This Tuesday, despite of the opposition of tobacco manufacturers, the final selection of nine graphic warning labels was done by federal health officials. When the decision was made, tobacco companies argued that these images “would unfairly hurt their property and free speech rights by obscuring their brand names in retail displays.” They also added that “congress should have considered less restrictive warnings in size and placement on the pack.” On the other hand, the majority showed positive attitude towards the government’s decision. Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, praised that these “frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking and they will help encourage smokers to quit, and prevent children from smoking.” According to the campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the new warnings significantly decreased the number of smokers; this suggests that these large, graphic warnings “will be impossible to miss and represent a dramatic advance over existing text warnings.”
When I first came to Thailand and saw people selling cigarettes on the street, I was surprised to see such a graphic images. My first impression of those images was “eww…gross…” which is the reaction that the government wants from young teenagers. I agree that the graphics would be more effective than text warnings in discouraging smoking. Since the article supports the idea with statistical data – “the rate of smoking in America has been cut roughly in half, in about 20 percent, from 42 percent in 1965 (when the first text warning started) – I am convinced that the warnings are actually helping people to quit smoking and stopping non-smokers converting into smokers. However, I also agree with the tobacco industry. Marketing, especially advertising and packaging, is significantly important to for-profit organizations. Since tobacco only harms our body, advertisement and its pretty packages would be the only way to attract customers. It is the firms’ role to advertise and attract customers. They have free-speech rights. So, why restrict them? I am not saying that U.S. government should not put the graphics on cigarette packages. If the government is allowing tobacco companies to sell cigarettes, why not let them have those pretty, trendy packages? And if the government wants people to quit smoking, why not ban smoking? Does the government really cares about the public’s health or does it care more about the economics and the taxes? What does it want exactly?
__________
References
When thinking about why the government do not ban tobacco, the first reason comes to my mind would be perhaps they want taxes from this business which each year generate quite a considerable revenue.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even if we do not take this not-so-praiseworthy motive into consideration, I still think that such a measure, allowing the sale of tobacco but restricting its marketing campaign, is justified. In the past, England once banned all alcohol beverages, leading to the widespread unlawful manufacturing and smuggling of liquor, causing quite a serious social problems at that time. If the government completely banned tobacco today, the results would not be different much from what happened in the cases of other illegal drugs. The cost of tabacco would increase and the business would go on underground by gangsters.
Therefore, this might be the best solution we have now. on the one hand, Allowing the business, and on the other hand, putting many restrictions to discouage people from consuming.
I agree with Grace that picture would be more effective than text warning, because the first thing when customer buy the cigarettes is their package and the picture on that package. When I first saw this picture on cigarette's package, I had the same feeling as you. But after that I came to think, is that really help in reduce the number of smokers, when smokers want to buy the cigarattes they want care anything because they need to smoke. I just think that it's a kind of addiction. Moreover, from my experience, when people start to smoke they start because their parents, friends and surounding people are smokers, so could it help?
ReplyDeleteFor US case sometime free of speech is complicated and they overvalue it (like we read in the article in class), but if we are talking in moral aspect,the tobacco company should not use the pretty graphic on the package, because it is a serious misleading to the children.
In my opinion,the reasons why governments do not ban tobacco is that governments can get plenty of profit from this business. And also everyone has right to decide whether smoke or not.
ReplyDeleteFor smokers, to stop smoking is really a tough action to take. Majority of smokers want to quit smoking, but it is difficult to do so as nicotine is very addictive and hard to get rid off.Maybe putting ugly pictures on cigarette packages is a good idea to reduce the number of smokers.However, it is not a best solutions for giving up smoke. For me, smokers should not relay on government or other people to give up smoking; on the other hand,they should depend on themselves. For instance,if smokers want to giving up smoke, they must have the desire to give up their habit of smoking and create a strong will to avoid a smoking relapse.Also,they must learn about the effects of smoking, understand its consequences and face the fact that they need to stop smoking and follow, finish and maintain a quit smoking plan.
Even though I am sure that they are effective deterrents, I think that the punitively high taxes on cigarettes are unjust.
ReplyDeleteIf the gross images on cigarette packets are intended to warn users of the risks and thereby deter them, shouldn't alcohol products be required, for identical reasons, to show equally gross images? That would look nice at The Normandie Grill at the Oriental. "And would sir like the bottle of champagne with the cancerous liver picture, or the shrivelled brain?"
And since cars cause accidents when driven recklessly, shouldn't drivers be discouraged from speeding by ... a lot more red paint being legally mandated?
I'll be interested to see how this goes in teh US Court system, especially when it reaches the Supreme Court, as I'm sure it will - whoever wins the next round, I can't see the loser giving up.