Graphic Labeling in the U.S.?
Multiple countries, including Australia and parts of Europe, have recently begun to require cigarette companies to put graphic warning labels on their packages. These labels consist of graphic pictures showing the effects that frequent smoking can have on your body. They include pictures of yellowed fingers, infants along with a pregnancy warning, arteries, brains, cancerous lungs, and more. The intent of these gruesome warning labels is to stray people away from smoking, and to keep from influencing the younger population from starting. According to the New York Times article written by Matt Siegel, experts have said that it is too soon to be able to know whether or not the law has had an impact on tobacco use, and that the sales figures from the tobacco companies are being guarded (Siegel). Although the impacts of the graphic labels have not yet been shown, there are many outcomes that have the possibility to occur which will affect not only the businesses, but the government and society as well. This brings up the discussion of whether the United States should pick up the new graphic labels and make them mandatory for their cigarette producers.
Although the sales figures have not been used to show an impact, there have been frequent complaints from the customers, who have bought cigarettes with the new labels, about the cigarette's flavor. The consumers are calling, saying that the cigarettes in the new packages taste bad (Siegel). In Siegel's article he quotes Simon Chapman, a professor of public health, when he says that "you can influence the perception of taste by the packaging that something comes in" (Siegel). Chapman then compares the cigarette labels to wine, saying that when we are choosing a bottle of wine we usually choose based on the label since there are so many types of wine nowadays (Siegel). When the label looks enticing, we perceive that the product will taste better than the other, less attractive labels, and this has been shown to be true based on the new cigarette labels. The cigarette companies have said that they did not change the tobacco or the manufacturing process at all with the new labels, which is showing that there has been some impact on society from the new graphic labels.
There are other ways that society might be impacted by these new labels, including increased cost, loss of jobs, and the switch to other drugs. The cost of cigarettes will most likely increase because the companies will now have to spend more money on ink and processes to create the new labels. They would have to change the way that they produce their labels to fit the new regulations. With the increased cost to sell the product, the cigarette manufacturers would have to lay off employees in order to cut costs and keep profits up. This results in a lot of lost jobs for society, not just in the cigarette manufacturing businesses, but in tobacco farmers and the distributors. This may make the unemployment rate rise, which is a negative for society. Another aspect of the graphic labels which would have a negative effect on society would be that some people might switch to other drugs in order to "escape". This includes legal drugs such as alcohol, or illegal drugs such as marijuana, hard drugs, or over use of prescription drugs. Drugs have a negative effect on the health of society. Although there are healthy ways to enjoy alcohol, using it as a replacement for cigarettes may lead to addiction. Addiction to any drug is bad for multiple health reasons and can hurt society.
Although the graphic labels might cause some to decrease their health in other ways than cigarettes are, there is also the chance that many people will quit smoking without turning to other drugs. In this case the graphic labels would be helping society by lowering the amount of smokers, decreasing the death rate, making society healthier, cutting medical costs, and reducing second hand smoke. All of these have a positive impact on society because people would be spending less in healthcare bills. By reducing the number of adults who smoke, this will lead to reducing the number of kids who start smoking at a young age, creating a future workforce that is healthy. By decreasing the number of people who smoke, it increases the amount of money that people can put into providing for their family. Cigarettes are expensive and addictive leading some people into buying cigarettes instead of necessities. The impact on society is weighted on the positive side because the trickledown effect of a healthier society has a greater impact in the long run than the negatives do. This helps to defend that the U.S. should adopt the labels, but what effects do the labels have on businesses and the government?
The effect of graphic cigarette labels on businesses is heavy on the negative side for cigarette companies, but high on the positive side for other industries. These labels would cause the sales revenue of cigarettes to decrease immensely since many consumers would stop buying. This is because of the disturbing labels, the perceived flavor change, and the number of consumers who would quit smoking. Businesses would also incur a new cost of designing the labels and printing them. According to the New York Times article, in Europe sixty-five percent of the cigarette packaging is required to be made up of picture and text warnings (Siegel). This puts a large increase in cost for companies who originally had minimal printing done on their packages. Along with the cost increase, the sixty-five percent being taken up by the warning label will leave little room for the company to express itself in terms of brand and trademarks.
The positive side to graphic labels, for the manufacturer, would be that they would have increased thier corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility is important because it creates a more positive view of the company in the eyes of the society. It creates customer loyalty, along with worker loyalty, and can improve their corporate social responsibility rating. The world would have healthier workers because of the number of people who would quit smoking. Although some people would quit smoking and leave it at that, others may turn to additional stimulants to help them get by, such as alcohol. This would have a positive effect on the alcohol industry since more people would want to consume alcoholic beverages creating larger revenue for the manufacturers. When people quit smoking they live a healthier lifestyle for themselves, and for others. This would create healthier workers in the short run, as well as the long run, since kids will be less likely to start smoking. With healthier workers come lower healthcare costs for the company. They would not need to spend as much as they would if the number of smokers stays the same.
