Tobacco
...dvertisement is in effect why does he not address whether or not consumption rose after the end of the voluntary agreement? He goes on to say, “Other than cherry picking countries, we are at a loss to understand where the government, and for that matter Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), get their consumption data showing a consistent decline.” This statement makes me question the validity of lords statements when the fact of the matter is that the information they are using was compiled from their population over 20 of the last 30 years. It wouldn’t make sense to use data of consumption rates from other countries when they have actual statistics from their population. When smoking generations die off you must find new markets. If the TMA says advertisement is for brand loyalty not encouragement to smoke how do they get new customers? Does the TMA believe that people are born with a biological predisposition to smoke and are merely producing advertisement to suggest to these people who were going to smoke regardless which brand to smoke? If this were true tobacco advertisement would be justifiable if tobacco wasn’t harmful for consumers. However there are health warnings on every type of tobacco, which the manufacturers are conscience of. So if people were going to smoke regardless because of their biological make-up wouldn’t it make sense to try and stop advertisement in hope of “hiding” the product from potential consumers in hopes of decreasing the chance that they will try tobacco which they are going to be addicted to? This is something that gives them motive for bias. When analyzing an article for my topic I must be extremely selective to ensure that the information that I use is relevant to my research question, which is specific in comparison to the broad range of topics on my subject. I want to prove a point to the readers of this paper that Tobacco Manufacturers value money more than their customers’ lives. To help me do this I will be using articles which must pass my criteria. For an article to pass my criteria it must; 1) address both sides of the argument, 2) be from a credible source 3) have a low level of bias, 4) be current, 5) and have consistent non-contradicting statements/arguments. I think the major down fall of this paper is the failure to address all sides of the argument. As I said earlier the TMA said that consumption rates decreased 37% between the 70’s and 90’s then go on to say that they don’t expect consumption rates to decrease when the ban is in effect, yet fail to mentio...