Essay Ethical Issuses of Tobacco Companies in The Insider

They both Research the facts of tobacco and give statistics in their advertisements. However this doesn’t always work so they research who their audience is and use an effective method to make them stop smoking. Then they took Action, whether it be scaring them, making them feel guilty, or making them feel like they were targeted. They Communicated through television commercials, social media, and by word of mouth. They have both Evaluated the effects of their campaigns and have enjoyed the results. 23 percent of teens smoked cigarettes in the year 2000, now in the year 2017 only 6 percent of teens smoke. The company that lost value in this case was the Big tobacco companies. They have taken a hit with this new generation of potential tobacco users not using. The media has shown that these anti-tobacco campaigns have affected Big tobacco’s stocks bringing them down from 7-10

Today the tobacco industry is barred from directly recruiting celebrities to endorse smoking. Therefore, tobacco companies have begun to use covert advertising in movies. This has proven to be a very profitable tactic for the tobacco companies. Covert advertising in films have helped the tobacco industry to target new users of tobacco. In this type of advertising cigarette makers receive more advertising time for their money than just a quick glance of a cigarette pack or an advertising billboard. In almost every movie with covert cigarette advertising, there are scenes in which a few of the characters smoke; typically these characters are smoking in a manner that glamorizes the use of tobacco. (Tye, J. 2010)

Psychology is defined as the study of the human mind and mental status in order to predict and also explain aspects of human behaviour. In regards to the behaviour concerning addiction, tobacco use is considered the most highly used (and abused) legal substance nationwide. It also has the highest leading risk factors causing considerable rates in morbidity and mortality and several types of cancer, respiratory disease and heart disease; relating to why promoting behavioural change (through aspects of psychology) is considered so imperative in today 's healthcare environment. In addition, the health promotion source that this essay will be examining is the National Tobacco Campaign, aimed at altering smoking behaviours, plus the associated advertisement strategies used, and lastly the psychological theories associated.

Since the first major lawsuit settled against tobacco companies in 1998, there has been much controversy over whether or not these lawsuits are justified. On the pro side of the argument there is much evidence to support that the tobacco industries have long known about the dangers of cigarette smoking. Furthermore that this knowledge warrants the need for compensation. In addition the industry has concealed this knowledge from the public. On the con side of the argument evidence shows that these lawsuits have been based on false claims primarily in regard to health care costs for smokers. Furthermore, the regulations set by the settlement of the 1998 multistate lawsuit have established a legal president which allows individuals

CVS Health announced in 2014 that it wanted to stop selling all tobacco related products. This will affect every CVS location in the United States of America. The problem that arises in the U.S. is the usage of tobacco products. As a successful pharmacy chain and a lucrative company, CVS health wants to do its best to strengthen the health of American citizens. In order to solve the tobacco problem, the health professionals are taking it upon themselves to make a difference. If the distribution of tobacco products come to a halt at CVS pharmacies, consumers will either stop buying the products all together or looking for the products elsewhere.

If we look at the tobacco industry we clearly see that the manufactures that make tobacco products help fund and provide research on the use of their product, not hinder it. We the people have access to that information, and our right to choose whether or not we use tobacco products remains in our hands.

Wigand was a tobacco researcher who exposed industry deceptions and secrets to hook people” (Higgs) on the habit-forming drug, nicotine. He morally struggled with the information that he learned while employed at B&W. If he took the high salary and kept his mouth shut, how many deaths from tobacco would have resulted? He devoted the rest of his life to battling the tobacco industry and educating the world on the dangers. While he went through a personal hell, he made a significant impact to the field of corporate ethics. At that time, he was the highest paid executive to blow the whistle on unethical practices. This is a relatively new practice in business, and Wigand paved the way for other executives to blow the whistle on unethical behavior when it causes significant harm or death because of a company’s irresponsible action. Perhaps the famous whistle blowers from the early 2000s may not have reported their findings if Dr. Wigand did not pave the way in the mid-1990s. It also shows companies “what can and should be done if they wish to be both moral and successful” (DeGeorge 317). Most importantly, he opened the eyes of the public to more than just the dangers of tobacco. He taught the world that you need to use your own moral compass, and it is a personal choice on whether you decide to blow the whistle or remain

was 35.1 billion dollars. With a product that kills so many of its customers, your only concern in this industry is to increase sales and make a profit. Definitely in the tobacco industry and most others, it is my opinion that you cannot cater to the best interest of both the company and the consumer. Even a good company with the best intentions will eventually come to a crossroad where choosing what is best for one will not have such a great outcome for the other. Their best interests will ultimately conflict, and you will be forced make a choice between the two.

