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.
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
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. However, for each of these topics, the Tobacco industry made persuasive counter-arguments against the ban. For each topic, the point and counter-point
Could you imagine a world without secondhand smoke, harmful effects to the environment, and a world that is more supportive of quitting smoking? As impossible as it seems, it’s actually not as far out of our grasp as you may think. Over the course of this paper I will be arguing for smoking to be completely banned in public places because of the numerous health concerns as well as environmental hazards. To smokers this may seem as an attack on their freedoms. By banning public smoking we are removing their freedoms so to speak.
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.
The opposition also raises the point that manufacturing tobacco is legal so surely “it should be legal to advertise as well” (Indian Tobacco Company Philip Morris, 2001). Tobacco companies state that their target market is not new smokers but to entice existing smokers to their brand. The Indian Market Research Bureau (IMRB) found that “no one said advertising had induced them to start smoking” suggesting that advertisement doesn’t create new customers but entices existing ones. The nay’s also view the ban as inefficient, “16% of the (tobacco) market” is focused in the ban, disregarding the other 84% of dangerous forms of tobacco. This could cause an increase of more dangerous substances being smoked which defeats the point of the advertising ban initially.
Introduction To say that tobacco advertising stimulates tobacco sales may seem a simple and moderate statement. In reality, tobacco control activists often meet serious opposition in defending this fact. Achieving the restriction or banning of tobacco advertising is one of the fiercest battles to face. Tobacco lobbyists usually assert that advertising does not increase the overall quantity of tobacco sold. Rather, the tobacco industry maintains that advertising merely enhances the market share of a particular brand, without recruiting new smokers.
Government should make posters available everywhere in India warning the public about the dangers of cigarette. Educating them on the various diseases such as cancer, stroke, coronary heart disease, tuberculosis, premature death and many others which are related to tobacco consumption. Also there should be tax increment in all companies producing risky products to the detriment of citizens. This is because tobacco is not the only health hazard product available in the nation but other products such as firearms, pharmaceutical products which are in the market but nothing is said about their effect. Government should sensitise parents to expose the effects of smoking to their children, so that even if you they watch such advertisements, they will no longer be persuaded.
Did the government have a right to save tobacco users from themselves? Additionally, the opponents characterized the government’s actions as acting like a nanny. The tobacco industry argues that their advertisement is solely for the purpose of educating the public about the differences in the brands so consumers could make educated and informed choices. Opponents also point to a survey conducted by the Indian Market Research Bureau where respondents stated they began smoking for reasons other than advertising. Additionally, opponents cite to research studies that found weak correlations between advertising and tobacco use.
In 2001, the government of India announced that it would issue a ban on advertising for all Tobacco Companies within the country’s borders. This ban would be in effect for any media source within the country. As a first step of an anti-Tobacco program, the ban’s ultimate goal is to discourage smokers, particularly in teens and young adults, away from the use of tobacco. There are those who support this ban with the contention that it will have little effect on the country’s economy and will ultimately save lives. Opposition to the ban contend that there is an inability to achieve the desired end result and the ban is an over-step by the Indian government into an individual 's personal habits and is a way for the government to dictate the morality of its citizens.