The government of India has many arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising. One of the arguments is the right of the government to step in and promote a healthier lifestyle. Many of the tobacco advertising companies stated that the ban on advertising was unconstitutional, but the supreme court in Belgium and France both agreed that the ban was not unconstitutional and was needed the ensure the public health. In 1990 tobacco attributed to over 3 million deaths and escalated to 4.023 million deaths in 1998. Studies show that when people quit smoking they spend their money in different sectors of the economy creating more jobs and economic growth. Tobacco consumption in countries that had a ban showed a dramatic decrease in consumers …show more content…
If an individual wants to smoke they will choose a product that someone that they are acquainted with smokes, and no matter how many regulations there are, adolescent smoking either starts at home if the parents are smokers or with a friend who has parents that smoke. The government should manage the tobacco industry better in regards to the adding of chemicals that are not present in natural tobacco leaves. By adding the extra ingredients they are adding the elements that risk the health of the consumers. For hundreds of years tobacco in its pure form has been used by native American civilizations for spiritual purposes. It wasn’t until the industrialization of the tobacco industry when the addiction health hazard causing chemicals were added to increase sales and dependency of smokers. 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
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.
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.
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.
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
This year alone cigarettes will kill over 420,000 Americans, and many more will suffer from cancers, and circulatory and respiratory system diseases. These horrible illnesses were known to come from cigarettes for years. Recently the Food and Drug Administration declared nicotine, the main chemical in cigarettes, addictive. This explains why smokers continue to use cigarettes even though smokers are aware of the constantly warned about health dangers in cigarettes. Some researchers have also found out that smoking by pregnant women causes the deaths of over 5,000 babies and 115,000 miscarriages. The only way to get rid of the suffering and loss of life by cigarettes is to ban them. . For years cigarettes have been known to cause cancer, emphysema, and other horrible illnesses. The deaths of over 420,000 of Americans this year will be do to cigarettes. With all the other causes of deaths, alcohol, illegal drugs, AIDS, suicide, transportation accidents, fires, and guns, cigarettes still count for more deaths than those do combined. We can’t stand and watch people die because they smoke cigarettes. Thousands of smokers try to rid themselves of cigarettes but can't because of additive nicotine. Nicotine was recently declared addictive by the Food and Drug Administration, which explains why many smokers continue to smoke despite the health warnings on cigarette smoking. Nicotine makes it almost impossible for cigarette smokers to quit smoking because of its addictive nature, and with the cigarette manufacturers putting just enough nicotine in the so they cant be outlawed. The benefits of outlawing cigarettes greatly outnumber the disadvantages, for example, many scientists believe a link between smoking and a shortened life span exists between the two, a ban on cigarettes could increase life spans. Many studies suggest that billions of dollars now spent on smoking related. Smoking related illnesses could be reduced by outlawing cigarettes, families could save money by not purchasing cigarettes, and accidental fires costing millions of dollars caused by cigarettes would stop. Although a complete ban on cigarettes currently remains almost impossible, several organizations recently helped create a bill that could control cigarettes much in the same way the government now controls drugs. One such organization, the Food and Drug Administration, headed by David Kesslar drafted a major part, which would require manufacturers to disclose the 700 chemical additives in cigarettes, reduce the level of harmful chemicals, require cigarette companies to warn of the addictive nicotine, restrict tobacco advertising and promotion, and control the level of nicotine cigarettes contain.
