Rebuttal to “Killing Them Softly” “Killing Them Softly,” an essay by Jacob Sullum, addresses the issue of Senator Judd Gregg’s bill to give the Food and Drug Administration control over tobacco products. This bill would allow the FDA to make such decisions as halting tobacco companies’ marketing of safer tobacco products and reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes. Sullum argues that by giving the FDA the power to make such decisions, individual consumers would be disadvantaged and lives could possibly be lost instead of saved. If given control of such decisions, the FDA would not allow the introduction of safer tobacco products as they feel this will increase the number of smokers. They feel more people will begin using these products that are advertised as less harmful substances, whereas Sullum feels it would be better for people to change their habits to these “safer alternatives.” Sullum fails to consider benefits of relinquishing control to the FDA, however.
Case Study Analysis – Ban on Tobacco Advertising by the Government of India The connections held amongst the Government, the Tobacco Industry and the health of citizens has been a controversial and complicated topic for decades. This case analysis will focus on the ban on tobacco advertising in India. First, the ideas and arguments will be discussed for both the supporters and those who opposed the ban. The next topics will include the conflict of interest in regards to the government of India and my opinion on what governments should be doing in regards to tobacco advertising. Generally, the main concern supporters of the ban have with the tobacco industry and their advertising, is the adverse effect smoking has on an individual’s health.
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.
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.
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
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
Summarize the arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India Part of the ban on tobacco was based on the "need to protect public health". Cigarettes are not in the best interest of the public, on the contrary they provoke high risk in serious or lethal illness. Also, there was a difference of 0.07% between the contribution (to the G.D.P) of cigarettes and the costs related to health care. The objective of the banning tobacco advertisements was to invert these results so that the health care costs would be reduced in the G.D.P as cigarette sales would decrease at the same time. Based on a study for tobacco consumption and employment, it appears that a band in tobacco advertisements would actually increase employment opportunity
Tobacco use is a big controversy in many parts of the world and the topic of banning the advertisement of these products has been around for many years. Some countries have placed bans with success in declined of users however they are faces with pros and cons from many parties. Banning Tobacco Advertisement in India People in favor of the ban, such as the government, argue that it is for the benefit of the public’s health, since it does not restrict the trade of tobacco. Furthermore, since advertisement can be viewed by adults and children alike, the lack thereof increases the chances of younger generation being less likely to develop a habit. In the countries that have successfully implemented and maintained bans on tobacco advertisement, a
BAN ON TOBACCO ADVERTISEMENT IN INDIA In 2004 the government of India banned tobacco companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events. The objective was to discourage adolescents from consuming tobacco products as well as empower the government with the power to launch an anti tobacco program. . This issue created a serious problem in that it was both ethical and commercial, the government on one hand, believe it was its responsibility to protect the welfare of its citizen, while the tobacco industry was a major contributor to the state funds. Objectivity and fairness are the basis of ethical decision making and argument for the ban of tobacco should have been objective.
The FDA is taking steps to tighten the rules of tobacco marketing, some of these rules will include prohibiting self-service tobacco displays in stores, restricting vending-machine sales, and forbidding most free samples of tobacco products. (Reid pg. 1) These are just small hits to the big tobacco industry, but the FDA has no intention of stopping there. The question that comes to mind is, why attack the advertising campaign? Although the use of tobacco could send you to an early grave, the advertisement of tobacco does not lead to the death of anyone.