Consumers Are To Blame For Adverse Impacts Of Light/Ultra-Light Cigarettes: A Sample Essay For Inspiration & Mimicking

A majority of people know that smoking has adverse effects on the health of individuals. Government data on health and research has shown that many of the smokers are at high risks of developing lung and throat cancer among other ailments. As a result, tobacco companies have come up with light and ultra-light cigarettes perceived to have lesser impacts on the health of the users. However, there are conflicting data on the efficiency of the light cigarettes. The arising question is who should take responsibility for the adverse impacts of light and ultra-light cigarettes, among the government, producers, and users?
Tobacco companies advertise light and ultra-light cigarettes as having lower levels of nicotine and tar. However, they use machines in the measurement that do not mimic actual smokers. Besides, they design light and ultra-light cigarettes with holes in the filters while others increase the length of the filter paper that dilutes the smoke and consequently record lower levels of nicotine and tar. These two propositions point out that companies are not genuine in their research and, therefore, tends to trick customers into believing that light cigarettes are less harmful. Besides, the companies do not teach the users how not to block the holes while using their products.
In this regard, adverse effects may be attributed to the producer’s manipulative research that misleads the companies. However, one can exonerate tobacco companies from taking responsibility because, despite manipulative studies, they warn users on the danger of using light and ultra-light cigarettes. Moreover, the companies have no control over users’ behavior especially on the number of cigarettes one can smoke in a day. In this regard, the company may take responsibility for misleading and unfair business practices, but not the effects arising from the use of the products in excess. The role of government agencies comes in such a situation.
Government organizations that should ensure the safety of consumers have the responsibility to ensure that all information used in marketing is correct and not from manipulated research. In this case, consumer protection agencies failed to inspect the methods of quantifying tar and nicotine in light and ultra-light cigarettes. They also neglected to demand that tobacco producer to teach users on how to use the new products to ensure that they are efficient. It is because of this failure that smokers block the holes in the products leading to less efficiency.
At the same time, the agency should have handled the question of compensation i.e. one needed to smoke more light and ultra-light cigarettes than regular ones to satisfy their cravings. In this case, the intended purpose (reducing adverse effects of smoking) becomes void. It follows that there could have been a hidden intention of producing light and ultra-light cigarettes. Fundamentally, if one needs to smoke more light/ultra-light cigarettes to satisfy cravings, the company would sell more cigarettes that would translate to higher profits. From this perspective, government agencies are liable for the misleading information and not taking into consideration unfair business practices.
However, despite government agencies failing to contain the producers’ ill behavior, they cannot assume the responsibility for the adverse effects. First, it is important to note that their action or inactions do not influence the decision of the smokers i.e. to smoke or not. In this regard, the users would just switch from mainstream cigarette to light/ultra-light cigarettes with the hope having lesser health problems independently. The organizations have no over control consumer behavior on the number of cigarettes one can smoke in a day. Besides, they have compelled the producer to put warnings on the effect of smoking on the products and, therefore, have very limited liability.
Smokers are aware that tobacco has adverse effects on their health. It is worth noting that the switch from standard cigarettes to the light/ultra-light cigarettes aims and lessening the negative consequences but not eliminating them. It follows that the users are aware that there were certain risks involved with smoking. The company in conjunction with the government agencies have put warnings on all tobacco products. Therefore, one presumes that smokers are rational and can understand the effects of using them. As a result, if the users suffer, they ought to take responsibility.
Although tobacco companies may mislead users to some extent, their liability ends at the point of informing the client about the potentially harmful effects of the products. The producers' legal obligation dictates that all the goods with negative impacts be labeled to ensure that all users can make informed decisions. There have been legal suits on products that malfunction hurting users leading to hefty compensations. However, that happens when there were no clear warnings on the adverse effects or the goods were defective. Since light/ultra-light cigarettes meet all the minimum requirement for warning the smokers, and with no defects, it is only the user that can take the blame for any harmful effects.