Case Study analysis” Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India”.
All countries banned tobacco by imposing taxes or did certain procedures in order to limit its intake, like creating no smoking areas within restaurants and malls and some other public areas, also they banned its sales to whom are under 18 years old while explaining to the people by the ads its risks on its consumers’ health and how it can threaten their lives by the diseases that it can lead to and that can result in death.
In India, and in February 2001, the government decided to ban the advertising tobacco in sports events in order to limit its intake within the adolescents and young generations and prepare to launch the anti-tobacco program. Suhel Seth, CEO, Equus was one of who were whom strongly against it and said that it’s only another way of the government to make a popularity of itself.
There was 3 different groups in the discussion: Ayes (the ones who opposed the ban of tobacco), Nayes (who favored the ban of tobacco) haze.
Ayes: Countries like France, Finland, and Norway had already imposed similar bans and advocates assumed that the government is interfering in its citizens’ life and choices and also
…show more content…
So simply, they can ban tobacco advertising in India and make high awareness among people and youth and through many organizations and Media, even advertisements about its risks factors and how it can lead to serious diseases
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.
Tobacco companies have relied on the media to lure children. They quickly realized that ‘the company that dominates is that which most effectively targets young”(Imperial Tobacco document.) To counteract the idea of disease and other negative aspects of tobacco, the industry used imagery in the media such as natural settings and healthy actors doing active things. This helps them to insinuate that smoking leads to success, romance, sophistication and other advancements in their lifestyle, which was easily imprinted in the minds of children. A document found among Imperial tobacco files described their priority: “…having our imagery reach those non-reading young people who frequent malls should be our chief goal.”(1.170) Unaware of how important the under 18 market was to the industry, the government could only attempt to lengthen the distance between schools and billboards because they’re ineffective attempts were ignored by the large corporations. With many billboards concentrated in small areas it put the idea in children’s minds that smoking was socially acceptable and that t...
"Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
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
In 2000-2001, tobacco contributed 12% of the total excise revenue, with 90% of that being from cigarettes (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India, 2001). There are also 26 million direct and indirect employees of the tobacco industry, to get rid of the advertising would surely displace some from their jobs as sales would be affected by the lack of advertising and promotion. Even if those who are in favor of the ban argue that cigarettes only contributed 0.14% of India’s GDP, they cannot argue that banning advertising would result in many employees losing their jobs. It is also debated whether or not it is within the government’s right to place such a ban. The Canadian Supreme Court even stated, “The State seeks to control the thoughts, beliefs and behavior of its citizens along the line it considers acceptable. This form of paternalism is unacceptable in a free and democratic society.” (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India, 2001). Adult consumers are aware of the health risks and it is their choice to continue using tobacco products if they so wish. People are allowed to drink alcohol, which has health risks as well as the temporary impairment of judgment and rational thought, but it is legal and advertised; those in opposition of the ban question why one is being
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.
Section 6 of chapter 6 in this report focuses on facilities provided by government of India like education on tobacco cessation, counter advertising in newspapers, radio and television. Meanwhile tobacco companies approaching different ways to tackle public by advertising on T.V., posters, public transport, Mobile Smoking Lounge and by giving free samples which is explained in detail in section 5. This report provides important information about the experience of Indians during banning of
The Indian government believes 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 or potentially dangerous products”. Therefore, companies are not being told that they cannot sell the product, just that they can’t advertise for it.
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.
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 ...
They asserted that the advertisement should be legal if a product is legally sold and they claimed that the government needs to stop production if the cigarette is illegal goods. They strongly raised objections that the advertising ban violates their freedom of expression as well and they denied that they targeted young smokers through advertisement. For instance, the survey from the Indian Market Research Bureau, 49% of respondent answered that they began smoking because of their curiosity and no one said advertising induced them to smoke. This research sympathized with tobacco companies and it verified that the advertisement did not have a serious impact on young people. Tobacco companies underlined that the ban on tobacco advertising will impact on the customer’s brand selection only and that does not result in an increase in tobacco consumption. For example, from the Indian market, the main producer of cigarettes comprised only 16% of the market and the other 84% was accounted for by other products such as ghutka, zarda. The ghutka and zarda are more harmful products and this result highlighted that the ban on tobacco advertising was not likely to have a major impact on the tobacco consumption rate. Moreover, there were weak correlation between cigarette consumption and money spent by cigarette companies on advertisements and this revealed that the advertisement does
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?
Does anyone have habit of chewing or smoke tobacco? Tobacco was made from one kind of plant leaves, but it is dangerous to health. Uses of tobacco were still in all over the world, but many countries passed laws to try to reduce tobacco use (Smoking). “In the United States, a variety of federal, state, and local laws restrict the sale, use, and advertising of tobacco products, however, government organizations and individuals who have been harmed by cigarette smoke have also used the courts to attack the tobacco industry” (Smoking). They made the rule, but then also people did not follow it. Most of the developing country sells tobacco openly; they gave cigarette
“…..Nearly half the adult population regularly performs a bizarre act which is necessary neither for the maintenance of life nor for the satisfaction of social, sexual, cultural, or spiritual needs; an act which is acknowledged, even by its adherents, to be harmful to health and even distasteful” (Aston and Stepney 1982: VII). Regarding the above statement a vast majority of anti-smoking campaigners believe that the restriction on smoking in public locations should be increased and effective actions should be taken by governments in order to reduce the consumption of tobacco. On the other hand, addicted smokers consider smoking prohibition as interference in their civil freedom. Though they argue that they have the right to smoke whenever and wherever they want; governments consider passive smoking’s threats as a major priority to deal with. This essay will discuss the policies taken by governments to decrease or even stop smoking among the public. Moreover, it will present smoker’s arguments regarding their right to smoke in public places.