Introduction
Cigarettes are not just addictive but also result in severe illnesses in smokers. For smokers that are apprehensive about the health issues of smoking, the most excellent thing to settle on is to quit because no cigarette is safe (Malone 2013). Philip Morris is an international tobacco corporation that is based in the United States and whose products trade in more than two hundred nations and enjoys over fifteen percent of the worldwide cigarette market base.
Philip Morris concurs with the overwhelming medical and scientific evidence that smoking results in emphysema, heart illnesses, and lung cancer, as well as other severe illnesses amid smokers. Smokers have a higher possibility of developing such severe illnesses when compared to non-smokers (Samet 2013). Philip Morris also affirms that smoking causes addiction thereby making it taxing for people to stop smoking.
Nonetheless, addiction does not make it impossible for smokers that are determined to quit. Enhanced awareness and educational programs ought to be carried out in an effort of helping present smokers and prospective smokers in making firm decisions against smoking.
Philip Morris and Proof of Health Issues
Philip Morris admits the existence of scientific proof that smoking leads to lung cancer in addition to other severe illnesses even after years of disputing such findings from health professionals (Hiilamo, Crosbie & Glantz 2014). In the contemporary times, Philip Morris, the biggest tobacco company in the United States, has shifted nearer to existing scientific view regarding the medical concerns of cigarette smoking since it has encountered rising pressure from smoking-associated regulations and court cases.
As a section of a 100 million US dollars’ organizational reputation campaign through a new website, Philip Morris explicitly asserted that smoking could result in emphysema, lung cancer, and heart illnesses to mention a few. The action by Philip Morris generates an inclination amid tobacco companies of attempting to place health-associated concerns behind them after settling lawsuits made by the states that seek the recovery of their Medicaid expenses for the treatment of cigarette-related sicknesses.
Through making revelations concerning the health risks of smoking, Philip Morris could have the desire of making it more difficult for the people who carry on smoking to file charges against the company by contending that such people knew the likely dangers.
Apart from Philip Morris, many other concerns have made the health issues of cigarette smoking evident. There is a noticeable swing for Philip Morris and other companies, especially concerning the concerns of medical welfare and smoking. Earlier, Philip Morris had maintained, for instance, that cigarette smoking presents an insignificant risk aspect in illnesses such as lung cancer. The change of the perspective by Philip Morris marks a new phase in the legislations and regulations. The proof of health issues associated with smoking appears to be deserting the operations that left uncertainties in the minds of smokers (Cabanski et al. 2015; Karagueuzian et al. 2012).
Nevertheless, the evidence has some drawbacks in that it does not state whether Philip Morris concurs with the conclusions wholly. Philip Morris states that the company needs some complainants that could prove that cigarette smoking is the sole cause of their illnesses and not other aspects (Russell, Wainwright & Mamudu 2015).
The change in the viewpoint of Philip Morris might not have been the outcome of any new scientific discoveries but happened as the company decided to embark on a less aggressive and defensive stand. As a section of an earlier accord engaging cigarette corporations and government officials that failed in Congress, tobacco companies could have chosen not to dispute public health outcomes regarding connections between cigarette smoking and diseases such as emphysema, lung cancer, and heart illnesses.
A wide pool of studies affirms that the actions recently undertaken by Philip Morris were significant in that they may offer tobacco companies a chance to rework on choices they may have made many years ago (Clifford, Hill & Collin 2014; Proctor 2012). However, the tobacco sector ought to have undertaken this route in 1964 but in its place chose to take part in a campaign of fraudulence and deceit, for which it is currently paying.
If there were a means of immunizing people against one-third of the cases of cancer, could it be in great demand? The response is apparent, yet the fact is that almost fifty years following the establishment of the connection between cancer and cigarette smoking, close to 25% of the grown-up populace in America keep on smoking, and tobacco use is progressively rising across the globe. What then could be done to address the problem?