Healthcare would not only cost the businesses less, but would also cost the government less as well. The government would not need to use as much of their budget for healthcare if our society was healthier. The life expectancy would increase, whereas the death rate would decrease. This would be good for the government because it would show that they are doing their job in providing "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence. The American society would be healthier and happier if graphic labels were used in getting people to quit smoking. If the adults quit smoking because of the cigarette cases, there will be less pressure on kids to start smoking early on in their lives; this would decrease the need for government spending on programs helping to prevent kids from smoking.
Although some costs would be cut in government spending, they would also incur a negative aspect from the graphic labels. The government makes a lot of money from currently taxing cigarettes. This money would slowly decrease as the number of cigarette users decreases. Along with less tax revenue, there is the controversy that graphic labels would be the government taking away free speech and free enterprise. In 2009 the United States government tried to make graphic cigarette labels mandatory, but it was not agreed upon to be used (Siegel). The graphic labels may be seen as overstepping the right to free speech because the companies can no longer express themselves to sell their product. The labels may be required to cover up to sixty-five percent of the package, as is required in Europe, which leaves little room for the company to show off their product, brand, and trademarks (Siegel). The labels may also be seen as taking away free enterprise because the companies are being told how to sell their product. Cigarettes are legal, so from a business standpoint they shouldn't be singled out by the government in a way which will decrease their sales.
The outcomes of graphic labeling will affect the businesses, the government, and society in positive and negative ways. Society will incur higher costs of cigarettes, the perceived bad taste, and the loss of jobs, but they will be increasing the number of people who quit smoking, decrease the number of deaths due to smoking, lower the amount of children who are exposed to cigarettes, and become an overall healthier society. The businesses will have lower sales, higher costs, and little room for their name, but will have increased their corporate social responsibility, decrease their spending in healthcare due to healthier workers, and have a higher profit in other industries such as alcohol. The government will decrease their revenue from taxes on the cigarettes, and will be going against free speech and free enterprise, but will be able to spend less on healthcare and youth prevention programs, along with providing a better life for society. When comparing these pro's and con's it seems that there are more positive outcomes rather than negative outcomes, which would lead us to believe that the government should in fact bring graphic labels to the U.S., but when you look at how the government would be taking away basic rights such as free speech and free enterprise, you have to say that the government does not have the right to enforce graphic labeling. The government should be protecting society from others in society, not from themselves. If people want to smoke they are going to smoke and the government should not have the right to take that away. Some of the positives have a very convincing argument, but that weighs nothing when it comes to basic rights that are in the Constitution. The government cannot go against them and therefore should not be able to enforce graphic labeling in the U.S.
Although the sales figures have not been used to show an impact, there have been frequent complaints from the customers, who have bought cigarettes with the new labels, about the cigarette's flavor. The consumers are calling, saying that the cigarettes in the new packages taste bad (Siegel). In Siegel's article he quotes Simon Chapman, a professor of public health, when he says that "you can influence the perception of taste by the packaging that something comes in" (Siegel). Chapman then compares the cigarette labels to wine, saying that when we are choosing a bottle of wine we usually choose based on the label since there are so many types of wine nowadays (Siegel). When the label looks enticing, we perceive that the product will taste better than the other, less attractive labels, and this has been shown to be true based on the new cigarette labels. The cigarette companies have said that they did not change the tobacco or the manufacturing process at all with the new labels, which is showing that there has been some impact on society from the new graphic labels.
There are other ways that society might be impacted by these new labels, including increased cost, loss of jobs, and the switch to other drugs. The cost of cigarettes will most likely increase because the companies will now have to spend more money on ink and processes to create the new labels. They would have to change the way that they produce their labels to fit the new regulations. With the increased cost to sell the product, the cigarette manufacturers would have to lay off employees in order to cut costs and keep profits up. This results in a lot of lost jobs for society, not just in the cigarette manufacturing businesses, but in tobacco farmers and the distributors. This may make the unemployment rate rise, which is a negative for society. Another aspect of the graphic labels which would have a negative effect on society would be that some people might switch to other drugs in order to "escape". This includes legal drugs such as alcohol, or illegal drugs such as marijuana, hard drugs, or over use of prescription drugs. Drugs have a negative effect on the health of society. Although there are healthy ways to enjoy alcohol, using it as a replacement for cigarettes may lead to addiction. Addiction to any drug is bad for multiple health reasons and can hurt society.
