‘ Government Regulation of Tobacco Products Kyle Luckritz Corporate and Social Responsibility BUS 250 Dr. Woods 03/29/13 1. Would you describe the orientation of Reynolds toward tobacco regulation as cooperative or at arm’s length essay writer service review? How about the attitude of Altria? What do you think explains the differences between the two companies’ positions? Reynolds was far from cooperative. They would definitely be considered at arm’s length and ready and willing to fight.
Based off the information from the text, the company ran a series of television advertisements that showed the FDA as being overwhelmed and incapable of properly ensuring food and drug safety. While this was Reynolds view and what they did, Altria’s attitude would be considered cooperative. This is because they wanted a “seat at the table” as the bill was being discussed in Congress. (Lawrence & Weber, 2011) Altria knew that the law would most likely pass anyways, so they took a position that supported the Legislation. They wanted make sure cigarettes would not be outlawed entirely.
What explains the difference between the two is that Reynolds was the worst offender when it came to advertising tobacco products to children. In 2008, six states sued the company for using cartoons in advertisement that dealt with cigarettes. This is part of why Reynolds took the stance they did. 2. What public policy inputs, goals, tools, and effects can be found in this discussion case? Public policy inputs are considered external forces that help to shape a government’s policy when making decisions and strategies to address a certain issue or problem. An example of this in this case would be the U.
S Surgeon General and the medical reports that declared cigarettes as a health hazard. Another would include the six states that sued the Reynolds Company for violating the agreement about advertisements and cartoons. Public policy goals are usually very broad views that are set to help serve several people. The Tobacco Regulation Act of 2009 is meant to protect the youth of America from cigarettes. This law could also expose the tobacco industry to increased financial risks through lower sales and might violate the companies’ first amendment rights to free speech to advertise their products.
Another would be the 1998 agreement not to use cartoons in cigarette advertisements which also helps to protect the youth. Public policy tools include incentives and penalties that the government uses citizens and businesses to act in ways that achieve policy goals. Some of the tools the government used include banning tobacco advertisements 1,000 feet from schools and playgrounds and warning labels on 50% of the space on each package. This helps to reach the goal of protecting America’s youth and making people aware of the consequences.
Other tools include, “Prohibiting distribution of free samples of cigarettes, restricting distribution of free samples of smokeless tobacco, and prohibiting tobacco brand name sponsorship of any athletic, musical, or other social or cultural events. ” (FDA, 2012) These also help to protect the youth of America and help to prevent people from starting to smoke. Public policy effects are the outcomes that come from government regulation. Health advocates predicted that the new FDA standards could eventually reduce toxins and carcinogens in cigarettes or even make cigarettes taste so bad people no longer use them.
The problem with this is that it could affect the public that already enjoys smoking. This could also hurt tobacco industries financially and hurt the public who may have to now pay more for cigarettes. Works Cited FDA. (2012, December 21). Tobacco Products. Retrieved from U. S. Food and Drug Administration: http://www. fda. gov/TobaccoProducts/ProtectingKidsfromTobacco/default. htm Lawrence, A. T. , & Weber, J. (2011). Business and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.