In February of 2001 the Government of India decided to put forward a bill, that if passed had the potential to have a major impact on the advertising abilities of Tobacco companies. The bill included a ban from advertising products, as well as sponsorships of sporting and cultural events. The reasoning behind the bill was to help the government stop tobacco companies from targeting a new generation of Indian youth, and to provide a launching point for a government led anti-Tobacco program.
This report analyzes the ICMR case study on the “Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India”, found at, http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm. By reviewing this report, I will attempt to:
1. Summarize the arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India
2. Summarize the arguments in opposition of the ban on tobacco advertising in India
3. Discuss the conflict of interest issue as it pertains to government in India
4. Give your opinion on what governments should do in regards to tobacco advertising
Section 1 – The Case for Banning Advertising (The Ayes’)
Tobacco deaths are real. The ICMR case study points to a statistic from the World Health Organization (WHO), that identifies 3 million Tobacco related deaths in 1990. By 1998, that figure had risen to
…show more content…
Should the government decide for an entire nation what is right and what is wrong for each individual? Part of living in a free society is the right to choose, so a question that needed asking was, what gives the government the right to limit a private company’s right to inform the general public of a choice? Also, there was a perceived double standard because the government hadn’t banned manufacturing or selling of tobacco products. If the government continued to allow that, then why would they only ban
There was a Master Settlement Agreement in 1998 that banned cigarette marketing that would target teenagers under eighteen. “Tobacco companies continue to advertise in magazine articles...
The tobacco industry seems like a beneficial addition to our economy. It has basically been a socially acceptable business in the past because it brings jobs to our people and tax money to the government to redistribute; but consider the cost of tobacco related treatment, mortality and disability- it exceeds the benefit to the producer by two hundred billion dollars US. (4) Tobacco is a very profitable industry determined to grow despite government loss or public health. Its history has demonstrated how money can blind morals like an addiction that is never satisfied. Past lawsuits were mostly unsuccessful because the juries blamed the smoker even though the definition of criminal negligence fits the industry’s acts perfectly. Some may argue for the industry in the name of free enterprise but since they have had such a clear understanding of the dangers of their product it changes the understanding of their business tactics and motives. The success of the industry has merely been a reflection of its immoral practices. These practices have been observed through its use of the media in regards to children, the tests that used underage smokers, the use of revenue to avoid the law, the use of nicotine manipulation and the suppression of research.
"Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
Ethical dilemmas occur on many different scales. These dilemmas, and the complexity attached to them, range from personal to corporate conflict. Depending on the nature and structure of a particular situation and the values in conflict, personal definitions of what an ethical dilemma is may vary. Harold Gortner defines an ethical dilemma as “ a situation where two or more competing values are important and in conflict. If you serve one value, you cannot server another, or you must deny of disserve one or more values in order to maintain one or more of the others”. Identified in this paper is an ethical dilemma anchored in the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act” signed into law by President Obama in 2009. This policy gave legal authority to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), which is charged with regulating the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products in order to reduce tobacco use by children under 18 and protect public health. The CTP was charged with establishing its own credentials as a regulatory authority based on science, where the facts could help shape policy. The complexity and interesting dynamic of E-cigarettes (E-cig) has presented problems for FDA to regulate under this policy, although many health organizations are pushing for immediate action. The ethical dilemma in regards to this policy as it relates to the regulation of E-cigs is the focus of this paper.
If an individual wants to smoke they will choose a product that someone that they are acquainted with smokes, and no matter how many regulations there are, adolescent smoking either starts at home if the parents are smokers or with a friend who has parents that smoke. The government should manage the tobacco industry better in regards to the adding of chemicals that are not present in natural tobacco leaves. By adding the extra ingredients they are adding the elements that risk the health of the consumers. For hundreds of years tobacco in its pure form has been used by native American civilizations for spiritual purposes. It wasn’t until the industrialization of the tobacco industry when the addiction health hazard causing chemicals were added to increase sales and dependency of smokers.
