In 2001, the government of India announced that it would issue a ban on advertising for all Tobacco Companies within the country’s borders. This ban would be in effect for any media source within the country. As a first step of an anti-Tobacco program, the ban’s ultimate goal is to discourage smokers, particularly in teens and young adults, away from the use of tobacco. There are those who support this ban with the contention that it will have little effect on the country’s economy and will ultimately save lives. Opposition to the ban contend that there is an inability to achieve the desired end result and the ban is an over-step by the Indian government into an individual 's personal habits and is a way for the government to dictate the morality of its citizens. The announcement has sparked an ethical dilemma for the Indian government.
Although a huge step towards an anti-Tobacco program for India, this type of ban on advertising tobacco products is not unprecedented. The governmental officials in India are intending to follow suit with the precedent set forth by countries like France, Belgium, Finland and Norway; who have all participated in implementing an advertising ban for tobacco
…show more content…
While I am not a proponent of tobacco products, but I do believe that each person should have the right to choose what is right for their unique situation. I do agree the government should play a part of informing the public about the health risks and dangers these items impose when used. In my opinion, educating the consumer on the negative effects of smoking would be the government’s best defense against tobacco products. However, an individual’s rights and freedoms should not be infringed upon by the government and their informed choices should be respected by others. Everyone should have the ability to make an informed decision concerning their own
down on the tobacco industry by banning the advertising and sponsorship of sports and cultural events by tobacco companies (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India, 2001). The Indian government claims that is for ethical reasons; tobacco jeopardizes the health of its users and the government believes banning the advertising will help
In 2001, the Government of India announced that it would ban the advertisement of tobacco and tobacco products including cigarettes. The ban also included a ban on the tobacco industry 's sponsorship of athletic events. As can be imagined, this began a firestorm revolving around the ethics of the decision and whether the new ban could conceivably even be implemented. The main questions presented are (1) to what extent does the government have an ethical obligation to protect its citizens from
Tobacco advertising lure young people into believing smoking is fashionable without realizing the dangers attached to tobacco. Tobacco causes cancer; I would support any government, including the Indian government that will increase tobacco tax both on advertising and all tobacco products. Tobacco is one of the most dangerous consumer product known, which kills when used as the makers ' intended. Thus from an ethical standpoint, the Government has to discourage the habit, because it has responsibility
1. Summarize the arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India Those in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India were the Ayes. According to the Ayes, the ban was common because it had happened before internationally in other countries like France, Finland, and Norway. Their first argument was that tobacco was the cause of death. For example, According to the World Health Organization (WHO), tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths and rose to 4.023 million deaths in 1990
that by banning tobacco advertising, it is protecting the health of its citizens. It is estimated that by 2030, 10 million people world-wide will die annually from tobacco related illness. This puts a strain on the government in added health care expenditures. Advocates also point out that when people quit smoking, they are healthier, live longer, and can be more productive for longer. Backers argue that the ban on advertising for tobacco is comparable to bans on advertising for other “dangerous
The government of India has many arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising. One of the arguments is the right of the government to step in and promote a healthier lifestyle. Many of the tobacco advertising companies stated that the ban on advertising was unconstitutional, but the supreme court in Belgium and France both agreed that the ban was not unconstitutional and was needed the ensure the public health. In 1990 tobacco attributed to over 3 million deaths and escalated to 4.023
Tobacco Advertising ban in India Government involvement in personal decisions in life has frequently been a hot button topic. What role does the government have in personal decisions and at what point have they crossed the line of personal liberties? Here we will analyze a case study in India over the implications of government involvement in the advertising of tobacco. In February 2001, India announced a bill that would ban Tobacco companies from advertising and sponsoring sporting events. This
Tobacco is used around the world, and its negative health effects are also public knowledge. Since everyone knows that tobacco can seriously harm people who use it, many countries face the ethical dilemma of allowing this harmful substance to be sold, regulated, and smoked. The case study “Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India” addresses some of the effects of an advertising ban on tobacco in India, as well as the conflict of interest that the advertisement prompts. While I do strongly feel
Tobacco products have long been a source of controversy. Although scientific data has proven that cigarettes contain harmful ingredients, they continue to be sold or smuggled into every country in the world. Famously, in 1960, the US Surgeon Dr. Luther Terry the devastating effects of tobacco use (General, 1972). Tobacco firms have since faced an uphill battle throughout developed countries. This has placed World governments, but also big tobacco companies, in a uniquely awkward situation. On the
The Tobacco Industry received quite a message from the Government of India (GOI) in 2001. The GOI planned on stopping the advertisements of Tobacco from cultural and sporting events alike, with a bill that was on the horizon of being released. The goal was to equip the Government with the tools to launch an anti-Tobacco Program and discourage adolescents from consuming tobacco products. A heated discussion sparked soon after the proposition of this decision. The Supporters Similar bans were already
in ethical issues as all people have different understandings with different surroundings. There are many ethical issues for ban on tobacco advertising with the conflict of interest that pertained to government in India. In this essay, I will discuss about agreements and disagreements of the ban on tobacco advertising in India with the conflict of interest issues. Lastly, I will present my opinions on what India government should do. Advocates believed that tobacco advertising may affect public health
consuming tobacco products the government of India imposed a ban on all advertisements of tobacco products. One of the main reasons why cigarette advertising was banned in India was was due to the hazardous health issues arising from smoking tobacco. Tobacco was considered the most dangerous product consumed by humans. The website, http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm, states that, “According to world health organization tobacco accounted
Should tobacco and alcohol advertising be allowed on television? The ban on advertising tobacco is already in affect, however, alcohol is another harmful substance. Should liquor be allowed to be advertised, if tobacco can not advertise their product? The ban on advertising tobacco products on television and radio, was passed through legislation in 1970 by Richard Nixon. This argument like others out there has two sides, one side in favor these advertisements and the other against these advertisements
in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India. The argument was that if advertising was banned for tobacco products it could effectively cut down on the amount of people who would smoke. It would also cut down on the youth who were beginning to smoke since they would not see the advertising. The cost of health care was more significant than the cost of what the tobacco companies would give to the government in revenue each year. Examples of how the consumption of tobacco went down in a few
Tobacco Advertising: To Ban or Not to Ban? Tobacco is a 100 percent legal substance that some want banned altogether.Tobacco has been a controversial substance ever since doctors found that it causes health problems, but the problem does not lie with the substance. Many people choose to smoke even with though the majority of studies prove that smoking is unhealthy. There is a fine line between tobacco companies selling their product and forcing it into the publics mouths when it is clear that many