Pros And Cons Of Irving Coffman

Culpability Humans are superior to other organisms due to our phenomenal ability to reason. It is foolish to believe that companies of harmful yet legal products are responsible for the problems their products cause. Irving Coffman states that it is right for tobacco companies to pay states settlements because of the “problems” tobacco causes. I disagree with Irving Coffman’s belief that it is right for tobacco companies to pay settlements to states, and I also disagree with his argument stating that other manufacturers of detrimental products such as guns and alcohol should pay similar fines. The benefits for states to allow tobacco use are enormous at the state level. Coffman thinks it is right for tobacco companies to pay for the problems
they cause, but he doesn’t look at the big picture! States actually benefit from the use of tobacco because of the health problems tobacco causes. The illnesses associated with tobacco require treatments, and the purchase of these treatments helps improve the states’ economies. Tobacco also controls the population growth by increasing the death rate. When a state becomes over crowded, problems are created. With a smaller population there is less competition for resources, less crime, and less pollution. These are characteristics that states wish to have. In my years of existence, I have seen people who smoke up to two packs of cigarettes every day. These individuals are none the less addicted to the product, but they all had the ability to read the warnings and use the ability of reason to determine the possible effects of smoking when they first started. The buyer has complete control over whether or not they will start, so you cannot blame the tobacco companies for the problems they cause. Although the statements presented here may seem cruel, the states should, in reality, be paying the tobacco companies.
Coffman also states that other manufacturers of legal and harmful products, such as guns and alcohol, should pay for the problems they cause as well. Alcohol is a top killer in America, but it does not deserve the killer reputation? Alcohol may be addictive to a certain extent, but every individual has complete control over whether or not they will consume it. Alcohol companies are in no way forcing customers to drink their products. When drunk drivers enter cars and kill themselves and others, the alcohol companies are not responsible; the auto industry is not responsible either. Alcohol bottles also state issues they may cause, and it is the consumer’s decision whether or not to heed the warning. Other potentially harmful products include guns; guns are made to protect people, not to cause problems. Guns would not cause any problems if the individuals that used them were responsible. The manufacturers of these products labeled “harmful” should not need to pay a dime to states because it is the consumer’s responsibility to be safe with the product. I do not agree with Irving Coffman’s belief that companies of harmful products should pay settlements because we cannot point fingers at the industries of these products for causing problems when the customer is entirely responsible for his or her own actions. It is time for the users of these products to take liability for their own actions and realize that some products must be handled with maturity.