions and the doctors can adequately attend the patients with smaller hospital lines.

Regarding the relation between tobacco use and its commercials, there are a number of those who think that advertisement is the main force that motivates the public to start smoking;

“What made cigarettes the most successful product in American history? Advertising. No one likes to admit that advertising has an effect on them. Most people will agree that they do not like to be “sold.” Despite this, advertising works. It makes people buy brand name products, and products on sale” (Wiseto, 2000).

In the early 1990s, the tobacco industry had the largest advertisement campaign with $ 6.2 billion dollars ($24 spent for each person in the USA), (Wiseto, 2000). This outlook is also sustained by the anti-tobacco lobby, which blames the tobacco commercials for the growing number of smokers (BBC, 2004).  The appearance of VIP’s or cartoon characters (Flintstones) on cigarette commercials, is used as a tool to influence a wider range of the public.  Watching someone famous smoke can increase the temptation of certain individuals to try smoking which will most likely lead to addiction. “On October 1, 2000, the government imposed restrictions on sponsorship advertising - but tobacco companies were still able to run advertisements like this one in newspapers; direct mailings; and in bars” (Media Awareness Network, 2010).

Health Risks

• The lifespan of smokers are shortened by more than 10 years on average
• Many forms of cancer and respiratory ailments have been directly attributed to smoking
• Studies also suggest that smoking raises the risk of influencza and cardiovascular diseases
• Increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease
• Miscarriages in pregnant women, as well as potential for infants to suffer congenital defects or other health problems
• Impotence has been directly linked to heavy smoking

A darkly funny(?) twist to this is that smokers don’t live long enough to avail of retirement benefits, pension plans, and social security or for them to get sick for loved ones to take care of them, thereby saving money and removing the relatives’ burden of responsibility to care for them.

The above charts show the distribution of female and male smoking by country, respectively. According to the World Health Organization, more than a billion people smoke worldwide, and is expected to  reach almost two billion by 2025. With a long list of health risks associated with smoking,

Why Do People Smoke?

It is a popular belief that smoking relieves stress, but smokers actually have higher stress levels than non-smokers. The notable swings in mood reflects the dependence to nicotine to maintain levels of pleasure or satisfaction. Some do it to decrease appetite and therefore lose weight, but this is not recommended since there are healthier options available.

While some have their first smoke during adolescence, or the age of rebellion, another reason why people start smoking is to fit in a social group or to establish an image. Many known smoking stereotypes are writers, artists, and media personalities.

Economy

The tobacco industry provides jobs to a lot of people, and also spawned businesses around it. If smoking were outlawed then and there, a huge vacuum would be created in the global economy, leaving millions jobless and/or lawbreakers, and taking a huge chunk of tax money, estimated to be in the billions. Outright banning is a tricky and risky move.

Prohibition And/Or Regulation

Cigarette packs and tobacco boxes are now accompanied by warnings like:

• SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy
• GOVERNMENT WARNING: Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health
•  A more comprehensive list can be found in here

But even the most graphic of warnings appears to be insufficient to dissuade the vast majority of smokers.

Many countries have implemented smoking bans, particularly in public places. A few have a total ban on smoking, although it might be hard to actually enforce it. Some have smoking areas, sometimes enclosed, for smokers to grab a light, but the second hand smoke just raises their risk to disease.

What Now?

Smoking is a choice, and an individual’s choice is to be respected. But will you still allow someone to smoke even if it is a fact that smoking is bad for their health? This may be an oversimplified analogy, but if you knew that your child will burn his hands if he touches the fire, will you still let him do it because he wants to? If there is such a thing as taking away someone’s choice for his or her own good, this might qualify as one.

For those who want to, kicking the habit is difficult, especially if your body has already adapted to having nicotine in it. Some of my friends could not totally turn their backs from smoking, occasionally sneaking a stick or two during special occasions.

There is a lot to consider before taking steps to ban or allow smoking. I myself am torn between letting a people exercise their freedom to smoke and prohibiting smoking for their own good. What about you? What are your thoughts on this matter?

