Read this article
Another source I have chosen to use is an article called “Sweet Lies about Kids and Smoking” in the Reason Magazine. The author of this source is Steve Chapman and he seems to have a completely different approach to my question. His writing does not directly answer my research, but because of the other points of views he promotes, his answer can be implied. He states that cigarette companies are not the ones who need to be distrusted. He believes that the information the government is displaying is false and inadequate. He believes that the ban on flavorful cigarettes is a joke because the nation's three major tobacco companies R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, and Lorillard do not even make them. He states that Warm Winter Toffee and Winter Mocha Mint were removed from the market years ago and the only flavor commonly being used is methanol, which the FDA chose not to ban that flavor. He also states that there are hardly any companies in business that still make flavorful cigarettes. He displays the study that shows that 87 percent of all high school smokers choose Marlboro, Camel, or Newport, which none of these companies produce fruity cigarettes. He believes this is an example that flavor is not attracting teens. Chapman also states that teenagers do not smoke because of advertising, but because of the need to feel older. He laughs when he says, “What teen is going to seem cool if they are smoking a bubblegum flavor cigarette?” Chapman approached my question in a different way because he believes that these companies’ flavorful cigarettes are not the reason teens started to smoke. He believes that if the government is trying to stop the smoking of teens, they need another approach rather than banning flavorful cigarettes. His answer to my question would be yes, things companies have done no harm, and it is the government who is doing harm in the trust of the people. The author does a good job at looking at this event in a completely different way. This source is a good one for my reader to use because it gives them a variety of views and looks at the issue in a way no one has yet. The author does a good job at comparing his statics to those of the government. This gives my reader the ability to compare and contrast their options and combine them into one solid final answer. One weakness this source has is that he bashes on the government to much, he could have given more details on why flavorful cigarettes are not the gateway to teenage smoking. Overall this source gives a different approach to my question, which was needed in helping my reader come to a complete answer.