Some would say their freedom is being taken away, however the government would be bettering the population and it would only help to better everyone. Tobacco education would be one of the most important aspects to make to ban of tobacco pass through government. The citizens need to have knowledge about why it is being taken away and how to get help to stop the addiction to fully the harmfulness (“All Things”, 2002). On the other side however, ever individual has their right of freedom. This ban of tobacco would contraindicate the right of freedom, but it would better the countries health and in the long run only help our nation live
Many people say alcohol and tobacco ads on television, in magazines, even at convenient stores encourage youth to start these bad habits. Do these ads really target children? Can these ads really influence kids to start drinking or smoking? Advertisements can have some influences on teens, but the alcohol and tobacco companies say it really cannot. Although these ads can seem appealing to kids by making the people look cool doing it, these ads are not aimed toward these teens.
The use of tobacco is the leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States, accounting for more than 443,000 deaths each year. More than 16 million Americans suffer from a disease caused by smoking. On average, smokers die ten years earlier than non-smokers. About 18.1% of all adults (42.1 million Americans) are currently users of tobacco. The number of people addicted to products such as tobacco is too high, and can be lowered.
Tobacco results in upwards of half a million American premature deaths per year. That is more deaths than by HIV, drug and alcohol abuse, automobile accidents,suicides and murders combined. For every one of those deaths, nearly 20 other Americans suffer from a tobacco-related illness.Tobacco-related illness places an enormous burden on the healthcare system, with cigarette smoking driving $193 billion in cost, and second hand smoke adding another $10 million.
Tobacco epidemic killed 100 million people worldwide in the 20th Century. Tobacco epidemic could kill 1 billion in the 21st century alone. Smoking is responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide (about 5 million deaths per year) and, if current smoking patterns continue, by 2030 the proportion will be one in six, about 10 million deaths per year (World bank, 1999). This means that about 500 million people alive today will eventually be killed by tobacco (Peto & et al, 1994).
It wasn’t until the 1960’s when the potentially deadly effects of tobacco were discovered did the industry suffer a decline. This tobacco related evidencing side effects led to an immediate decline in support of the industry as a whole, specifically the producers and manufacturers. Laws around...
Qi, S. (2013). The impact of advertising regulation on industry: the cigarette advertising ban of 1971. RAND Journal Of Economics (Wiley-Blackwell), 44(2), 215-248. doi:10.1111/1756-2171.12018
Should cigarette smoking be banned for everyone in the United States? Why? Why not? Should those who chose their time smoking to relieve stress, personal enjoyment, or simply just because, have to lose their right to what makes them happy? Smoking tobacco products has been around for decades and in many different forms. Should personal rights be pushed aside to please those around us that disagree with the so called “disgusting habit”? In the paper The Washington Times an article caught my interest called”D.C. seeks bans on smoking in national parks” written by Steven Dinan. In this article he stated that “Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton wrote Park Service Regional Director Steve Whitesell saying she’s heard from constituents who fear breathing second-hand smoke while using national parks.”(Dinan, 2013) I don’t think they should. All throughout the world people do things that is not always agreed with in different cultures in communities but even religions. Some people believe eating red meat is a sin but should you take it away from those who enjoy it. We are living in the land of the free. Aren’t we? I am against the banning of tobacco products because not only is it a right as an American citizen to be able to smoke, it is a job for American citizens, and as long as smokers are knowledgeable about the product causes it should be a personal right to choose.
In February 2001, India announced a bill that would ban Tobacco companies from advertising and sponsoring sporting events. This decision was immediately met with dissension. Many believed the government didn’t have moral grounds to make such a decision and that this action held no weight. But was this action even achievable? Would it even have the desired effect and was it even morally ethical?
With government currently imposing ban on surrogate advertisements, firms area unit turning to event support, event organizing, company films and a lot of and a lot of innovative IMC methods. The Section five of the act prohibits the promotion of “Tobacco Products” direct and indirect suggests that and to appear from a general purpose of read the tobacco merchandise aren't promoted instead the name of the whole of the tobacco product is employed to push different merchandise. The ASCI could be a voluntary self-regulation council, that has required a Code of Conduct to manage the content of advertisements with a read to realize honest advertising practices. The Code applies to any or all varieties of promotion, that is, to newspapers, magazines, television, radio, cinema and posters, amongst others.