“Big Tobacco Strikes Back.” New York Times. New Yok Times, 06 September 2009. Web. 17 November 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/opinion/07mon1.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1258488409-m4YLVOYKHUFUXAR0pz3A3A>.
Read this article
Lawsuits were formed by cigarette companies because they believe their rights are being taken away by the new cigarette law. Throughout the editorial “Big Tobacco Strikes Back”, the author seems to have answered no to my question. The author does not believe these companies should be given their rights back because of what they have truthfully done. The author states in the beginning of his writing that he hopes for, the public’s health, that these lawsuits will be the last incident for the cigarette industries. He has stated that he hopes this law will be the end to the companies with a sorry history of pretending to target and market adults when they were secretly targeting young people. The mood the author displays while writing this piece seems to imply which side of the question he is on. He has a hatred attitude towards the cigarette companies and what they believe they deserve. The FDA took away the right for cigarette companies to place labels such as light or low tar on the boxes. The author made fun of the cigarettes companies in his writing over their argument on the labels. In this editorial, the author states that these companies are angered over the restriction of the labels. The companies say these restrictions do not allow them to get the truthful information out to their customers. In this piece the words “truthful information” were placed like this to show that the author does not believe that there is any truth in cigarettes. The last way that the author supports his answer to the question is his statement about how the tobacco industry does not deserve much slack to promote it harmful and deadly products in any attractive way. The last statement of the author sums up his overall view on these companies receiving their rights back.
This editorial is a reliable source because it shows the point of view from a person who answered no to the question about if the companies should receive their rights back. This argument is a good argument because it contained a great amount of details and answered the question straight forward. One thing the author could have done that he didn’t do, was to give reasoning on why he chose the answer he did and how he came to his point of view. The author also could have stated if he was a smoker or not. I think that he is not a smoker because of his comments but I cannot state that. Other than those few weaknesses, I believe this source is a reliable and useable source for my question.
