Secondhand Smoke Is Bad For Your Health Reyes Freytes Phil 112 4-20-01 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 premise. Here, there is an implied notion that the Los Angels Times conducted a study to find these findings true.
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. Here we see the strong initiative that the tobacco companies especially Philips and Morris take to attack policies that go against their business. The next premise is the fourth premise, As in the past, tobacco companies have continued to create and hide behind front groups to lobby against tobacco control and public health policies. This is another implied notion, which we can say that tobacco companies are trying to control the regulations on tobacco. 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.
A tobacco companies effort to try to destroy a smoke free ordinance policy is a big effort in their part. They would do anything to make their voice heard. 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 is a direct act of tobacco companies trying to tell the public that secondhand smoke is not bad for your health. 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. This alone states what the tobacco companies are trying to do. Once again it implies that second hand smoke is not bad for your health. 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.
The National Smokers Alliance is one of these lobbying groups that are supported by the tobacco companies. 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. This specifically implies that the tobacco companies are serious about fighting the clean air ordinance policy. 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. Here we have actual court cases proving that the NSA (who as we know is funded by tobacco companies) is once again trying to go against these policies.
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. Health Care.