Essay about Rebuttal to Killing Them Softly

1266 Words 6 Pages
Rebuttal to “Killing Them Softly”

“Killing Them Softly,” an essay by Jacob Sullum, addresses the issue of Senator Judd Gregg’s bill to give the Food and Drug Administration control over tobacco products. This bill would allow the FDA to make such decisions as halting tobacco companies’ marketing of safer tobacco products and reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes. Sullum argues that by giving the FDA the power to make such decisions, individual consumers would be disadvantaged and lives could possibly be lost instead of saved. If given control of such decisions, the FDA would not allow the introduction of safer tobacco products as they feel this will increase the number of smokers. They feel more people will begin using these
…show more content…
Smokeless tobacco is more likely to cause certain diseases, such as lip cancer and other cancers of the mouth, that cigarette smoking does not cause as often (1Up Health). If smokers are so concerned about improving their health, they should quit smoking altogether. By quitting, smokers would improve their health much more than if they took up smokeless tobacco.

In his essay, Sullum tries to defend smoking. I agree with him that it is a person’s own choice to decide whether they will smoke or not, but if a person makes the choice to smoke knowing its negative effects, then their health is not their first priority. Someone who has their health as one of their first priorities would not engage in a habit that is at all detrimental to their health. Sullum wants to introduce smokeless tobacco to the public as a safer alternative to smoking, but this would only make this unhealthy habit more appealing to people. Why try to make a bad habit more appealing when those efforts could be put to use more productively by stopping the spread of the habit? Money has been invested in programs that are aimed at stopping the spread of smoking. Some of those organizations are Just Eliminate Lies, Kick Butts Day, and Teens Against Tobacco Use. After this money has been used to create programs that research and prove the negative effects of smoking, the government would be wasting

Related Documents