REFLECTION - "Thank You for Smoking"

"That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, 

you're never wrong." - Nick Naylor

Thank You For Smoking

Following a viewing of Thank You for Smoking, the film uncovered the legal proceedings and moral/ethical issues of PR, marketing, and advertising. Thank You for Smoking follows the life of Nick Naylor, the chief spokesman and Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. In these occupational positions, Naylor is entrusted with upholding the company's reputation and increasing cigarette usage. In accordance with these responsibilities, he is indirectly obligated to mislead the public on the product's dangers and health concerns. His charisma and persuasiveness have allowed Naylor to navigate difficult questioning on the industry's products.

Despite the occupation's payout, I would never be able to complete Nick Naylor's role. This occupation requires an individual to disregard their moral compass and cause indirect harm to others. In particular, 1200 people die PER DAY due to the use of tobacco products, and the comforting statements of Nick Naylor. On the other hand, as an aspiring corporate lawyer, I understand the need to act with professionalism and in full accordance with my client's wishes. Therefore, I can justify occupational responsibilities, excluding Naylor's outright deception. 

E-Cigarettes

During the film's publication in 2006, cigarettes were the product of choice. Now, there has been an extreme push and advertisement toward vapes, classified as e-cigarettes. Despite various companies' claims, these products have virtually the same addictive appeal and adverse effects. Vapes utilize nicotine, while cigarettes are composed of tobacco. In this scenario, my occupational response would remain the same. Morally, I wouldn't be able to advocate for a product that destroys the lives of individuals, families, and even entire communities, simply for the sake of financial gain. In my mind, these efforts are unethical and difficult to justify. 

Similarly, these struggles can be viewed in marijuana advertisements. Although the substance is illegal at the federal level, many states have decriminalized its possession, resulting in further promotion. Differences in regulation impact the proceedings for advertisements across state lines. With the use of social media, it is difficult to regulate the promotions that individuals in New Jersey (legalized) can view, compared to those in North Carolina (illegal). In states that criminalize marijuana possession, the advertisements shouldn't be prohibited due to implementation difficulties and concerns surrounding free speech violations.

Humphrey Bogart

Similarly, there is frequent cigarette advertising in Hollywood classics and other films. In Thank You for Smoking, Senator Ortolan Finistirre proposes an initiative to edit old movies, removing the product's presence. This suggestion would aim to reduce society's exposure and its resulting "appeal." Although I understand Senator Finistirre's rationale, I believe that these alterations shouldn't be made. Old-time classics, including those with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, should reflect their depicted time period. On the other hand, governmental officials could advocate for less exposure in future films. 

These conversations between company freedoms and government regulation highlight a never-ending battle connecting "public health concerns" and monetary success. Despite the repercussions of cigarettes and other related products (e.g., alcohol), the federal government hasn't outlawed their advertisements. This lack of action is strongly connected to the protections provided by the First Amendment and the concept of "corporate personhood." Corporate personhood is the claim that, because a corporation is made up of people, it is granted the same FA protections as an ordinary citizen. 

Comparisons of Cigarette Advertisements
(THEN vs. NOW) 

In addition, these cigarette companies heavily contribute to the nation's economic growth and success. By banning their advertisements, the United States would endure a major financial hit. Based on Constitutional law and our governmental oversight, I wouldn't support outlawing product advertisements. Citizens must understand the product's health effects and make the resulting choice on whether to purchase, underscoring the beauty of a capitalist market. In this case, legal considerations would outweigh ethics. Morality is subjective and shouldn't be the primary principle of criminalization. 

Lastly, there was a substantial ethical violation by newspaper reporter Heather Holloway. In an effort to expose the facts behind the cigarette industry, she had sexual relations with Nick Naylor and received insight in non-interview settings. Therefore, Holloway violated her voluntary standards and didn't have the right to complete the investigation in this environment. Although the facts were significant, they shouldn't be released due to the effects of fraternization. As a result, her methods didn't justify the ends. 

Overall, Thank You for Smoking adequately connects the topics discussed in COM: Communication Law and Ethics, while creating a crossover between legal and ethical concerns related to PR, marketing, and advertising.