Big Tobacco
Tobacco has been a popular commodity for hundreds of years. In 1880, cigarettes become pass produced. Young & old, rich & poor smoked them for decades. During World War Two, they were provided to soldiers as rations, necessary supplies.
In the late 1940s, Scientists and doctors began to note the effects of cigarettes. The first study linking smoking and cancer was in 1950. Multiple studies came out in the 1950s to reinforce the findings that cigarettes were dangerous. Multiple countries studied multiple smokers and nonsmokers from different backgrounds and lifestyles and found statistically significant data that those who smoked had cancer more often.
The tobacco companies worried about losing their livelihood. They paid scientists to release studies that disagreed.
Confirmation bias
Newspapers and magazines announced the study with headlines such as, "SCIENTIST DISPUTES FINDINGS OF CANCER RISK TO SMOKERS AND NEW STUDY CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS FINDINGS.
How do you think people felt about this statement?
Smokers who struggled to break their addictions were uncomfortable by the news that smoking could be harmful.
In reality, 100 scientific papers claimed smoking to be dangerous for every 1 paper that stated that it wasn't.
Rhetoric
Tabacco companies critized the scientific findings and said:
If smoking is that bad, why do some smokers not get cancer? Why do some people who don't smoke get lung cancer?
"Estimates of smoking mortality and incidence rates were calculated based on Canadian rates observed over the period 1987 to 1989. It was found that 172/1,000 of male current smokers will eventually develop lung cancer; the similar probability among female current smokers was 116/1,000. For those who never smoked on a regular basis the lifetime risk was substantially reduced. Only 13/1,000 males and 14/1,000 females in this category will develop lung cancer."
Paying Doctors
Doctors aren't immune from not wanting to face the truth. Cigarette companies found doctors who smoked and asked them to endorse cigarettes for health. Many magazines printed cigarette ads with doctors talking about the health benefits of smoking.
Evidence builds
As the global scientific community continued to study the effects of smoking, cigarette companies no longer argued the potential effects of smoking.
1965- UK banned smoking commercials
1971- US bans smoking commercials
1993- National ban on selling cigarettes to under 18s
Instead Tabacco companies argued that people should have the freedom to choose to smoke and framed any restrictions as discrimination. They argued that regulating cigarettes would lead to government regulations on other things. This spread fear of government control.
In the 1970's and 1980's you could walk into smokey bank, church or grocery store and the employees could be smoking while they worked. However, by the 1990's fear over harmful Secondhand smoke forced those who wanted to smoke to have to take smoking breaks outside. It wasn't until 2000 that smoking was banned on all commercial flights.
Cigarette companies argued that this was a form of discrimination.
What do you think? Why is it different from other forms of discrimination?
Candy Cigarettes
Cigarette companies gave candy Cigarette companies the right to use their likeness. Soon children could buy their own candy cigarettes and pretend to be an adult like their parents.
In some countries candy cigarettes are completely banned.
Warning labels - what-about-ism
Government regulations are extensive for cigarettes. Much of cigarette packaging has warning labels and even images of diseased lungs and people on ventilators.
Cigarette companies argue that they're being treated unfairly. They argue that sugary foods don't have warnings about heart disease and pictures of obese people. Alcohol has their warnings in small print and don't have pictures of people dying of kidney failure.
What do you think about this argument?
The cigarette companies have a point. However, it's actually a fallacy in logic known as "what-about-ism". The fallacy effectively argues that they should be able to get away with a wrong because someone else did. Just because someone else got away with something doesn't mean you should too.
If someone doesn't something you're not allowed to and their parents don't punish them, doesn't mean you now can.
The cigarette companies aren't arguing that there SHOULD be labels on everything harmful. They're arguing that therefore there shouldn't be warnings on theirs also.
However, other products that have warnings such as cleaning materials could argue the same.
Incentive
What do you think?
What would be the benefit of destroying cigarettes? Why wouldn't cigarette companies admit they were harmful?
Comments
Post a Comment