Skip navigation

In Europe, (and across the world), E-Cigarettes are becoming a more and more popular way of getting a nicotine-kick, but without the toxins that comes with smoking cigarettes. The contain a mix of nicotine and other ingredients to give the same addiction properties of cigarettes, but in generally a “less-harmful” way. In October, the European Union is voting to regulate the e-cigarette devices as if they are medical products. The article claims that in wealthy countries, smoking is declining, but “vaping” (using the vaporization of the nicotine mix in e-cigarettes), is on the rise.

The European Union is uneasy about E-Cigarettes, as they are a new product that delivers the nicotine kick and not enough studies have proven that they are healthier, yet a growing number of studies insist they are in fact significantly healthier than smoking.

I believe that the European Union should delay their vote on the subject before more research is done. E-Cigarettes are not only used leisurely, but as a tool to get people to quit smoking, which can be extremely beneficial. It still does not solve the problem of nicotine addiction however, as it just switches customers into an alternative product. Still, E-Cigarettes have the potential to reduce the known, negative health effects of smoking by having previous smokers switch to the new fad of “vaping”. If less people smoked cigarettes, society as a whole should have a general increase of overall health, therefore reducing patient volume, severity of cases, and other positive effects on the health system in place in the European countries.

One of the only negatives I see in E-Cigarettes is the potential to have non-smokers begin “vaping”, even though they have never smoked before. Still, I believe that E-Cigarettes have the potential to bring an overall positive impact on society by reducing smoking rates.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21586867-regulators-wrestle-e-smokes-tobacco-industry-changing-fast-kodak-moment

Yesterday, the CEO of Starbucks released a letter stating that customers are requested to no longer bring their firearms inside of the store or their outdoor seating areas in America. As many of you are aware, the second amendment allows Americans to privately own guns and disallows for states or cities to ban guns altogether.

Understandably, many people are relieved to hear this letter from the CEO, as seeing a loaded firearm within a coffee-shop could be unsettling. On the other side, does this request violate the laws set in place in America? Certain gun enthusiasts think so, as many have descended upon Starbucks around America being purposely armed. I think this will be an interesting case, as I understand Starbucks wishes, yet can see how it could possibly be violating certain laws. Starbucks is trying to get around these accusations by claiming it’s merely a simple request.

Can Starbucks enforce this “request” without possible court cases?

Will gun enthusiasts start to purposely reveal their firearms in-store?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/guns-and-coffee

Unilever, a company that manufactures and releases food products such as Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, Becel Margarine, Lipton Iced Tea, Popsicles, and Skippy Peanut Butter, released an ad in South Africa that strongly suggested that learning your child is homosexual is as hurtful as being shot in the heart. A bullet featuring the words “uhh, Dad I’m gay”, was shown being projected towards a heart made of breakable, fine china. This ad was placed to imply that consumers of butter should change to a healthier alternative, such as Becel Margarine, to improve cardiovascular health.

Needless to say, this advertisement is very controversial and unethical from a business standpoint. Especially in a country that has legalized same-sex marriage, an advertisement like this is bound to create problems for the company and the community.

Unilever claims that nobody at the company approved the advertisement. In my opinion, Unilever should fulfill its ethical duties to rebuild its reputation, and continue to formally apologize, make changes in their marketing department, and continue with their new campaign on “Ben & Jerry’s” for equal marriage. The stakeholders, whether that means the consumer, company, employee, or offended citizen, have all been negatively affected by this situation. I believe that Unilever should own up to their mistake and hold themselves accountable to their loyal customers, who provide them with the sales base to continue operation.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/03/unilever-apologises-flora-advert-south-africa

Spam prevention powered by Akismet