The banning of tobacco advertising in India, in 2001, caused a debate over the ethical implications of such a ban. With expected economic, social and political ramifications, banning tobacco advertising created a series of arguments both for and against. From analyzing the case study, those who supported the ban, suggested that banning tobacco advertising was necessary for the “overall interest of the citizens” (Indian Tobacco Company Philip Morris, 2001). With the increase in knowledge and science, we now understand the harmfulness of tobacco consumption compared to fifty years ago when the effects were less understood. The World Health Organization stated that “tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths in 1990, the figure rising to 4.023 …show more content…
The nay’s begin with the assumption of free will and choice. Amit Sarkar stated that “adults who consume tobacco do so of their own free choice”. Adults therefore understand the risks associated and in a “free and democratic society” (Supreme Court in Canada) should be allowed to choose whether they want to smoke tobacco or not. The question raised is whether the government has the right to intervene on decisions that could potentially affect the citizen’s health. The opposition also raises the point that manufacturing tobacco is legal so surely “it should be legal to advertise as well” (Indian Tobacco Company Philip Morris, 2001). Tobacco companies state that their target market is not new smokers but to entice existing smokers to their brand. The Indian Market Research Bureau (IMRB) found that “no one said advertising had induced them to start smoking” suggesting that advertisement doesn’t create new customers but entices existing ones. The nay’s also view the ban as inefficient, “16% of the (tobacco) market” is focused in the ban, disregarding the other 84% of dangerous forms of tobacco. This could cause an increase of more dangerous substances being smoked which defeats the point of the advertising ban initially. Those that disagreed with the ban felt that it could cause economic ramifications. The tobacco industry employed 26 million people, …show more content…
Above all, the health of the population should be one of the biggest priorities for politicians and for smoking to be glamorized and advertised this is sending out a message that smoking is acceptable, which could influence young adults to follow this trend. Furthermore, though worries regarding unemployment have been raised, the increased health cost due to smoking-related diseases puts a strain on the state budget and could be allocated to other resources. Furthermore, regarding the unemployment issue, if effective policies were implemented and caused citizen’s to reduce their smoking habits, this extra disposable income would be spent on other goods and services, re-igniting the economy and creating more jobs. Therefore it can be argued that a ban on advertising tobacco could create better economic conditions for other industries and I believe that this is important for communities, businesses and
“You’ve got what it takes – Salem Spirit” (Salem Lights). The RJ Reynolds Cigarette Company makes this daring claim, and it certainly sounds enticing. After all, the advertising poster depicts a group of young and vibrant professionals spending energy and fun filled time swinging on red balloons over the crisp lake, definitely experiencing the good life after having consumed this product. Even though the art of advertising has existed successfully for thousands of years in order to promote goods and services, the methods utilized have evolved significantly. Originally, vendors merely raised awareness of the existence of their offerings, but in modern times corporations actually distort the value of a product. As the Federal Trade Commission
positive and healthful image. This is where beautiful men and women would be seen socializing
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.
Sloan Wilson did not publish The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, a classic on 1950's middle-class conformity, until 1955. But, by July 1953, PALL MALL cigarette advertisers appear aware that "society seemed to reward those who lacked rough edges and eschewed eccentricity" (Blum 794). This conclusion seems justified by a TIME magazine advertisement. Here, these promoters apply this conformity principle and other advertising techniques to a specific socioeconomic group. They seek to lure the expanding male, middle-class audience by presenting indecorous fun, an enticing social situation, and smooth smoking delight all stemming from their product.
Smoking Kills. This is no longer a myth, it’s a fact. According to the British Medical Journal, every time a person smoke a cigarette, he or she will lose about eleven minutes of life here on earth and subject yourself to cancer. In the advertisement below, you can easily tell from just looking at the picture that this ad is against smoking. The ad portrays the message that smoking is deadly, and is able to be comprehended by people of all ages in the hopes that the viewers do not get into a fatal habit such as abusing cigarettes. Essentially, smoking cigarettes is a long term form of suicide. A man is holding a lit cigarette in his hand with his middle and pointer finger, and his thumb held up. As shown in the
There is clearly no way tobacco will never be outlawed but I believe there should be tighter restrictions on age limits throughout the world, and restrictions on the materials that are used in cigarette processing. Who is just letting cigarette companies continue to poison people and cause cancer risk? Throughout my essay I will analyze the affects of cigarette use on the society of the world and the elaborate corruption that keeps cigarette companies in business.
