Tobacco Targeting Children Essay Example for Free

Tobacco Targeting Children Essay Tobacco is one of the main products that affect our children today. Companies that distribute these products do not think about who is getting affected by their product, but think about the profit they will make from selling their product. Big companies like Philip Morris who sell Marlboro, Basic, Virginia Slim and many other types of tobacco target young adults. Gene Emery quoted the amount spent on tobacco advertising is targeting youngsters. Some points Gene Emery presents are quiet different than what I believe. From working at my previous store that I owned in Sacramento, during these eight years, I didnt recognize some of the points Gene Emery brings out. Gene Emery suggests that they found the amount spent to advertise three brands popular with young people- Camel, Marlboro and Newport- in youth-oriented magazines increased immediately. The first point I would like to point out is that Gene Emery targets young people and also said that brands for adult-oriented products like Basic, Winston or Virginia Slims spend less money on advertising because they target only adults. He says that certain products are for young people while some are for adults. The way he presented his idea was false because from my past experience, I have realized that Newport cigarettes targets African Americans, Marlboro targets originally Asians, Camel cigarettes targets construction workers, Virginia Slim targets women and Basic targets the less fortunate who cant buy Marlboro. Dont get me wrong that I am defend the tobacco companies, I am actually against this. Philip Morris spend more money on ads for Marlboro than Basic because Marlboro is more popular and brings in more profit than Basic does. When we deal with children, we have to be cautious about everything we do. Some adults who smoke, do not realize that their children are getting affected by them. Gene Emery believes that the advertising is to blame. I am agreeing with him, but we should not also forget the family actions in front of their children. In order to prevent our children to smoke, we should start at home. The parents have a great responsibility to act right in front of their kids like put out the cigarette they see their child coming through the door or to try to even stop smoking. I was raised with a family that does not smoke. We are eight girls and one boy and still none of us smoke till now because my family knew how to act and set the perfect role model for us. I am trying to do the same thing for my two boys. I tell them that smoking is awful and it makes you sick and die and whenever they see somebody smoking they say that this person is stupid because he is hurting himself. The laws in this country protects our children; in order for oneself to buy any tobacco, they have to be 18 years of age or older. There is also an agreement to stop promoting cigarettes to children. This agreement was passed in 1998. Attached to this paper is the lawsuit to control tobacco companies. Also, attached to this paper is an article that differs the US laws with other country like Australia and Britain. In my country, the government supports tobacco companies. Ads are placed everywhere about tobaccos, places like TVs, radios, in the street, magazine covers and they also made candys for kids that looks like cigarettes. I believe that the American children are lucky to have such great laws to protect them and that anybody can sue them if something went wrong. Difficult as it may be for tobacco control advocates to demand accountability, tobacco control programs will not survive if the nongovernmental organizations that care about the program will not protect it. The preservation of the intent and spirit of these programs will not occur simply because an initiative is approved by the voters. This approval is a powerful force, but it must be used effectively by those who accept the responsibility for defending the public interest. Exercising oversight over the elected and appointed officials who had authority over the tobacco control program was even more challenging for the public health groups than getting the program enacted. In the years immediately following an election or legislative action to create a tobacco control program, the effort to keep the will of the voters before the Legislature is not difficult, since both the press and the public are likely to be paying attention. But voter approval is likely to become less obvious and thus less powerful over time, and tobacco control advocates need to seek ways to keep the public informed and involved on the tobacco issue. If advocates instead retreat to playing only the insider political game, they will probably fail. They must be willing to withstand and embrace the controversy that the tobacco industry and its allies will generate. Appendix B Important California Tobacco Control Events April 1977 Berkeley passes an indoor air ordinance. November 1978 Proposition 5 (statewide initiative covering clean indoor air and Research Accounts until 1996, passes. SB 493 sought to issues) is defeated. November 1980 Proposition 10 (statewide initiative covering clean indoor air issues) is defeated. December 1980 Californians for Nonsmokers Rights forms to pass local clean indoor air ordinances. November 1983 Proposition P (San Francisco referendum) is defeated; smoke-free workplace law remains on the books. November 1988 Proposition 99 (statewide initiative) passes.