Smoking is bad. We’ve all heard it before. And, regardless of how cool you look while you smoke, it does bad things to your body – namely lung cancer. In any case, people are still smoking…in America or (mainly) elsewhere. So is there any way to make this practice safer, and, if so, should it be encouraged?
Vector Tobacco Company has created a new type of cigarette they’ve branded as Omni. This cigarette has been said, although not yet proven, to contain less carcinogens. The tobacco in an Omni cigarette is treated with palladium, a metal used in automobile catalytic converters, and is said to increase burn efficiency and prevent the creation of some carcinogens. This has not been definitively proven yet, however, but the cigarette packs do not make the false claim that they do.
Matthew Myers, president of Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington DC, says that these claims of a less harmful product will encourage more people to take up smoking because of the seemingly less dire consequences. But is this a reason to ban the sale of Omni cigarettes and related products, or even to discourage the research to find a safer cigarette?
I would say no. The reasoning of Mr. Myers doesn’t hold up in my opinion, because regardless of his hypothetical trajectory, a safer cigarette is a safer product. Anti-smoking campaigns are more prevalent now than ever, and if people choose to smoke, they are doing so with the full knowledge of what the risks are. These new cigarettes are not claiming to be harmless, they are claiming to reduce the smoker’s intake of carcinogens. Furthermore, less people are smoking these days, but people are and will continue to be smoking for some time until a law is established that effectively bans cigarettes – so why not create a safer product for smokers? Do people lose some sort of rights when they begin smoking? Should companies, specifically tobacco companies, be discouraged from providing for the welfare of these people just because they smoke? No.
Not all people smoke because it looks cool, and even the image of a smoker arouses negative responses from the vast majority of people these days. And many people are desperately trying to quit smoking, but can’t find an effective way of doing it. I don’t believe these people should lose the right to a safer product as they try to make better choices in their lives.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/3/160.full
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Indeed, why not “create a safer product for smokers” (Ramzi)? If researchers could reduce carcinogens given to smokers, it would only better smoker health while maintaining cigarette appeal. It seems this would be in smokers’ best interests. However, the problem is just that. It would help preexisting smokers alone. Teen advertisements coupled with a lifetime of less harmful yet similarly addictive cigarettes would still amount to a more harmed population.
The problem does not lie within the smoking community. The problem lies with recruiting new users – that is, marketing. Cigarette companies still play a heavy emphasis on teen smoking because of longer lives to smoke away. Despite bans on explicit teen-centric advertising techniques, the cigarette industry nevertheless directs retail advertising towards teens (1). A safer cigarette would be more appealing than regular cigarettes to all ages, and would thus present a very effective marketing ploy for retail-level advertisements. Claiming harmless cigarettes is hyperbole, as mentioned, but a decrease in cigarette harm is the true selling point of these cigarettes. This could be considered as nonspecific advertising, endangering the general population through advertisement. It is endangering nonetheless, despite its superficial favorable appeal.
A less dangerous cigarette is still an addictive one. Unfortunately, fewer carcinogens per cigarette does not amount to fewer carcinogens in a lifetime smoker. Even “chipper” smokers, occasional puffers without traditional signs of addiction, are still under heavy influence to continue smoking through their lives. Dr. Joseph Difranza, a University of Massachusetts’ Medical School professor, estimates only 5% of smokers are actually addiction-free (2). Reduced carcinogen cigarettes simply prolong lives – and profit – for the benefit of cigarette companies. The end product is the same. Even a reduced-carcinogen cigarette is a carcinogenic cigarette, and a combination of efficient early induction into smoking and a lifetime of (even occasional) smoking would lead to a less safe world for previous nonsmokers, even if a safer world for preexisting smokers.
Apologies. Here are my references:
1. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070507202414.htm
2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99690624
Post a Comment