Case Study #1: Phillip Morris
1. Do you actually think Joe Camel led youngsters to become smokers when they got older? Why or why not? I believe that the children who saw Joe Camel and became accustomed to him, had more of a probability to become smokers than those who didn't, because the children could relate to Joe Camel just like any other fictional character that they held dear to them. For example, if a child watches Winnie the Pooh and finds interest in him, they would want to keep watching him, and then maybe leading to them wanting toys, clothing, and other paraphernalia. I feel that camel cigarettes would work in the same way, but rather than toys or clothing, children would try a cigarette at a younger age than someone who started smoking without the help of a fictional spokesperson. 2. Do you have any problems with the idea of militant ministers leading their followers to whitewash offensive billboards? If not, is tearing down such billboards acceptable? Please discuss as objectively as possible. I find it wrong for ministers to act in such a way. I can completely understand that these billboards promoted that sale of cigarettes and alcohol to certain minorities, but ministers should not be taking an active approach like that, because it is not something that they preach and involving your congregation in such thoughts seems irrelevant to any cause of religion. Ministers mostly preach the passive voice, whereas through prayer things can change for the better. But we have to remember that two wrongs do not make a right, and even though people die from these products, it is legally acceptable to post billboards promoting such products, whereas it is illegal to destroy the billboards. 3. Do you consider the proof adequate that cigarettes pose a substantial health threat and should be banned or tightly constrained? If you accept this position, should tobacco growers be allowed to continue growing such "unsafe" harvests without restraints? I highly agree that there is a substantial health risk, but I do not think that cigarettes should be banned or constrained. As human beings we all have free will and the conscience to choose. I myself am a smoker and I am very aware of the health risks, but I also realize that I chose to start smoking, and I continue to choose to continue. I feel that tobacco growers should be allowed to grow the product with no constraint, because they are not forcing us to smoke the tobacco they grow, so we can't put blame except for on ourselves. 4. Playing the devil's advocate (one who argues an opposing position for the sake of examining all sides), what arguments would you offer that cigarette manufactures should be permitted complete freedom in targeting developing countries? If I had to agree with this point, though I find it ethically wrong, I would have to say that a developing country is vulnerable and easy to manipulate with a marketed product that is being pushed. People in developing countries can be more easily swayed to the pressures and advertisements of large and powerful companies. Just in what we read, it gave Marlboro as an example of their pressures and their advertising strategies upon foreign markets, and how they would hand out free cigarettes at concerts and such, which is another powerful promotion tool that could gain new cigarette supporters. 5. How do you weigh the relative merits of the tangible financial contributions the tobacco industry has made to various minority groups and media, against the negative health consequences of smoking? The tobacco industry has put forward quite an effort to extend money contributions to minorities and media to ease back the tension on how harmful their product has proven to be on the people. Though a friendly gesture, an unwelcoming to the money was provided to the tobacco industry before they could even put their foot in the door. For example in our reading, it is noted that a substantial contribution was...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document