Ban All Advertising From The Tobacco Industry

Tobacco companies should be prevented from using advertising tactics that target teenagers. There has always been controversy as to how tobacco companies should prevent using advertising tactics to target teenagers. As controversial as this is tobacco companies shouldn’t advertise teen smoking. Many teens may be lured to believe cigarette advertising because it has been part of the American Culture for years, magazine ads and the media target young people, and these companies receive a drastic increase financially; however, the advertising by these cigarette companies has disadvantages such as having to campaign against their own company, limiting their cigarette advertising and becoming a controversial dilemma as to encouraging teenagers

Tobacco is the number one cause of preventable death in the United States. According to the American Lung Association in 2009, 20.6% of adults were current smokers. In 1970, the United States banned television and radio advertisements of cigarettes. Across the world countries battle similar issues in how to help prevent deaths, lower healthcare costs, and educate the population. Countries have banned advertising, posted health causes, renamed brands, and even included informational fliers in packs of cigarettes. In 2001, The Government of India decided to ban the advertising of cigarettes. This ban was created to help the youth of India and hoped to reduce the amount of future smokers. The proposal of this restriction caused debates between the government, advertising companies, and tobacco manufacturers. The supporting and dismantling arguments for these ethical and commercial causes of the ban have enabled the government to make their final decision.

     Should tobacco advertising be restricted? This is a very controversial issue. There is the idea that young children that smoke started smoking because of advertisements, but there is also the idea that children start smoking for other reasons. Many big, well-known tobacco companies like RJ Reynolds are being sued for their advertisements. On Monday April 20th, 1998 the jury heard a testimony from Lynn Beasly, the marketing vice president of the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. The courts believed that the advertisement was directed towards children under the age of 18, due to a document from the RJ Reynolds Board of Directors showing that they set a goal to increase the company's market share among 14

Cigarette advertising has changed throughout history from how it has been advertised, what is being advertised, and who the intended audience is. In the 60’s seeing a cigarette advertisement in the Sunday paper would just be like any other advertisement, but recent generations would be appalled to see such a gruesome product being publicized. The annual deaths from smoking cigarettes are increasing each year and doctors and scientist are teaming together to try and help prevent more. Realizing that advertising may be playing a role the controversy over cigarette advertising has lead to the censoring of harmful products in other public advertising which still has a lasting effect today.

Tobacco ads have been barred from television for over twenty years. Young children don’t need the influence to smoke or dip, considering they’ll have enough peer pressure to do so later in life. By essentially censoring television ads, the government decreases the advertising power of tobacco companies. However, there are simply some things that should not be censored. When censored, any sort of art loses its meaning. When the government tries to censor art, such as music, paintings, digital art, movies, or TV shows, people can no longer truly express their feelings or convey the message they were attempting to portray.

The prohibition of tobacco has been trending in foreign nations such as Finland, Norway and France. To conduct similar constraints is the intention of the government of India. Endangerment and possible victims of hazards are the concerns of those who are in favor of banning tobacco as well as other precarious commodities such as handguns and narcotics in India. Millions of deaths around the world have been the aftereffect of tobacco and cigarette smoking since the 90’s. Predictions of an increase of death toll would occur in the latter years to come. Utilization of tobacco among the youth is the product of propagandas’ enticements. Consequently, an increase in medical expenses such as hospital bills and health care expenditures would become the repercussion of such consumption. Additionally, even supposing that the occupation of 26 million people is the liability of tobacco industries, a boycott of tobacco and job turnovers would not create an adverse impact on the economy of India. Investments in other stocks would enhance the Indian economy. Finally, a decline of tobacco consumption would become fruitful if there is a proper implementation of banning tobacco endorsements.

Ethical Considerations: On the one hand, was tobacco, the most dangerous consumer product known, which killed when used as the makers ' intended. Just like most dangerous substances like cocaine were banned so from the ethical point of view it was not alien for the government of India to ban tobacco. Therefore from an ethical standpoint, the Government had to discourage the habit, as it was responsible for the welfare of its citizens.

In conclusion, the tobacco industry is very harmful to society’s health. Cigarettes are the only legal consumer products in the world that cause half of their long-term users to die prematurely. Putting a ban on advertisement was just a start to not advertise so the tobacco industry would not solicit children, but the tobacco industry has come up with different strategies to solicit adolescents even more. If a law was passed to ban tobacco completely, citizens of the United States would not have to worry about second hand smoke, reduces the chance of cancer, and health

Most kids will experience a tobacco product before walking across the graduation stage from their local high school. With stricter regulations we can eradicate the false hope of fitting in with society through the commercials that project groups of friends whom consume the product and pretend their life is excelling due to the usage of a product. False advertisement should be against the law, so, our youth will not be subjected to distorted information. Our country shouldn’t allow corporations to exaggerate about their products behind the colorful tempting packages. If we were given the right information then, we would be compelled to develop a personal opinion based on the product. Finally, allowing us to process the information these corporations give us and letting

I believe that tobacco companies should be strictly prohibited from advertising publicly using the media and magazines, because in my opinion it is unethical to sell something that marketers clearly are aware that tobacco gives many diseases and is deadly. According to the article, “Smoking & Tobacco Use,” “Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United States each year.” Many smokers every year die from diseases related to lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases. With that being said, it is clear that tobacco companies don’t necessarily think of the ethical perspective, and only focus on the investment profit. The majority of investors only worry about making profits and suiting their needs, rather

The issue of how tobacco companies try to influence teenagers into adulthood to consume tobacco was further highlighted in a legal case in the US that resulted in a ban on certain adverts that were said to attract the young into smoking Camel cigarettes.

On Feb 6, 2001 Government of India (GOI) dropped a bombshell on the tobacco Industry when it announced that it would shortly table a bill banning Tobacco Companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events. The objective of such a ban was to discourage adolescents from consuming tobacco products and also arm the Government with powers to launch an anti-Tobacco Program.

The arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco related advertising in India are plentiful. First, proponents of the ban assert that the state has the right to intervene in the name of public health. Second, there are other precedents for dangerous or potentially dangerous products’ advertising being restricted such as firearms or pharmaceuticals. Third, tobacco related deaths are projected to increase over the next few years and we need to take action to stem the flow of new users. Fourth, youth targeted advertising campaigns are wrong and the tobacco industry’s own released documents indicate that the 14-24 year old demographic is targeted as “tomorrow’s cigarette business”, these campaigns need to stop to reduce the number of young people getting addicted to cigarettes. Fifth, policies aimed at reducing tobacco use are forecast to increase employment despite the tobacco industry itself contracting due to the fact that the money spent on tobacco products does not leave the economy if not spent on those products but actually is used on more complex products. Finally, complete bans on tobacco marketing result in reduced use of tobacco products over time according to studies in Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France, but the ban needs to cover all media outlets.

I agree with the Indian government’s action to ban on smoking. If the ban was implemented properly or not is an important question. As a government working for its citizens, they are obligated to ban tobacco advertising. If

this analytical essay, the arguments of the proponents that are both in favor and opposed to the ban will be summarized, while discussing the conflict of interest that exists among the government and the tobacco companies. Lastly, final thoughts and opinions will be provided of why the Government of India 's decision to ban tobacco advertising was the right move. This will be done in light of the case study found at icmrindia.org titled "Ban on tobacco Ads by the Government of India”.