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
They argued that the ban was just a way to intervene in their private lives. They gave an example of the issue in Canada where the Supreme Court held that, "The State seeks to control the thought, beliefs and behavior of its citizens along the line it considers acceptable. This form of paternalism is unacceptable in a free and democratic society". The other argument was that if it were legal to manufacture and sell tobacco products, it should be legal to advertise it as well. The tobacco companies said that purpose of advertising was to help adults smokers chose between brands and that were irrelevant to non smokers. They also denied targeting teenagers and young people as a growth strategy. This was supported by a 1998 survey by the Indian Market Research Bureau (IMRB),.It was found that 49% of the respondents said they started smoking to see what it was like, 24% said 'all my friends smoke '; and no one said advertising had induced them to start smoking.. They also argued that the ban prevented only their products and not other products like ‘beedi’ and ‘ghutkas’ which accounted for 84% of the Indian Market. They also argued that the ban on the domestic players it senseless when the foreign magazines that sold in India and the television channels that were uplinked from foreign countries carried advertisements by cigarette multinationals. They gave an example of Marlboro, which sponsored Formula I racing because it very popular
The problem of tobacco smoking appeared long ago, but exist to present day and becomes more global day after day. Tobacco smoking is not a simple and harmless enjoyment, it is a destructive common habit. But the biggest problem is that society takes it as a normal and allows this behavior for every order of all age groups. Besides this, a number of
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.
Tobacco is used around the world, and its negative health effects are also public knowledge. Since everyone knows that tobacco can seriously harm people who use it, many countries face the ethical dilemma of allowing this harmful substance to be sold, regulated, and smoked. The case study “Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India” addresses some of the effects of an advertising ban on tobacco in India, as well as the conflict of interest that the advertisement prompts. While I do strongly feel that smoking is harmful and dangerous, I do not think that the government should ban advertisements in India, because if they start by banning ads for one substance, they could move on to banning others. 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.
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
There is a conflict of interest however in India. The government has one main concern, the welfare of its citizens. But is the decision to ban tobacco ads a cross into people 's free will. Shouldn’t the people of India be allowed the natural right to choose? They have a duty to its citizens, but they also have a duty to uphold their rights. India also has to keep in mind that without the advertising industry millions of jobs will be lost in the process. While the banishment of tobacco ads could potentially save lives, it could also cause great devastation to those that are currently established in the workplace.
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.
They need guidance, which is not needed. The government was said to try to control its citizen and “this form of paternalism is unacceptable in a free and democratic society”. The second reason many tobacco companies using to protect their right is to having commercial on TV does not mean they want to encourage people to smoke. In fact, those commercials are most relevant to ones that already smoked a certain brand. They are designed to target adult smokers not teenagers and young people. Another survey done by the IMRB showing that most of participants said that they wanted to have their own experience when first trying cigarette. About 24% supposed that all of their friends smoke (that’s why they wanted to try) and no one said the advertising they saw encouraged them to buy their first cigarette. The third reason which seemed really persuasive to me was having advertisement of different type of cigarette would help consumer define the “good” and the “bad” tobacco. In term of health care concern, some analysts the financial burden caused by smoking induced illness should be considered, and in a developing country like India where social beneficial, health insurance “was meager”, bringing the cost of health care “was irrelevant”. Finally, the big concern was about the
It is recorded that trillion rupiah has been contributed by tobacco industry. Banning tobacco advertisement, promotion and sponsorship, tighten supervision of retail shops, impose high taxes to tobacco products and expand smoke free zones in future will have different effect to some actors in the field. At least there are three actors which involved, which are tobacco companies, government, and citizens. For tobacco companies, these policy will affected companies’ sales. Tobacco companies argue that tobacco industry play an important role in national’s economy, therefore if all public relation activities related to tobacco products will be banned completely, the tobacco industry might be economically harmed by the bans such as the possibility of bankruptcy if there is a decrease in their profit, which led to massive unemployment. Then, bans on tobacco advertisement, promotion and sponsorship will lessen government burden in economic. Compare to economic loss or healthcare cost as a result of tobacco use, these loss is much higher that revenue which government received from tobacco excise, which only reached IDR 103.53 trillion 2013 (Research and Health Development Body 2014). Lastly, it will affect citizens’ behaviour by discouraging them to buy smoke. In addition, government position seems unwillingly or in dilemma position to enact a strict policy such as imposing all tobacco advertisement, promotion and sponsorship because potential benefits which might loss if harsh policy will be implemented in