Tobacco companies should be prevented from using advertising tactics that target teenagers. There has always been controversy as to how tobacco companies should prevent using advertising tactics to target teenagers. As controversial as this is tobacco companies shouldn’t advertise teen smoking. Many teens may be lured to believe cigarette advertising because it has been part of the American Culture for years, magazine ads and the media target young people, and these companies receive a drastic increase financially; however, the advertising by these cigarette companies has disadvantages such as having to campaign against their own company, limiting their cigarette advertising and becoming a controversial dilemma as to encouraging teenagers to smoke. From billboards to newspaper advertisements, cigarette promotions started becoming part of the American Culture.
Images are a powerful force in advertising as they are the ones that promote different perceptions and attitudes towards products. They are also the ones that create stereotypes. They are very manipulative, for they will never focus on the negative things that are associated with their products, only the positive ones. Advertisements are ambitious which gives them power, and engage customers for their approval.
One way that the tobacco industry can be more ethical is changing their advertising strategy. I believe that today’s advertising strategy is very misleading about cigarettes. Examples of this unethical advertising is in Argentina, here 20 percent of television advertising is spent on smoking commercials, as well as in countries in and around Africa there are billboards that depict a man in a business suit stepping out of a black Mercedes as a chauffeur holds the door. This displays that cigarettes make people classy and sophisticated, making cigarettes look not only harmless but stylish. Another good example of unethical depiction on cigarettes is in Nigeria; here they promote a cigarette for graduates, with a picture of a university and a student in a cap and gown. As if this wasn’t a misleading visual they add a slogan that says, "A very important cigarette for very important people." These ads and slogan are ...
Thesis: It is imperative for smokers to quit because it benefits society as a whole as well as themselves. Fighting against the use of tobacco is important because it causes many diseases and is a player in air pollution.
Although it is beneficial for the economy for the production of tobacco products it is extremely risky to use the product. According to researchers second-hand smoke is terrible for everyone in the world who walk by someone who is exhaling. In the article by Robert Proctor “Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition” he states that cigarettes are the “most deadl...
Every year tobacco is responsible for over 480,000 deaths. That includes people who have died from secondhand smoke. When statistics like this exist it is hard to understand why tobacco is still legal. This number increases every year that passes and most people believe it isn’t shrinking anytime soon. Tobacco should be banned because it’s deadly to not only the users, it’s highly addictive, and the tobacco industry is corrupting information promoting its harmful product. Society shouldn’t have to deal with anymore premature deaths due to a lethal legal product. We should work towards getting this useless product banned everywhere.
Cigarette advertisements give the feeling that smokers are "bursting at the seams with joy" and that smoking is useful to you. Shockingly, nothing could be further from reality. The U.S. government has marked cigarettes as an unsafe medication that causes lung malignancy, coronary illness, and numerous different genuine sicknesses and conditions. Numerous individuals everywhere throughout the nation are discussing whether tobacco organizations ought to be permitted to publicize cigarettes or even to make cigarettes in today 's general public ("Analyzing Assorted Tobacco Advertisements").
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. Since both of these substances are highly addictive and costly. Would we like to see these advertisements continued? Are these advertisements the hazard they are communicated to be? Through the research of these two important sides, this essay will explore which side has a stronger stance on the topic.
Those opposing a smoking ban say that freedom of choice would be affected by such legislation. Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business. A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places, and the ban is a limitation for smokers’ rights. Businesses, smokers, publicans, tobacco industries, stars, and some of the non-smokers oppose public smoking ban. Smokers light a cigarette because they need to smoke, not because they want it, because nicotine is physically addictive. Therefore, some smokers think that the public smoking ban is oppressiveness. They see the ban as a treatment to smokers as second-class citizens. Smokers agree that the smoking ban benefits the world, but cannot support the ban, because effects of nicotine obstruct them.