Would anyone like to see caffeine or alcohol banned, just because too much of those substances is harmful? I do not think that anyone would support that ban, so I believe that the government should not ban advertisements, while people should be the ones to regulate their own habits. I will return to this point after summarizing main arguments of the article. There are many arguments in favor of banning tobacco advertising in India. The main reason for launching the ban was to try to reduce the number of teen smokers, as well as to build the beginnings of an official government anti-tobacco program.
It isn’t legal for people to go around killing each other, so why should smokers be able to affect non-smokers with secondhand smoke, which has the same effect? While comparing smoking to murder may seem a bit extreme, I believe it helps emphasize just how bad secondhand smoke and smoking in general really is. Smoking should be banned in public because of secondhand smoke, environmental damage, and it would influence people to stop smoking. In the following paragraph we are going to dig a little deeper into some statistics about smoking to give a little background for the presented argument. According to a 2012 study by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Cigarette smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S. racking in around 480,000 deaths a year or roughly one in five deaths accounted for in the U.S. per year.
In early 2001, Government of India announced a bill that would ban tobacco advertisements in the country. This written assignment will focus on summarizing the points in favor as well as against the ban on tobacco advertising in India. Also there will be a discussion on the conflict of interest and my own opinion on what I expect from the Government pertaining to tobacco advertising as a responsible citizen. Arguments in favor of the ban: It is easy to argue in favor of things that will clearly improve the standard of living of ordinary citizens. Some notable arguments placed in favor of the ban are as follows: 1.
In my opinion governments should take a look at current policies and see how they treat other substances and retain the equivalent throughout or make changes throughout. Even though I know and understand firsthand the effects smoking has on an individual’s health, I have to stand by and conclude if the product is legal than advertising should be as well. Rather than banning advertisements for tobacco products pushing knowledge and advertising the motives not to smoke are more powerful and will reap greater rewards. The Tobacco industry is a debated topic riddled with conflicting research, health concerns and the fight for protection of rights. In this case study the arguments for and against the ban of tobacco advertising in India was discussed as well as the government’s conflict of interest and my opinion of the government’s proper course of
The IBS Center for Research Management (ICMR) puts together a collection of management case studies from Asia. One such study involved a proposed bill that would ban tobacco advertising in India. The ICMR article, “Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India” discussed the arguments for and against a ban, as well as raised some moral dilemmas. This essay will summarize these issues. The Indian Government justified the ban on tobacco advertising by focusing on how tobacco impacts the following topics: citizen’s health, the Indian economy, young people, and the effectiveness of the ban.
Introduction Tobacco advertising refers to promotion display of tobacco products in media such as; radio, television, print, billboards and at retail stores. The ban on tobacco advertising by the Indian Government has many effects on the people as well as their ethics and freedom of choice. This paper will provide a summary argument in favour of the ban as well as opposing the ban. And to conclude with my opinions on what the government should do with tobacco advertising. 1.
The government of India in 2001 was faced with, a conflict of interest arising out of their decision to place a on to place a ban on the advertising of tobacco products. This conflict of interest of interest would be dealt with later in this case study, but for now I will deal with the arguments in favor and in opposition of the ban on the advertising of tobacco products. It was the Indian government that ignited the debate, by announcing on February 6th 2001, its impending ban on the advertising of tobacco products. The government’s official reason was its effort to safeguard the health of the populace by discouraging consumption of tobacco products by adolescents. The second reason for the ban was to arm itself legislatively for the anti-tobacco fight.
In this assignment, I would like to discuss about the Indian Government’s policy on banning tobacco advertisement. There are four main points in my essay which are the ideas supporting the ban, the ideas against the ban, the conflict between two parties and my personal solutions. Firstly, why do people in favor of the policy on banning tobacco advertisement in India? According to the survey, the negative effects of tobacco on public health is alarming as there are more and more deaths caused by tobacco consumption. In World Health Organization’s research, “tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths in 1990,” and the number of deaths caused by tobacco can rise to “8.4 million in 2020 and to 10 million in about 2030.” We all know smoking is more common in adults, however, the serious problem is that children and young adults are being attracted by tobacco.
Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India An article titled: Ethics in Business was written between 1998 - 2001 and finally published in February 6, 2001. This article was written about a tobacco organization called India Tobacco Company (ITC) Philip Morris, found in India. 1. Arguments in favour of the ban on tobacco advertising in India Government, acting as the manager of the entire country has the responsibility to protect its citizens against any inappropriate behaviour. In 2001, India launches arguments in favour of the ban on tobacco advertising in the country.
Second, it stated that after January 1, 1971 it shall be unlawful to advertise cigarettes on any medium of electronic communication. Fifteen years later, Congress approved the comprehensive Smoking Education Act. This Act was yet another amendment to the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. Once again the statement required that all cigarette packages to be changed. The packages must now have one of the following labels: “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy” or “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks To Your Health” or “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result In Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight” and lastly “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide” (Brann 10).