Sources used in this document:

Finally, assuming for argument's sake that R.J. Reynolds did not initially target children, Joe Camel apparently did create hordes of child-addicts and RJ. Reynolds knew or should have known that and reacted as an ethical company. R.J. Reynolds is a wealthy company that probably keeps careful track of who smokes its cigarettes and an ethical company would have stopped using Joe Camel after realizing that: the percentage of smokers under 18 who smoke Camels has risen from less than 1% to nearly 33% since the company began using Joe Camel; nearly one-quarter of Camel's sales are to underage smokers; kids smoke the most heavily advertised brands, and Camel has been the second most advertised brand since 1988. Rather than "pulling the plug" on Joe Camel in the face of all that information, R.J. Reynolds was apparently secretly thrilled with the child-addicts and kept using Mr. Camel quite heavily, even when attorneys' general from more than 27 states petitioned the FTC to sue the company and ban Joe Camel.

2. How my decision will affect the stakeholders of R.J. Reynolds and which stakeholders should be pleased first and second

Using the broadest definition of "stakeholder," the anti-smoking stakeholders such as children, parents, anti-smoking groups, U.S. "society" and the U.S. Healthcare system will be favorably affected by a ban on Joe Camel because the ban will stop this method of marketing an addictive "adults-only" product to a vulnerable group. Meanwhile, the pro-smoking stakeholders such as R.J. Reynolds, its employees and its stockholders, will be harmed by the ban because the ban will stop an effective marketing tool. Parents should be the first stakeholders pleased by the ban because their children are no longer targeted by Joe Camel and are less likely to smoke. Secondly, the U.S. Healthcare system should be pleased because fewer child addicts will mean fewer adult addicts, which should reduce the strain on our health system from smoking.