Irving Coffman's Argument Analysis

In the passage, Irving Coffman presents the argument that since tobacco companies are paying financial settlements to those who have been affected by their products, other companies who also put out legal but harmful products should do the same. He believes that this would be the right thing to do but he doesn’t realize the effect it would make on the economy. When I first read his argument, I thought it was a good idea. After further research though, I am now opposed to it. Although Coffman has a point, you have to consider many consequences that might result if his argument were to be carried out. Aside from the obvious companies, legal but harmful products are ubiquitous. You can turn anything harmful if you abuse your power over it.

One example would be food. We need food to live because it gives us energy. That may be true, but some people end up eating more than they need to. Many fast food companies like McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy’s, and Taco Bell would have to pay financial settlements to many of their customers for giving them unhealthy food and making them overweight or even diabetic. I think if they were to do something like that, those companies would …show more content…
Clothes aren’t typically dangerous to our health, but it’s how they are made that is the issue. Many clothes are made in places like China, Vietnam, Taiwan, and many other places because it is cheaper to make there. That’s because there are a lot of sweatshops there and it’s the workers who make our clothes that get affected. They are paid not even close to what we see as minimum wage in America. Also, they work under poor working conditions, which affects their health. The demand for clothes is so great that we need these people to make them. These companies would not compensate for their workers because if they wanted to quit, the owners wouldn’t hesitate to fire them because there are many others who need money that would still work in terrible