Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business. A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places, and the ban is a limitation for smokers’ rights. Businesses, smokers, publicans, tobacco industries, stars, and some of the non-smokers oppose public smoking ban. Smokers light a cigarette because they need to smoke, not because they want it, because nicotine is physically addictive.
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
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.
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.
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.
In this case analysis, I will explain the positions of those who supported the tobacco advertising ban, those who opposed it, and discuss the conflict of interests among the Indian government that interfered with the passing of the legislation. In 2001, Indian legislators, with the best of intentions, cited many reasons why a ban on tobacco advertising would be in the best interest of the people they govern. Legislators felt a moral responsibility to their people, and therefore the health and well-being of their people was paramount to tobacco company revenue. When people are healthy, they are more likely to live longer, work longer, and be more productive. Because of this, they will be able to contribute more money into the state 's coffers.
Marijuana would also change the lives of patient’s battling chronic disease... ... middle of paper ... ...esting, people with disabilities and other elements to get relief, and local economies to benefit from the sale of the drug. It has all around good uses and could potentially lead researchers to a cure for cancer. The only thing that stands in the way are those who believe that it is dangerous. These people impose legislation that prohibits the sale and use of the substance in all states. Recently, Washington and Colorado passed bills that allow the sale and use of marijuana and both have benefited greatly from it.
Almost everyone knows that smoking causes cancer, emphysema, and heart disease and a slew of other medical threats. People are now aware that the smoke emitted into the air, which may be inhaled by non-smokers, is even more hazardous to one’s health. Yet people continue to engage in the practice. Some may argue that its use should be prohibited from public spaces for health, social and ethical reasons; while others believe that the freedom to “light it up” is a right is as smoking if it is a choice made by an individual. Serious reflection, inference, research and past experiences have lead me to agree with the former.
How can countries expect the United States to help others, when it obviously cannot help itself? As you finish reading this, I urge you to think of any positive outcome with leaving the laws as they are now that outweigh the negatives which have been brought forth to you. We live in a society which frowns upon the use of drugs. We would never award people for selling marijuana to teenagers, yet we allow companies to directly target adolescent teens in their propaganda. Tobacco is a silent killer in the United States and it needs to be heard!
Advertising i... ... middle of paper ... ...cohol is not hypocritical. Yes there is drunk driving, alcoholism and liver cancer but comparing the immediate health affects of cigarettes to alcohol, the dangers of tobacco use is much higher. I understand the consumer point of view and if I was an uneducated smoker I would want to continue smoking. If there is more global awareness about the risks of cancer and and other diseases that could be preventable from not smoking than more people would continue to quit. Tobacco companies could start making profit off of nicotene gum and more products that will help people quit to stay out of bankrupcy while helping the population quit cigarettes.