Cigarettes - Addiction And Product Dangers :: essays research papers fc

It is clear that businesses have an obligation to inform their customers about their product's ingredients and dangers. Looking at the case of Rose Cipollone we see that she was a heavy smoker. Her doctor's had to remove part of her right cancerous lung and informed her that she had to quit smoking. Unfortunately, she was addicted. Her doctor's removed the rest of her lung that year and she finally quit smoking. She then sued the Liggett Group, the makers of the cigarettes she smoked. The lawsuit charged that the company knew of the link between cancer and smoking in the early 1940's. The company was found innocent of conspiring with other tobacco companies to hide the dangers of cigarette smoking but guilty on the grounds of falsely claiming its products were safe. However, things have changed. It is not 1940 anymore, when people were ignorant about the dangers of smoking. Tobacco companies now have Surgeon General warnings on cigarette packs. Unless they have been living under a rock, the general public should have been exposed to enough information by this time when it comes to cigarettes and addiction. Nicotine information is but a click away. Tobacco companies should no longer have the obligation to warn their customers, except if a new ingredient is added, in which case they should be notified. No one is saying get rid of the Surgeon General warnings, but enough is enough! If a person wants to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, then that is their choice; tobacco companies should not be held responsible. Let us examine the hype surrounding the supposed danger and addition of nicotine. The Food and Drug Administration tells us that nicotine (the addictive drug found in cigarettes) is just as addictive as cocaine and should be illegal."Much of the rhetoric of the anti-smoking movement seeks to demonize tobacco smokers as "nicotine addicts". In the past, of course, the term "addict" has been generally applied only to mind-altering drugs, e.g., heroin and cocaine. Even alcohol, which is mind-altering, is not generally referred to as "additive". So, the argument is one of semantics. If nicotine is addictive, so are chocolate candies, pies and cakes, etc. Indeed, if "addiction" is defined as dependence upon some chemical, everyone is addicted, to air!" Nicotine and cocaine are two different things. They may be just as addictive as each other but they certainly do not produce the same effect.