The movie, “Thank You for Smoking” is a comedy with a tobacco industry lobbyist, Nick Naylor as the lead. The movie has an eerie comic theme which tackles the serious issue of the addicting substance of tobacco, or to be more specific, nicotine. The idea which the movie was trying to portray was that this lobbyist was a great speaker who is able to manipulate many a feeble-mind. A lobbyist, to begin with, is one who is employed to persuade all-concerned of the employer’s concern(s), in this case, the marketing of tobacco products.

Tobacco has existed for long as we have known about history, but due to the negative effects of it to the broader community Tobacco has sparked greater controversy across the globe. Many people argue that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the individual but on the contrary some disagree and believe it’s up to the individual. This essay will elaborate above mentioned aspects and lead to a logical conclusion.

The Insider is a 1999 movie based on real-life events that happened within an unaired 1994 episode of 60 minutes on CBS. Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, played by Russell Crowe, was the Vice President of Research and Development for the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and was not satisfied with the way that the third largest tobacco company was going. Wigand was then fired when he began to voice his personal opinion about how he did not agree with how the company was adding various chemicals to make cigarettes even more addictive then they already are. Lowell Bergman, played by Al Pacino, was the producer for 60 Minutes and comes into play when he sees how Wigand has a story to share with the world. Wigand

Health concerns are the primary issue for nearly all of the stakeholders. Employees care about their job security and integrity for their occupations. The government is responsible for ensuring the safety and overall welfare of its community. If tobacco is known as a health hazard to the citizens, then it is the responsibility of the government to act on it. The customers of the tobacco industry are another huge factor. Of course, they care about their health, the ingredients of the product, the quality, the cost, etc. Then there are the owners and shareholders who, while they may also care about the reputation of the business, they are mainly concerned with the continuation of the corporation and the profits from it.

However our concern here is not only about the cigarette as a product but with the ethics of cigarettes as well, that affect the social process of marketing. This is because marketing process makes things worse and is also considered as unethical, and as a result has a significant negative impact on the societal welfare. Multinational tobacco companies apply sophisticated strategies ( such as putting flavor in the cigarettes and placing cigarettes in the shops near the sweets to make them more appealing) and invest huge amounts of money for marketing, in order to establish brand familiarity and future loyalty among young peoplem, to secure profits in the long run. 'The tobacco epidemic is a man-made international health crisis, created and sustained by multinational tobacco corporations.' (Yach, Brinchmann, Bellet page 2).

The tobacco industry is a very unethical industry, due to the long term effects of tobacco on humans. The industry also does not assess the ethical and social responsibility the best way that it should. There are many factors that make the industry unethical; some of the reasons are the way the cigarette companies around the world Advertise, the way governments and cigarette companies make a huge profit from the sales of cigarettes, and the labeling health risks. I do believe however that there is something that the tobacco companies can do to better their strategy as far as their ethics go. I think that they should, always be looking for the best interest on their consumers, as well as advertise strictly

Does the corporation decision respect the canons of justice or fairness to all parties involved? The answer to this question is no. The fact the tobacco industry in general, has misled the public on the addictive qualities of cigarettes. For years the industry has with held information on the health risk involved with smoking. So the tobacco companies have not been fair to their consumers, especially in the international markets, where the standards are much lower. Are there critical factors that justify the violation of a canon of justice? There are no critical factors that would justify the tobacco industry to mislead and take advantage of the disadvantaged people who live in third world countries. Reject the decision. I do believe adults should have the right to make informed choices about the risks they do or do not want to take. I believe that the manufacturers of products that present health risks have a responsibility to help the government provide the public with the information necessary to make informed choices. Here is where I feel the tobacco industry is wrong. To protect profits, the tobacco industry has misinformed the public on the harmful qualities of smoking. Our government has stepped in to protect us from being taken advantage of. Some of the responsibility of protecting the rights of individuals in these third world countries falls on their government.