Case 1: Marketing Cigarettes and Tobacco
1) As the article has made it clear, there is a distinction between limiting exports (or imports) of tobacco products for health reasons and for economic reasons. An indication of this is when U.S. trade officials opposed South Korea’s 40 percent duty on imported cigarettes claiming that it was aimed at protecting domestic brands rather than promoting health. Therefore, if the U.S.’s concern was the general well being of the health of those whom they trade with, then they should cease their tobacco exports all together, and probable even take their anti-smoking campaign to a global level.
2) The U.S government should be highly involved in tearing down foreign trade barriers to their tobacco if such barriers are in violation of any treaties or conditions that have been set out by organizations such as the WTO. This applies to all participating countries as well. However, if a country has chosen to put up barriers to U.S. tobacco, although it would seem natural for tobacco companies to do their utmost to tear them down, such a country may even have the right to do so, if not should be encouraged to do so as well in order to prevent the increase of tobacco sales in said country.
As for whether of not the personal preference of the president should affect U.S. trade policy or not, a country’s policies should not solely be based upon or formulated around one man’s personal taste’s and preferences; instead, they should be based on what would be best for his country overall.
3) If one were to consider all of the harms that are associated with the consumption of tobacco, was concerned about the general welfare of those who may consume it, and would opt to hinder the growth of tobacco sales, no doubt he would not opt for the promotion of exporting tobacco to foreign countries.
Also, to compare beef with cigarettes is rather absurd since there is absolutely no...