injury, then the company would be liable (Ciulla 282). Cultural damage would be harder todefine, so the answer to whether or not it would be acceptable to hold companies liable fordamage to culture is that it depends on the values lost or gained and the damage done and howeasily the responsible party can be identified.First of all, as time passes cultures are going to change along with technology, but thatdoes not mean that damage to cultures is acceptable. One unacceptable cultural change is theway tobacco use has been made appealing to younger and younger people. There was a time thatthe “Marlboro Man” was an icon (Ciulla267). He was a grown man rugged to the core. Fastforward sixty plus years, and now we all know the evils and dangers of smoking, but it seemslike the tobacco companies are still in it to win it. Take the Juul and other e-cigarettes forexample. It is advertised as a healthier, less offensive way to get your nicotine fix, but marketingtook it a step further by adding flavors like cotton candy, mango, watermelon, and more that areas appealing as candy to kids. Although e-cigarettes don’t use tobacco, they do contain nicotine,which comes from tobacco (Quick Facts). The candy type flavors and vapor instead of smokeimply that they are safe to use, but on the contrary, they are addictive and have cancer causingchemicals (Quick Facts). Some studies even suggest that kids that vape are more likely to startsmoking (Quick Facts). In this case, I believe that manufactures of e-cigarettes and tobaccocompanies should be held liable because of the damage they clearly caused and their apparent
