A case study analysis on the ban of Tobacco Ads by the Government of India
In 2001, the government of India threatened to table a bill to ban Tobacco products advertisements.
This decision by the government blew up a lot of debate as concerns achievability and moral standing of government in this policing. It has advantages and disadvantages and arguments in favour and not in favour of it. The intent of this paper is to:
Summarize the arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India
Summarize the arguments in opposition of the ban on tobacco advertising in India
Discuss the conflict of interest issue as it pertains to government in India
Give your opinion on what governments should do in regards to tobacco advertising
The supporters of the ban put forward these arguments:
Cited examples of countries like Norway, France and New Zealand which imposed a similar ban indicating that India too could go ahead and impose it.
The right of the government to “intervene in overall interest of the citizens”; gave an example of drug ban on cocaine world over.
Analysts results on GDP contribution of only 0.14% and health costs being greater at 0.21% of the country’s GDP. A rise in government health expenditure due to damage on people’s health.
The ban instead of leading to unemployment would increase jobs which was argued that with a reduction in smoking money spent on smokers’ health would be used on goods and services which were more labour intensive.
smoking has serious health risks and can cause death
These advertisements can induce children and adolescents to take up smoking.
Non supporters of the ban put forward the following arguments
“If it were legal to manufacture and se...
... middle of paper ...
...nt revenue whereby it is said to have contributed about 8000 rupees crores in exercise revenue in two years that is to say 2000 to 2001. Also what should be put at the expense of the other, is it the rights of smokers or the health of citizens, and is its going against the free trade legislation for economic wellbeing the right decision? These domestic tobacco companies
(players) would lose revenue as well leading to less profit.
In my opinion, Governments should weigh the strength of both sides of the argument and objectively do what is ultimately right, above anything health is paramount. In the case of India my opinion would be for the government to go ahead with the ban on tobacco advertisements. Why?
A free choice to smoke by active smokers comes with a graver cost on the non- smokers which can’t be under looked for financial benefit and employment.
My grandmother grew up in Americus, GA, a rural town over 100 miles south of Atlanta. Her parents were of Cherokee descent, so I asked her about any herbal remedies passed down to her. She told me of several, but the one that she remembered with the most clarity was rabbit tobacco.
(Common Sense) Then read what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence which states “These rights include the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government.” (Declaration of Independence) In both of these it states that they were doing what was in the best interest for the people.
... people have an absolute right to voice their opinions and protest as long as it is done without trampling upon the legal rights of others. However, when any one, or group, attempts to violate the legal rights of others the government not only has the duty but has the Constitutional responsibility to intervene
During the time period 1450 to 1750, the world went through major change and development. Nomadic power declined, and European Kingdoms became world powers. A world trade network was set up as contact amongst nations increased immensely. A population boom occurred throughout the world. Many civilizations that were once isolated were brought into the world economy. The Americas unknown until Christopher Columbus’ voyage in 1492 became a major part of the world economy as many European nations colonized much of the land. Large sea trade arose during this time period first by the Portuguese and Spanish and later by the English, French and Dutch. As European countries began exploring the Americas, an exchange of crops, animals, raw materials, diseases and new ideas were exchanged between the Americas and the rest of the world. This is known as the Columbian Exchange. One major component of the Columbian Exchange was the discovery of tobacco. Tobacco was first discovered in the Americas and became as cash crop. It was imported back to Europe, where it became vastly popular. As many middle class Europeans people began smoking, the demand for more tobacco from the Americas increased; colonies were set up to produce tobacco. With the demand for tobacco so high, labor was needed to farm the crop causing slaves to be imported.
