Rebuttal to “Killing Them Softly”
“Killing Them Softly,” an essay by Jacob Sullum, addresses the issue of Senator Judd Gregg’s bill to give the Food and Drug Administration control over tobacco products. This bill would allow the FDA to make such decisions as halting tobacco companies’ marketing of safer tobacco products and reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes. Sullum argues that by giving the FDA the power to make such decisions, individual consumers would be disadvantaged and lives could possibly be lost instead of saved. If given control of such decisions, the FDA would not allow the introduction of safer tobacco products as they feel this will increase the number of smokers. They feel more people will begin using these products that are advertised as less harmful substances, whereas Sullum feels it would be better for people to change their habits to these “safer alternatives.” Sullum fails to consider benefits of relinquishing control to the FDA, however. By considering some of the positive results, Sullum might develop a different opinion and support the bill as he should.
One major point that Sullum tries to emphasize is how people’s health will be disadvantaged once the FDA is given control. When making the decision about marketing safer tobacco products, the FDA is concerned about how the introduction of smokeless tobacco will be interpreted by the “population as a whole.” Sullum, on the other hand, believes the concern should be with individual consumers. He believes smokers could be doing something healthier for themselves if the FDA promoted smokeless tobacco. However, the FDA believes advertising smokeless tobacco as a less harmful substitute for cigarette smoking misleads people and encourage...
... middle of paper ...
...rth thinking about, it is in the best interest of the “population as a whole” that the Food and Drug Administration be given the rights to control the image that tobacco receives and exploit its negative aspects.
Works Cited
1Up Health. Tobacco Use - Smoking and Smokeless Tobacco. 2003. 9 Oct. 2003.
<http://www.1uphealth.com/health/tobacco_use_smoking_and_smokeless_tobacco_2.html>.
Just Eliminate Lies. A Division of Tobacco Use Prevention and Control. 9 Dec. 2003.
<http://www.jeliowa.org>.
Kick Butts Day. Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids. 9 Dec. 2003.
<http://kickbuttsday.org>.
Sullum, Jacob. “Killing Them Softly.” Reason Online. 19 Sept. 2003. 2 Oct. 2003.
<http://www.reason.com/sullum/092603.shtml>.
Teens Against Tobacco Use. American Lung Association. 9 Dec. 2003.
<http://www.lungusa.org/smokefreeclass>.
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
The smoking issue is very complicated and some of the arguments are beyond the scope of this essay. Still, we can obtain a balanced outlook if we consider the following: the facts of smoking, individual right, societal responsibility, and the stigma of smoking. Haviland and King write essays which contain very important points, but seem to contain a bias which may alienate some people. To truly reach a consensus on the smoking issue, we must be willing to meet each other halfway. We must strike equilibrium between individual right and societal responsibility.
that society has a moral obligation to protect the safety and the welfare of its
The tobacco industry seems like a beneficial addition to our economy. It has basically been a socially acceptable business in the past because it brings jobs to our people and tax money to the government to redistribute; but consider the cost of tobacco related treatment, mortality and disability- it exceeds the benefit to the producer by two hundred billion dollars US. (4) Tobacco is a very profitable industry determined to grow despite government loss or public health. Its history has demonstrated how money can blind morals like an addiction that is never satisfied. Past lawsuits were mostly unsuccessful because the juries blamed the smoker even though the definition of criminal negligence fits the industry’s acts perfectly. Some may argue for the industry in the name of free enterprise but since they have had such a clear understanding of the dangers of their product it changes the understanding of their business tactics and motives. The success of the industry has merely been a reflection of its immoral practices. These practices have been observed through its use of the media in regards to children, the tests that used underage smokers, the use of revenue to avoid the law, the use of nicotine manipulation and the suppression of research.
I live in a state where capital punishment is still being practiced. In fact, I live thirty minutes away from a prison that executes the death penalty. Are we playing God by controlling who does not deserve to live? How can we kill anyone who is no longer a threat to the society? Most have committed terrible crimes in order to get the death penalty, but there are those that were wrongfully convicted. The law system is not perfect, it will never be perfect. Sure, they can get numerous appeals before they are executed. If there is no new evidence or new technology to prove their innocence, there is no use in giving them any number of tries before being executed. It was said that it cost more to execute the death penalty (from the time of arrest to the time of execution) than to give them life without the possibility of parole. As technology increases, we have more tools that we can use for forensic investigation. The birth of DNA in forensic helped save at least one of the inmates on death row in California that was wrongfully convicted. If you wrongfully convicted someone, you can set them free. If you wrongfully executed someone, you can not reverse the process. We have all done things in the past that we were not proud of and would never do it again; at least I had. The ability to reform is in all of us. There are other ways to punish the people on death row in California other than the path of death penalty. Nothing is set in stones but death.
Killing one person to save the lives of millions seems easily justified from a utilitarian standpoint. However, I reject consequentialism and thus consider the highly desirable outcome insufficient to morally legitimate the murder, and thus hope to align myself more with a Kantian framework. It is right for the doctor to kill the president because the president has chosen to be responsible for the slaughter of millions, which separates him from the category of innocent people, demonstrates moral reasoning that justifies his death, and his willingness to lead people astray justifies some form of retribution.
