Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
ban on cigarette advertising in india
argument in favor for ban on tobacco advertisement by government of india
argument in favor for ban on tobacco advertisement by government of india
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: ban on cigarette advertising in india
BAN ON TOBACCO ADVERTISEMENT IN INDIA
In 2004 the government of India banned tobacco companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events. The objective was to discourage adolescents from consuming tobacco products as well as empower the government with the power to launch an anti tobacco program. . This issue created a serious problem in that it was both ethical and commercial, the government on one hand, believe it was its responsibility to protect the welfare of its citizen, while the tobacco industry was a major contributor to the state funds.
Objectivity and fairness are the basis of ethical decision making and argument for the ban of tobacco should have been objective. Objectivity is impossible without personal detachment; fairness cannot be achieved without detachment since it is about other people. Being ethical is not a matter of imposing standards and views on other people as the government of India is seen doing. Being ethical is being fair and understanding implications from other people’s perspective and not just focusing on what you want to achieve without looking at the impact of your decision on other stakeholders , Objectivity is flexible because it can be approached and achieved in different ways. We know the Government of India wanted to safeguard against the rise in the uptake of tobacco among the youth, but on the other hand, they have a challenge that the same company of tobacco was a major contributor to the economy, the government in this case should have consulted with a view to reach a compromise with the tobacco company for the benefit of the country and the tobacco companies
The eight elements of an ethical organization comprise of respect, honor, integrity, customer foc...
... middle of paper ...
...th in India. Since tobacco has an impact on the economy of India a consultation with the stakeholders would have come up with a better way of addressing the issue because I take it there is resistance because consultation was not properly done. The government of India should have a law that punishes the businesses that sold tobacco to the youth. The government of India should know that tobacco use rose with measures of receptivity, including having a favorite tobacco advertisement and as such banning the advertisement of tobacco may not have an impact as banning the tobacco, because there would be several illegal ways of making the tobacco available to those who are not supposed to have them such as the youth.
Reference
1. www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm
2. www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads3.htm
The decision is also good as it is in line with the corporate social responsibilities. It is socially ethical for the company to reduce or eliminate the tobacco products in the company’s drugs stores and shelves. Moreover, it is the social responsibility of the business to ensure a healthy living of the society. Production and distribution of tobacco products will, however, be an irony for the organization whose sole mandate is to ensure healthy and productive society.
In conclusion, ethics has no place in the tobacco business and the rights and obligations that usually would apply for any other company would not apply to a tobacco company as the right to trade secrecy, information privacy or the right to get a customer to buy its products is nullified by the fact the tobacco industry itself is absolutely built to sell products that are scientifically proven to be carcinogenic and harmful to its users.
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. .
Every cigarette that a person smokes reduces their life span by eleven minutes. Banning the sale of tobacco products would prevent many deaths. Not only would it prevent death of the ones that use tobacco products but also for the ones that are exposed to second hand smoke. People who are addicted to tobacco products spend a lot of money on their habit. The use of tobacco products and being exposed to second hand smoke will later lead to many health problems and possibly death. The sale of tobacco products should be banned because people are wasting their money by buying them, it causes many health problems that could lead to death, and it not only affects the one using it but it also affects the people around them.
It is important to provide a brief history of the Tobacco policy and a comprehensive description of the ethical dilemma before going into the examination of the dilemma, which will be provided in the following paragraphs using Gortner’s Framework for Anal...
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.
The author identifies two reasons to be the probable cause for pharmacies or grocery stores to stop selling tobacco products. The reasons that he highlights are the health related argument and the restriction imposed on selling it. CVS is a pharmacy that is selling medications and products that helps people health. Since tobacco is not making people health any good, the question of it being ethically right to sell it in pharmacies has brought people’s attention. The author packs his thoughts with an example of the New York retailers that have stopped selling tobacco product because of the high tax rates from 1.25$ to 4.35$ per pack in 2010. Also, the restrictions implemented like having a license to sell it and fees increase from 100$ to 1000$
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.
Arora, M., & Madhu, R. (2012). Banning smokeless tobacco in India: Policy analysis. Indian Journal of Cancer, 49(4), 336-341. doi:10.4103/0019-509X.107724
Wong, K. L. (1996). Tobacco Advertising and Children: The Limits of First Amendment Protection. Journal Of Business Ethics, 15(10), 1051-1064.
Tobacco companies are strategical placed all over the world and in some countries that we did not know even existed. Cigarette companies are doing all they possibly can to make money, just like every other company. These tobacco companies do not care about the consumers and the risks that come along with consuming tobacco products. The companies are continuously suing countries because of the way these countries are advertising tobacco products. Yes, I am aware that these multimillion dollar operations need to make money, but however on the other hand the way that cigarettes get advertised should not end up with that country getting in trouble from those companies. Of course many will probably agree with me that suing countries should not be an option. The over all solution I have for this major problem contains the following: once tobacco is purchased from tobacco companies, countries will have the right to advertise these products in which ever ways they please. Also, this will further cancel tobacco companies from being able to sue countries.
Throughout life, we experience many conflicts of interest 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.
Summarize the arguments in opposition of the ban on tobacco advertising in India. The fact that the product is still out there and available may
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?