Arguments in favour of the ban on tobacco advertising in India are based on international precedents as other countries like France, Finland and Norway had already imposed similar bans. With regards to the constitutionality of the ban on advertising as violation of citizens ' private lives the argument was that the government had the right to intervene in then overall interest of the citizens and the need to protect public health just as drugs like cocaine had been banned the world over. Statistics on tobacco related deaths according to the World Health Organisation and the expected rise also counted in favour of the ban.
Enticing the young 14 - 24 year age group as "tomorrow 's cigarette business"was regarded as exploiting minors hence the
…show more content…
They argued too that they were not selling the concept of smoking and neither were they targeting teenagers and young people as growth strategy but merely assisting adult smokers in making an informed brand choice. The ban also ignored the size of the organised sector which constituted 16% hence effectiveness would be minimal. Again there was no logic in imposing a ban on the domestic players when foreign magazines that sold in India and television channels uplinked foreign countries carried advertisements by cigarette …show more content…
The state allows the manufacture band salenof tobacco products and yet bans the advertising of tobacco. The country collects excise revenue to alleviate the financial crunch and benefits from the sponsoring of sports and cultural events, yet they deny companies level playing field through the ban. Throughout advertising the desired to present products or services is achieved. However the aim of the government is to discourage adolescents from consuming tobacco products and arm itself with powers to launch an anti-Tobacco Program. India as a developing country has its consumption growing yet in developed countries it was dropping, hence banning adverts becoming ba first step towards discouraging smokers forgetting the impact of the decision on
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.
Cigarette advertisements reflect society’s love-hate relationship with tobacco products through the ages. During its heyday of popularity, cigarette advertisements were not governed in any way, allowing tobacco companies to use any means necessary to sell their products including advertising during popular children’s television shows. This practice came under scrutiny around 1964 when the Surgeon General released its first report on “smoking and health.” This report stated that smoking may be hazardous to your health. Soon to follow the release of this report was a ban on all cigarette advertisements on television and radio.
"Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
In conclusion the country of India has many supporters and non supporters of the tobacco advertising ban. While some argue that it is totally in the best interest of the citizens. Others feel it is a blatant abuse of power by the government. The conflict of interest arises from India being a country that is in the tobacco industry to banning the advertising of the product they are growing. And by having government put strict regulations on the production of tobacco in regards to the added contaminants would reduce the health risks involved with the consumption of the current products
According to WHO, "each year 6 million people die due to tobacco related illnesses. If current trends continue, it is projected that by 2030, tobacco will be responsible for more than 8 million deaths each year and 80% of these premature deaths will be among people living in low- and middle-income countries.” Tobacco advertising is a worldwide marketing campaign that displays bright and colorful images that appeal towards teens and young adults. These images portray false ideal of masculinity, youth, and freedom. The prohibitions of tobacco advertising should be enforced by the government in order to prevent tobacco industries from targeting undeveloped countries with poor education, reduce tobacco related illnesses,
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
It can be questioned if cigarette advertising actually does have an impact on demand for cigarettes. A study titled “A Simultaneous Model of Cigarette Advertising: Effects on Demand and Industry Response to Public Policy”, by Barry J. Seldon and Khosrow Doroodian, a mathematical model was used, and it was found that “the estimated demand coefficients [they had found] suggest that advertising increases cigarette consumption and health warning reduce aggregate demand for cigarettes” (Seldon & Doroodian 675). This not only demonstrates how the graphic warning are effective as stated previous, but also that the advertising that is out in the general public’s will have an impact on the economic demand of cigarettes. Because of the major advertising bans, and the evidence found in this study, it can be concluded that demand for cigarettes is thus reduced with a reduction in advertisements. Although tobacco companies are spending more in today’s society on advertisements (Qi 246), they are less prevalent and less found in the general public because of strict regulations that have been put in place. Seldon and Doroodian state that their results “imply that the government could decrease demand by banning all forms of advertisement”, but they go on to stating that “such a ban would not eliminate smoking due to habit persistence and the “advertising” that occurs when individuals see
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.
For decades, researchers and scientists have been studying on the impact of anti-smoking advertising campaigns .As a result of some research , main question arises : “do anti-smoking ads really have an impact on people’s decision about quitting smoking?” or “do they really work?” It is a controversial issue and plenty of studies and investigations support that there is no clear evidence to prove they have a significant influence on adults’ or youth’ decisions. The most striking reason of why anti-smoking ads fail is that there is not enough attention to encourage smokers or they are not supposed to prevent people from smoking. The reason is advertisements are made to profit .Anti-smoking ads are not advantageous or profitable. Thus, tobacco companies use their marketing expenditures to promote smoking. Their main objective is to encourage people to start smoking. According to Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in 2003, cigarette companies increased their product marketing and promotional spending to $15.15 billion, while lowering their spending on youth smoking prevention programs to $72.9 million. In other words, tobacco companies spent more than 200 times on product marketing than on prevention (Schmidt,2013).In addition to first reason there is not complete focusing and enough effort. Most advertisements are parent-targeted. They forget that there is a huge percent of youth smoking. However, parent-targeted ads are insufficient in terms of their narrative and executional style. When designing an advertising campaign, at least four important issues must be addressed: the message content(what to say), the executional style(how to say),the target audience(whom to say it and hence, which media to choose),and budget (Pechmann&Reib...
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
Wong, K. L. (1996). Tobacco Advertising and Children: The Limits of First Amendment Protection. Journal Of Business Ethics, 15(10), 1051-1064.
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.
The tobacco business-sector, which mainly produced cigarettes, comprises only about 16% of the market, while remaining 84% was accounted for by other products like 'beedi, ' 'ghutkas, ' etc. The ban is likely having major impact on their sales. Without advertising, tobacco consumers will reduce drastically, therefore, consumers won’t be able to differentiate between products of different qualities, this can slow down the progression of Indian consumers up the scale from harmful tobacco consumption (like ghutka, zarda etc.) to more refined forms. The tobacco industry in India provides direct and indirect employment to 26 million people of this, roughly 6 million were farmers and almost 5 million were 'beedi ' rollers. The ban on advertising could cause millions of workers to lose employment. India is the third largest producer of tobacco in the world and with one of the lowest per capita tobacco consumption in the world; therefore the ban of advertising should be done with careful
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
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.