Philip Morris made it clear that it was actively engaged in over 130 smoking prevention programmes amid the youth in over seventy nations. Some of the studies that have focused on public health programmes and schemes by tobacco corporations ascertain that the companies’ endeavors are less persuasive and disregard the health impacts of cigarette smoking by cunningly promoting tobacco use. In this regard, public health professionals question the suitability of company-sponsored cigarette smoking avoidance initiatives.
One of the most excellent methods of decreasing cigarette smoking is raising the monetary costs of tobacco mainly via smoke-free guidelines, taxation, and an extensive banning of advertisements (Moodie et al. 2013). Other strategies such as the application of caution labels on cigarette packets and other tobacco products, restricting the sale of cigarettes to minors, and boosting access to smoking cessation services seem to have had an indirect influence on smoking though the full impact of the policies might not have been accomplished so far. Professional insights concerning potential genetic modifiers of reaction to treatment and establishment of therapeutic approaches have the possibility of noticeably changing how societies tackle tobacco health issues (Weber et al. 2013; Cummings & Proctor 2014).
Conclusion
Cigarettes do not just cause addiction but also bring about severe illnesses in smokers. For smokers that are nervous about the health problems of smoking, the most excellent thing to go for is to quit because no cigarette is harmless. Philip Morris concurs with the irresistible medical and logical facts that smoking results in emphysema, heart illnesses, and lung cancer, in addition to other severe illnesses. Smokers have a higher chance of developing such severe sicknesses when compared to non-smokers. Awareness and educational programmes ought to be carried out in an endeavor of assisting current smokers and prospective smokers in making firm resolutions against smoking.
Studies on public health initiatives and schemes by tobacco firms discover that the companies’ endeavors are less influential and ignore the health impacts of cigarette smoking by artfully promoting tobacco consumption. The best method of decreasing cigarette smoking is raising the fiscal costs of tobacco primarily via smoke-free rules, taxation, and a far-reaching banning of advertisements.
Reference List
Cabanski, M, Fields, B, Boue, S, Boukharov, N, DeLeon, H, Dror, N & Merg, C 2015, ‘Transcriptional profiling and targeted proteomics reveals common molecular changes associated with cigarette smoke-induced lung emphysema development in five susceptible mouse strains’, Inflammation Research, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 471-486.
Clifford, D, Hill, S & Collin, J 2014, ‘Seeking out ‘easy targets’? Tobacco companies, health inequalities and public policy’, Tobacco control, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 479-483.
Cummings, K & Proctor, R 2014, ‘The changing public image of smoking in the United States: 1964–2014’, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 32-36.
Hiilamo, H, Crosbie, E & Glantz, S 2014, ‘The evolution of health warning labels on cigarette packs: The role of precedents, and tobacco industry strategies to block diffusion’, Tobacco control, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 2.
Karagueuzian, H, White, C, Sayre, J & Norman, A 2012, ‘Cigarette smoke radioactivity and lung cancer risk’, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 79-90.
Malone, R 2013, ‘Tobacco endgames: What they are and are not, issues for tobacco control strategic planning and a possible US scenario’, Tobacco control, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 42-44.
Moodie, R, Stuckler, D, Monteiro, C, Sheron, N, Neal, B, & Thamarangsi, T 2013, ‘Profits and pandemics: Prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries’, The Lancet, vol. 381, no. 9867, pp. 670-679.
Proctor, R 2012, ‘The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link: Evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll’, Tobacco control, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 87-91.
Russell, A, Wainwright, M & Mamudu, H 2015, ‘A chilling example? Uruguay, Philip Morris International, and WHO’s framework convention on tobacco control’, Medical anthropology quarterly, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 256-277.
Samet, J 2013, ‘Tobacco smoking: The leading cause of preventable disease worldwide’, Thoracic surgery clinics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 103-112.
Weber, S, Hebestreit, M, Wilms, T, Conroy, L & Rodrigo, G 2013, ‘Comet assay and air–liquid interface exposure system: A new combination to evaluate genotoxic effects of cigarette whole smoke in human lung cell lines’, Toxicology in Vitro, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1987-1991.