Daniel Neal in his essay “Tobacco: Ignorance Is No Longer an Excuse” argues that long gone are the days when the dangers of tobacco were unknown to consumers. Today public health officials know well the dangers of tobacco. They have conducted extensive public education campaigns in order to inform both the smoking and non-smoking public about the dangers of tobacco on a person’s health. Neal believes though that restrictions placed against tobacco companies both in advertising and user’s ability to pursue compensation for damage should be abolished. He believes that both cigarette advertising in any forum should not be banned. His argument neglects, however, to acknowledge how tobacco companies have a history of manipulative advertising campaigns in attempts to get consumers addicted to their products (Synar, 1986).
Synar writes that, “Whether planned or not, the primary impact of cigarette advertising is on children.” He sites that sixty percent of children begin smoking before the age of 13, and 90 percent prior to the end of their teenage years. Virtually no adults take up cigarette smoking as a habit. As the ill effects of tobacco on health and increased mortality have been documented, it is clear that allowing cigarette companies to advertise will end up hooking children and they will then have an ill-effect on children in terms of their likelihood of their becoming lifelong smokers (Chaloupka, 2000). A. Vickers points out that cigarette advertising must be banned in order to prevent children from becoming life-long smokers (Vicker, 2000).
Neal’s premise that people should not be able to sue tobacco companies for damages to their health has some logic to it, but his argument exonerates the tobacco companies for their manipulative past and graces over the history of tobacco companies less than ethic business practices, which include stealthy marketing campaigns to minors and attempts to make cigarettes more addictive. In general, as with alcohol, tobacco companies should not be held liable for the poor health choices of its customers, but for the companies that are found guilty of unethical marketing practices, should then be fair game for consumers to go after since they will be able to make the case that their tobacco use in the first case was not a free choice but a decision coerced by the tobacco companies. Just as consumers should be responsible for the products that they consume, tobacco companies should be liable for unethical practices that cause people to consume their product (Vickers, 1992).
Neal begins his essay by saying that “Any individual who chooses to use tobacco today is making an informed decision” (Daniel, 2000). In this case, there are few who would argue with this. Who, after all, does not know about the concrete dangers of consuming tobacco?
While people should be responsible for their choices, cigarette advertising targets children who are not prepared to deal with the pressures of clever marketing designed to influence their behavior. Tobacco companies have a long history of unethical business practices that seeks to get people addicted at an early age since studies have shown that if people start smoking before the age of 18 they are much more likely to become life long smokers who will continue to consume tobacco which will yield a profit for the tobacco companies.
References:
Chaloupka, F. (2000). The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumption. NationalBureau of Economic Research, 19(6), 1117-1137.
Neal, Daniel (2000) Tobacco: Ignorance Is No Longer an Excuse.
Pierce, John (1991). Does Tobacco Advertising Target Young People to Start Smoking?. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 266(22), 266.
Synar, Mike (1986). Should Tobacco Advertising Be Banned?. ABA Journal, 38(71), 38.Vickers, A. (1992). Why cigarette advertising should be banned . BMJ, 34, 1195.