The harmful carcinogens in cigarettes cause about 480,000 deaths each year. These amounts of casualties seem to me as a serious problem, which needs to be addressed and reduced immediately. Cigarettes are known to have a variety of chemicals inside of them ranging from acetone to tar. The chemicals inside of cigarettes have been directly linked to cancer related effects. Due to the poisonous effects and numerous complications involved with cigarettes, they should be made illegal to sell and consume within the United States. Although there are thousands of reasons why cigarettes should be illegal, in this argumentative essay I will closely examine three. The effects of carcinogens, stress of addiction and death prevention are the three main reasons why cigarettes should be illegal.
Thank you for smoking, it’s what big companies like Marlboro and Camel want to let us know, and keep smoking. Tobacco has been around for thousand of years, but today’s cigarettes contain many harmful and poisonous toxins. Yet, its simple: Tobacco smoking kills, reduces economic productivity, and strengthens poverty. But lets be frank, everyone’s aware of these issues already, everyone’s out to get cigarette companies; however, there’s a bigger problem. What happens when cigarette companies target today’s children?
There are many explicit premises in this article that I will examine. The first premise is that, Tobacco companies have been and continue to be involved in undermining scientific evidence that documents the health hazards of secondhand smoke. This is more than an hidden assumption, reference from the Los Angles Times reported in November 1999 that the major cigarette companies "are engaged in a far-reaching campaign to discredit evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful to human health." This is my second premise. Here, there is an implied notion that the Los Angels Times conducted a study to find these findings true. The third premise states, Tobacco industry allies recycle old myths and propaganda - and continue to plant the seeds of confusion and doubt as to the economic effects of smoke free air policies - before legislatures and city councils. Here we see the strong initiative that the tobacco companies especially Philips and Morris take to attack policies that go against their business. The next premise is the fourth premise, As in the past, tobacco companies have continued to create and hide behind front groups to lobby against tobacco control and public health policies. This is another implied notion, which we can say that tobacco companies are trying to control the regulations on tobacco.
In the United States, many crimes are considered to be punishable by a life sentence or a sentence of a few years. However, many crimes have earned people capital punishment, also known as the death penalty. The first known death penalty was acknowledge by a legal document known as the Code of Hummarubi. In this document, written in the 1700s, it is mentioned that twenty-five crimes were punished by death. The crimes included being unfaithful to one's partner and even helping slaves escape (Guernsey, 2009). By 1846, the state of Michigan became one of the first US states to abolish the death penalty for all committed crimes. Michigan now replaces the death penalty with life imprisonment (Bohm, 2007). However, then the inventor Thomas Edison conducted his experiment on the use of electrocution on animals. In 1890, New York State became the first state to practice execution by electrocution on an electric chair on William Kemmler. This method then became a preferred method of execution (Guernsey, 2009). By 1924, the first lethal gas in American history was carried out in Carson City, Nev. It was known as a less severe execution compared to hanging, firing squad, or electrocution (The history channel, 2009). Many states, including Washington State, Connecticut, and recently Maryland have suspended the idea of the death penalty. Even though many perpetrators have committed a criminal offence and have affected many families, and the families might want the worst for that person, no one deserves to have to be put on death row because it is inhumane, and it is not teaching the future generations of what Americans value. The death penalty should not be practices on any criminal because it is inhumane, it is expensive, and many criminals m...
Each year 440,000 people die, in the United States alone, from the effects of cigarette smoking (American Cancer Society, 2004). As discussed by Scheraga & Calfee (1996) as early as the 1950’s the U.S. government has utilized several methods to curb the incidence of smoking, from fear advertising to published health warnings. Kao & Tremblay (1988) and Tremblay & Tremblay (1995) agreed that these early interventions by the U.S. government were instrumental in the diminution of the national demand for cigarettes in the United States. In more recent years, state governments have joined in the battle against smoking by introducing antismoking regulations.
Smoking cigarettes is a detrimental practice not only to the smoker, but also to everyone around the smoker. According to an article from the American Lung Association, “Health Effects” (n.d.), “Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., causing over 438,000 deaths per year”. The umbrella term for tobacco use includes the use of cigarettes, cigars, e-cigs and chewing tobacco. While tobacco causes adverse health consequences, it also has been a unifying factor for change in public health. While the tobacco industries targets specific populations, public health specifically targets smokers, possible smokers, and the public to influence cessation, policies and education.
Are there any circumstances under which it is okay to kill someone? Sandy Hoodmin once said, “Our culture has become so numb to violence and death. We don't understand that when we kill someone, we are TAKING THEIR LIFE. It doesn't mean enough in this society.
The sale of cigarettes and tobacco is a multi-billion dollar industry, but is it truly worth all the problems that stem from their use? Health care costs are extremely high due to all the health problems associated with cigarettes and tobacco. Even though research has proven time and time again the harmful effects of cigarettes, and the rising cost of health care caused by cigarettes, our government will not take a stand and stop all manufacturing of the horrible toxins. Every year, new medical reports are issued regarding the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world die every year from diseases caused by smoking.
Cardador, M.T., Hazon,A. PHD, Stanton. G. PHD., (September 1995).Tobacco Industry Smokers’ Rights Publications: A Content Analysis. American Journal of Public Health