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…show more content…
"It was found that per capital consumption of cigarettes (15 years +) had dropped between 14 and 37% after the implementation of the ban." This conclusion demonstrates factual results that support the positive effect of a ban on advertising products for…show more content…
This became a very sensitive argument because of the amount of justification required for drawing a line between the freedom of choice and the law. Tobacco consumers who opposed the ban felt that “the state was effectively stepping in to tell smokers that they were incapable of deciding by themselves what was good or bad for their health and that, therefore it had to play the role of a responsible nanny". This in result began to impose that with this ban in effect, it would limit the freedom of consumers. Tobacco companies claimed that they did not encourage smoking and that they were actually informing consumers of their brand choice by improving their "informed" selection of choice. It is argued that in turn, this could potentially encourage the "uninformed" consumer to lean towards more harmful tobacco products. There is also an argument that states how tobacco consumption would not be reduced if there was ban on advertisements as the advertisements were not the root cause of smoking and that it was actually the "friends" of consumers who initiated/influenced the consumer into smoking. Lastly, Illness’s related to smoking would "reduce the states liability on old-age pensions assuming that those who fall ill would die prematurely as a result”.
Discuss the conflict of interest issue as it pertains to government in
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…show more content…
"It was found that per capital consumption of cigarettes (15 years +) had dropped between 14 and 37% after the implementation of the ban." This conclusion demonstrates factual results that support the positive effect of a ban on advertising products for…show more content…
This became a very sensitive argument because of the amount of justification required for drawing a line between the freedom of choice and the law. Tobacco consumers who opposed the ban felt that “the state was effectively stepping in to tell smokers that they were incapable of deciding by themselves what was good or bad for their health and that, therefore it had to play the role of a responsible nanny". This in result began to impose that with this ban in effect, it would limit the freedom of consumers. Tobacco companies claimed that they did not encourage smoking and that they were actually informing consumers of their brand choice by improving their "informed" selection of choice. It is argued that in turn, this could potentially encourage the "uninformed" consumer to lean towards more harmful tobacco products. There is also an argument that states how tobacco consumption would not be reduced if there was ban on advertisements as the advertisements were not the root cause of smoking and that it was actually the "friends" of consumers who initiated/influenced the consumer into smoking. Lastly, Illness’s related to smoking would "reduce the states liability on old-age pensions assuming that those who fall ill would die prematurely as a result”.
Discuss the conflict of interest issue as it pertains to government in