Before a policy can be thought upon, proper analysis of the current scenario needs to be done. For
Smoking cigarettes is a detrimental practice not only to the smoker, but also to everyone around the smoker. According to an article from the American Lung Association, “Health Effects” (n.d.), “Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., causing over 438,000 deaths per year”. The umbrella term for tobacco use includes the use of cigarettes, cigars, e-cigs and chewing tobacco. While tobacco causes adverse health consequences, it also has been a unifying factor for change in public health. While the tobacco industries targets specific populations, public health specifically targets smokers, possible smokers, and the public to influence cessation, policies and education.
Would you want to live in a country that dictated what you put in your body, and what you do in your own home? Since the 1980’s federal, state, and local governments, have passed numerous laws, which have had a direct impact on the sale of tobacco products. Increased tax rates, and advertisements restrictions, successfully manipulated the amount of product consumers buy. Unfortunately, through the help of public health polices, smoking has already been banned in most public places, airlines, and business, and now, arguments have been made to ban smoking completely from the United States (cdc).
The life of a person is their own will. It is a private matter and nobody except that person has any right to decide whether it should be allowed or not! You ca...
Police force has always been an indispensible appendage of the state organization in almost all the civil societies of the world. Of late the duties of
Limiting smoking in public areas is necessary to prevent exposing others to smoke, however it is not worth restricting the freedom of people who want to smoke. Those that smoke should be free to enjoy the same rights as the rest of the human beings around them. Opponents of this topic would say it is difficult to avoid being exposed to smokers that are in doorways or in a main public area. They are under the impression that even if smokers smoke in a designated area that it still affects them and causes them harm. Their opinion is that it is unfair to expose anyone to this danger and should be banned no matter if it violates the smoker’s freedom to choose.
Should tobacco and alcohol advertising be allowed on television? The ban on advertising tobacco is already in affect, however, alcohol is another harmful substance. Should liquor be allowed to be advertised, if tobacco can not advertise their product? The ban on advertising tobacco products on television and radio, was passed through legislation in 1970 by Richard Nixon. This argument like others out there has two sides, one side in favor these advertisements and the other against these advertisements. Since both of these substances are highly addictive and costly. Would we like to see these advertisements continued? Are these advertisements the hazard they are communicated to be? Through the research of these two important sides, this essay will explore which side has a stronger stance on the topic.
The smoker creates arbetens occasions for them multinational tobacco companies and pharmaceutical companies. They are the only argument to suggest that smoking is good (it creates jobs ) .
Thousands of people are dying each year because of cigarette smoking; therefore, it is important to learn to avoid smoking at all costs. Everyone is aware that smoking is detrimental to our health because all cigarette packets are labeled with the warning; hence, it is vital to avoid cigarette smoking. We must support the no smoking campaign by educating mostly the youth on the effects of smoking and why it is important for them to never learn or start smoking (Williams, 2000). In addition, those already smoking or addicted to smoking should be warned about the damages of smoking on their health and given a reason to quit. Moreover, there should be a ban of tobacco smoking advertisements and promotions in order to lessen its popularity and this will reduce its
Tobacco is made from dried up tobacco leaves prepared with chemicals to create products such as: chewing tobacco, dip, and loose tobacco to be smoked on cigarettes and pipes. There is a demand for tobacco and if companies were to stop making tobacco, then another company will sell it due to supply and demand. Even though people do choose to buy tobacco products on their own free will. Tobacco companies are partly to blame for smoking related illnesses and deaths since they knowingly create a product that is harmful, in addition, they try to appeal to a younger audience, and lastly, tobacco products are highly addictive.
Most controversial debate is going on public smoking ban. The reason is simple, smoking ban affects directly all people rapidly and we can see its effects in a short-term period. There have been a lot of arguments brought up both in favour and against a public smoking ban. Some of the arguments in favour are the following. Smoking ban is one of the controversial ways for reducing smoking and recognizing non-smokers’ right to health protection. The health risks of smoking are clear. Passive smoking does carry risks. Many leading medical and scientific organizations recognize second hand smoke as a cause of a range of life-threatening conditions. The health situation could be drastically improved if one of the risk factors - tobacco - was eliminated. 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.