Although the graphic labels might cause some to decrease their health in other ways than cigarettes are, there is also the chance that many people will quit smoking without turning to other drugs. In this case the graphic labels would be helping society by lowering the amount of smokers, decreasing the death rate, making society healthier, cutting medical costs, and reducing second hand smoke. All of these have a positive impact on society because people would be spending less in healthcare bills. By reducing the number of adults who smoke, this will lead to reducing the number of kids who start smoking at a young age, creating a future workforce that is healthy. By decreasing the number of people who smoke, it increases the amount of money that people can put into providing for their family. Cigarettes are expensive and addictive leading some people into buying cigarettes instead of necessities. The impact on society is weighted on the positive side because the trickledown effect of a healthier society has a greater impact in the long run than the negatives do. This helps to defend that the U.S. should adopt the labels, but what effects do the labels have on businesses and the government?
The effect of graphic cigarette labels on businesses is heavy on the negative side for cigarette companies, but high on the positive side for other industries. These labels would cause the sales revenue of cigarettes to decrease immensely since many consumers would stop buying. This is because of the disturbing labels, the perceived flavor change, and the number of consumers who would quit smoking. Businesses would also incur a new cost of designing the labels and printing them. According to the New York Times article, in Europe sixty-five percent of the cigarette packaging is required to be made up of picture and text warnings (Siegel). This puts a large increase in cost for companies who originally had minimal printing done on their packages. Along with the cost increase, the sixty-five percent being taken up by the warning label will leave little room for the company to express itself in terms of brand and trademarks.
The positive side to graphic labels, for the manufacturer, would be that they would have increased thier corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility is important because it creates a more positive view of the company in the eyes of the society. It creates customer loyalty, along with worker loyalty, and can improve their corporate social responsibility rating. The world would have healthier workers because of the number of people who would quit smoking. Although some people would quit smoking and leave it at that, others may turn to additional stimulants to help them get by, such as alcohol. This would have a positive effect on the alcohol industry since more people would want to consume alcoholic beverages creating larger revenue for the manufacturers. When people quit smoking they live a healthier lifestyle for themselves, and for others. This would create healthier workers in the short run, as well as the long run, since kids will be less likely to start smoking. With healthier workers come lower healthcare costs for the company. They would not need to spend as much as they would if the number of smokers stays the same.
Healthcare would not only cost the businesses less, but would also cost the government less as well. The government would not need to use as much of their budget for healthcare if our society was healthier. The life expectancy would increase, whereas the death rate would decrease. This would be good for the government because it would show that they are doing their job in providing "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence. The American society would be healthier and happier if graphic labels were used in getting people to quit smoking. If the adults quit smoking because of the cigarette cases, there will be less pressure on kids to start smoking early on in their lives; this would decrease the need for government spending on programs helping to prevent kids from smoking.
Although some costs would be cut in government spending, they would also incur a negative aspect from the graphic labels. The government makes a lot of money from currently taxing cigarettes. This money would slowly decrease as the number of cigarette users decreases. Along with less tax revenue, there is the controversy that graphic labels would be the government taking away free speech and free enterprise. In 2009 the United States government tried to make graphic cigarette labels mandatory, but it was not agreed upon to be used (Siegel). The graphic labels may be seen as overstepping the right to free speech because the companies can no longer express themselves to sell their product. The labels may be required to cover up to sixty-five percent of the package, as is required in Europe, which leaves little room for the company to show off their product, brand, and trademarks (Siegel). The labels may also be seen as taking away free enterprise because the companies are being told how to sell their product. Cigarettes are legal, so from a business standpoint they shouldn't be singled out by the government in a way which will decrease their sales.
The outcomes of graphic labeling will affect the businesses, the government, and society in positive and negative ways. Society will incur higher costs of cigarettes, the perceived bad taste, and the loss of jobs, but they will be increasing the number of people who quit smoking, decrease the number of deaths due to smoking, lower the amount of children who are exposed to cigarettes, and become an overall healthier society. The businesses will have lower sales, higher costs, and little room for their name, but will have increased their corporate social responsibility, decrease their spending in healthcare due to healthier workers, and have a higher profit in other industries such as alcohol. The government will decrease their revenue from taxes on the cigarettes, and will be going against free speech and free enterprise, but will be able to spend less on healthcare and youth prevention programs, along with providing a better life for society. When comparing these pro's and con's it seems that there are more positive outcomes rather than negative outcomes, which would lead us to believe that the government should in fact bring graphic labels to the U.S., but when you look at how the government would be taking away basic rights such as free speech and free enterprise, you have to say that the government does not have the right to enforce graphic labeling. The government should be protecting society from others in society, not from themselves. If people want to smoke they are going to smoke and the government should not have the right to take that away. Some of the positives have a very convincing argument, but that weighs nothing when it comes to basic rights that are in the Constitution. The government cannot go against them and therefore should not be able to enforce graphic labeling in the U.S.
Source...