Secondhand smoke
I went on the Internet and started surfing around until I found this web-site called www.no-smoker.org. This site is About Americans for Nonsmoker's Rights. The article I read was called "Things are changing". The issue is secondhand smoke is bad for your health. The argument here is that tobacco companies are saying that secondhand smoke is not bad for your health. In this essay I will talk about this controversial issue. There are many explicit premises in this article that I will examine. The first premise is that, Tobacco companies have been and continue to be involved in undermining scientific evidence that documents the health hazards of secondhand smoke. This is more than an hidden assumption, reference from the Los Angles Times reported in November 1999 that the major cigarette companies "are engaged in a far-reaching campaign to discredit evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful to human health." This is my second premi
A tobacco companies effort to try to destroy a smoke free ordinance policy is a big effort in their part. This alone states what the tobacco companies are trying to do. These lobbying groups actually try to prevent the clean air ordinance acts and on top of that they hound the officials who do support this act. The final premise states, The NSA has been litigating to have the courts throw out strong smoke free air ordinances in Princeton, NJ, Montgomery County, MD, and other cities. Premise number five, For example, Philip Morris partners with the National Licensed Beverage Association (NLBA) and a ventilation consulting group called Chelsea Group to subvert and dilute strong smoke free air ordinances across the country. The third premise states, Tobacco industry allies recycle old myths and propaganda - and continue to plant the seeds of confusion and doubt as to the economic effects of smoke free air policies - before legislatures and city councils. Premise number six, In Casper, WY, for example, tobacco companies spent more than $80,000 to fund a local campaign to overturn a smoke free air ordinance via referendum. This specifically implies that the tobacco companies are serious about fighting the clean air ordinance policy. This is a direct act of tobacco companies trying to tell the public that secondhand smoke is not bad for your health. Here we see the strong initiative that the tobacco companies especially Philips and Morris take to attack policies that go against their business. Premise number eight, The National Smokers Alliance continues to throw up smokescreens to try to prevent clean indoor air ordinances from being passed and to hound elected officials who support smoke free air. In conclusion, from reading the article that tobacco companies are still in the game of showing lots of propaganda in illustrating that secondhand smoke is not a threat to human health. Here, there is an implied notion that the Los Angels Times conducted a study to find these findings true. They would do anything to make their voice heard. Premise number seven, Tobacco companies also continue to conduct "push polls" and use other devious political tactics that occur "under the radar screen" to mislead constituents and voters about smoke free air policies in efforts to dampen support for such ordinances.
Common topics in this essay:
Casper WY,
Smokers Alliance,
Nonsmoker's Rights,
Angels Times,
Philips Morris,
Association NLBA,
County MD,
Angles Times,
tobacco companies,
Smoke Internet,
secondhand smoke,
smoke free,
free air,
smoke free air,
companies trying,
bad health,
smoke bad health,
smoke bad,
tobacco companies trying,
Philip Morris,
secondhand smoke bad,
air ordinance,
health premise,
air ordinances,
clean air ordinance,
|
Acceptance Essays
