Surgeon General Warnings On Cigarette Packs example essay topic

Smoking cigarettes is becoming more and more of a problem for everyone in the world. Cigarette smoking was a little more acceptable when the public was uninformed about the harmful chemicals used. Now that they have smoking warnings almost everywhere you look, it is easier to not pick up a death stick. Since the time cigarettes were first made until now, there have been many opportunities to learn the results of what cigarettes will do to you over time. It is clear that businesses have an obligation to inform their customers about their product's ingredients and dangers. Looking at the case of Rose Cipollone, we see that she was a heavy smoker.

Her doctor's had to remove part of her right cancerous lung and informed her that she had to quit smoking. Unfortunately, she was addicted. Her doctor's removed the rest of her lung that year and she finally quit smoking. She then used the Liggett Group, the makers of the cigarettes she smoked. The lawsuit charged that the company knew of the link between cancer and smoking in the early 1940's. The company was found innocent of conspiring with other tobacco companies to hide the dangers of cigarette smoking but guilty on the grounds of falsely claiming its products were safe.

However, things have changed. It is not 1940 anymore, when people were ignorant about the dangers of smoking. Tobacco companies now have Surgeon General warnings on cigarette packs. Unless they have been living under a rock, the general public should have been exposed to enough information by this time. Tobacco companies should no longer have the obligation to warn their customers, except if a new ingredient is added, in which case they should be notified. No one is saying get rid of the Surgeon General warnings, but enough is enough!

If a person wants to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, then that is their choice; tobacco companies should not be held responsible. When I started this disgusting habit, I did not know all the facts about cigarettes. I knew it was bad and looked down upon, but growing up in a smaller town made it feel like less of a deal considering just about everyone smoked... I have been smoking for a year in a half and It almost seems like the addiction started more on a social level. The friends and people I would see through out my day smoked up to 2 packs and it did not take me long to try a few. I have recently done much research and I finally come to terms with quitting.

In my past, I have stopped smoking for weeks at a time, but to finally end a life that I am already known for is a little more difficult. You just have to be assertive and make the choice of not smoking. Nicotine is a chemical, C 10 H 14 N 2, which is found in the tobacco plant. Anti-smokers are quick to point out that pure nicotine is a poison, used as a pesticide. And it's true that pure nicotine (a colorless, odorous liquid) is poisonous. What that means is that to kill a 180-lb man, he'd have to drink about 80 mg of the stuff.

Many other common substances, however, also have minimum lethal doses. According to the same source, ingesting a gram of caffeine is fatal. Most of the nicotine in tobacco is lost in the process of smoking. Only a little finds its way into the smoker's bloodstream. That small quantity may account for some of the beneficial effects of smoking, e. g., improved mental concentration.

Strangely, fine Havana cigars, when they were available, contained only 2% nicotine. If, in fact, nicotine is the reason why people smoke, it seems strange that people would pay enormous amounts of money for Havana cigars, which contain so little nicotine. The effects of any drug depend on several factors: 1. The amount taken at one time. 2. The user's past drug experience 3.

The manner in which the drug is taken 4. The circumstances under which the drug is taken (the place, the user's psychological and emotional stability, the presence of other people, the simultaneous use of alcohol or other drugs, etc. ). Tobacco companies have been playing within the rules. Its time the government stopped trying to change the rules just to try and stop what they started. Government should have never gotten into the business in general of subsidizing farmers, regardless of the product.

If there was no demand for the product, then it stops being sold, plain and simple. This is how it should be. This is what the 'open market' was designed to do. Instead of pressuring the tobacco companies to exercise social responsibility let's propose to the US government that it exercise some 'governmental responsibility'.

Stop trying to circumvent the national democratic system of trade just to please parties with special interests. Stop subsidizing tobacco and let the chips fall where they may. Put our tax dollars into real 'societal' issues that affect us all and act like the government by the people and for the people which we, as an American society, have a right to expect it to be.