By banning public smoking we are removing their freedoms so to speak. The point isn’t to remove freedoms from anyone, but to avoid imposing our choices, such as how we handle our health, on others. Smoking is a serious health risk for smokers and non-smokers alike. While it is unrealistic for smoking to be completely banned anytime soon, I don’t think banning smoking in public is out of our reach. 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?
An individual addicted to smoking thus cannot be considered rational because the addiction overrides rationality, and in that capacity the government has right to intervene. Some might argue that it is possible for an ... ... middle of paper ... ...rom cigarette taxes and will not have as large a budget to subsidise health care as before the bill. In this situation it is unethical to adopt utilitarianism, because those families who suffer may not be able to climb out of their economic situation. Ultimately the government is not justified in raising cigarette taxes. Smoking does impair autonomy through addiction, but to raise taxes on cigarettes is to bring about a greater detriment to society by encouraging illegal and costly sourcing of cigarettes by poorer families, large-scale spending on supporting programs and repairing the already unstable economy.
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.
He believes smokers could be doing something healthier for themselves if the FDA promoted smokeless tobacco. However, the FDA believes advertising smokeless tobacco as a less harmful substitute for cigarette smoking misleads people and encourage... ... middle of paper ... ...rth thinking about, it is in the best interest of the “population as a whole” that the Food and Drug Administration be given the rights to control the image that tobacco receives and exploit its negative aspects. Works Cited 1Up Health. Tobacco Use - Smoking and Smokeless Tobacco. 2003.
Since tobacco users are aware of what they are consuming, they assume the risks involved and therefore should be allowed to choose for themselves and the government banning advertisement acts a controlling parental figure. Furthermore, tobacco companies faced potential loss in revenue since essentially their advertisement campaigns served as a way to make their product stand out against other companies and remain relevant in the industry. In other words, consumer who are used to a particular brand are likely to continue purchasing from that brand if advertising is present. Manufactures argue that the purpose of advertising has not been to target new or younger audiences but rather to distinguish their particular brand amongst consumers. Studies have been performed where consumers have been asked what has influenced their habit, surprisingly non stated advertisement.
To summarize, supporters of cigarettes smoking believe that smoking ban is an abuse of human rights of smokers. However, cigarette smoking should be banned because it causes serious health problems. Initially, cigarette smoking increases the risk of developing health problems, especially ca... ... middle of paper ... ...d, the number of smokers is increasing rather than decreasing. To prevent increase in number of smokers, the government should realize the smokers the danger of smoking through the advertisements and news. And, if they still do not try to stop smoking, the government should take some actions to reduce the number of smokers because smoking causes many serious health problems.
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.
Hence, while e-cigarettes have the potential to help smokers manage their addiction, there is a need for a strong regulatory framework to control the possible concerns. The proposed actions could be implemented to eliminate the pressing concern that accompanies the usage of e-cigarettes. That being said, before the confirmation by the FDA that e-cigarettes are safe, regulating agencies should totally restrict the sales of e-cigarettes. The sales of e-cigarettes should also only be permitted if manufacturers are able to prove that they are not only safe, but also capable in helping smokers quit.
People have a right to protect themselves from smoke inhalation. People shouldn’t have to inhale the ill-effects of other people’s smoking. The creation of smoke-free public places also improves air quality. Those opposing a smoking ban say that freedom of choice would be affected by such legislation. Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business.
Smokers fail to see that by banning smoking it could be very beneficial to them also. When thinking about banning smoking from the public smokers should think about all the lives they could help save. Smoking should be banned from the public because smoking leads to cancer, puts the U.S citizens lives at risk that choose not to smoke, and it could also endanger a pregnant women’s health.