Read this article
Scott Olstad tends to agree with the seventy percent of America who supports this new tobacco law. He writes this article based on his point of view about tobacco companies rights based upon the history of advertising. The Family Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is not the first bill that tried to regulate the advertising of tobacco companies. There were several bills in the past that were enacted in hopes to control the rights of the tobacco companies. Olstad states that despite these companies’ previous regulations, they still found a way around them and he believes they will try to find their way around this new law. He states that is was until 1964 that these companies targeted young children with candy cigarettes and cigarette mascots. Olstad uses the comparison that children of the nineties were more familiar with Joe Camel than they were with Mickey Mouse. It was not until this new law that the FDA gained the right to regulate these tobacco companies. Olstad states that the passing of this law allowed FDA the power over tobacco industry that they have ignored for over twenty years. He believes that these companies have received their final justice with this new law and do not deserve rights because of how they have ignored the previous regulations of other bills. The author believes that cigarette companies will not admit it, but they knew they were targeting to the children and should not have any advertising rights. He believes that these companies need to man up to their wrong doings and except their punishment. The author’s point of view over this whole article is that cigarette companies over time have broken the law and need to take responsibility for their actions. Olstad’s answer to my research question is no, he does not believe these companies’ rights should be restored.
This source is a valuable because it shows the wrong doings of these companies over time, not just around this certain time period. This shows that these companies were regularly pushing their limits and their actions were not just a onetime thing. This statement could help my reader develop an answer because it helps them think about what should honestly be done to those who continue to break the law. The author of this source did a good job of portraying this information and holding off on his option. The option of this author was not clear until the bottom of the information and this is better for a reader because it allows them to create their own idea based upon the information. After they have created their own idea, they could compare their point of view with the author at the end. One thing that I believe the author could have done differently is add more information on why he does not support this law. He gave one main point, the companies’ continuous stretching of their limits over the years. This source is a good one to use though because it displays the companies’ actions over time.