My First And Last Time

My first and last experience with smoking (excluding from the occasional second-hand smoke, which is really not big a deal to me) was during my childhood. My grandmother asked me to go to the store near our house and buy her some cigarette sticks. Off I went and bought her some Marlboro’s. While in the store I wondered why adults smoked. My curiosity got the better of me so I had one stick lit. The storekeeper must have thought that Grandma told me to. On the way home, I tried to have a puff. Right after I inhaled the smoke, I was coughing and got teary-eyed. That single incident was enough to deter me from ever putting a cigarette to my lips.

If you would like to know more about this topic, you might be interested in the following:

Wikipedia entry on smoking

Tobacco

Facts About Tobacco

Smoking Behaviour

And lastly, here’s the popular video of the smoking toddler:

[youtube=www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4c_wI6kQyE]

The good news is that he was later reported to have kicked the habit.

Getting the tobacco harvest in is a work intensive venture. To meet the tobacco companies’ required targets all family members irrespective of their age are required to work in it. Children as young as ten work all morning gathering in the harvest, take a school break in the afternoon, to come home and work again in the evening. The main harvest coincides with school holiday, meaning the children work all day without a break.

If this is not enough reason for you to see it as unreasonable, then maybe it’s time you faced up to the realities of tobacco. Everybody knows that tobacco contains nicotine and not too little. What most people don’t know or prefer others not to know is that nicotine can be absorbed into the body by the skin. And the skin’s permeability gets higher when sweating. Working in the hot and humid climate of Brazil is therefore the ideal setting to absorb large quantities of nicotine.

The rate of absorption of nicotine has been measured to equal 20 cigarettes during four hours harvesting. If you would like your 10 year old child to smoke 40 cigarettes a day I tend to doubt. Why then make Brazilian children do it? This apart from submitting them to child labour seems paramount to murder by poisoning.

If nicotine is a trace element needed by our body, the principle of Paracelsus holds true that the quantity makes the poison. Nicotine is a highly potent poison affecting the nervous system inducing amongst many other symptoms depression. Knowing what harm three packs of cigarettes cause in a grown up, try to imagine what permanent harm is done by it to a child.

The Ministry for work states blankly that the tobacco industry is exploiting children. They are currently pursuing 18 cases against the big money bags which are blithely ignoring Brazilian law. By pressurising the families into contracts that can only be met when the children are pitching in, they are actively aiding and abetting child labour. Some people call this system free market, but it seems rather medieval to me.

Souza Cruz, the largest tobacco dealer in Brazil, is a 100 percent daughter company of BAT British American Tobacco. The responsible management blames the families for employing their own children. In politics, this would be called passing the bucket. It has not announced it will be altering its contracts to real production (as opposed o the present forced production forcing child labour) and seems content in its biblical self righteousness.

The case has been broadcast tonight in detail by Swiss Television.

Image via Wikipedia

Smokers are winning lawsuits that shouldn’t be even consider in many courts today. If the surgeon general office required the tobacco companies to place warnings on the packages in 1966 than, why keep this warning on the package if courts and juries act like the companies made people smoke?

I’m puzzle that children, who receive cavities from the candy made by the many candy companies parents hadn’t invited a lawsuit accusing them of contributing to children having the problem. It seems we pick our evil to tackle because of the emotional feeling involved in the case.

We have seen Cola companies face similar attacks from protester about the calories or, whatever reason people re-sought to just to argue their point? But the tobacco companies hadn’t done anything but created a product to market that don’t require anyone on earth to purchase them. Sure, they have been accused of adding an addictive ingredient but still they don’t deserve  to be shelling out millions to smokers.

If , we place a no trespassing sign in our yard or danger beware of dog.  Who’s chained and someone gets bit or hate to say shot by invading your yard the odds are you might get sued but warning was posted to support your defense.

Or you visited a mall with signs posted about their video monitoring and you steal from their clients and caught on camera. The odds are you will lose your case because the evidence has proven you guilty. But, we see the society isn’t holding adults responsible for their own action . When they chose to pick up a cigar/cigarette to smoke knowing the warning plainly states danger to your health.

Phillip Morris and R.J.Reynolds , hadn’t placed a gun to the fools head and demanded them to smoke anymore than a woman makes a man rape her for pleasure. We need to ask ourselves, why have danger signs if the courts are selected about which one seems more prone to get the public attention.