Ban On Tobacco Add By Indian Government Case Analysis

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

The Government of India has created an anti-tobacco plan to tackle the growing issues of tobacco, health concerns, and rising death toll. Their first goal was to eliminate advertising as this was perceived to encourage the youth to take up the dangerous habit. This ban posed ethical and commercial challenges for both sides of the argument. The government has the power to pass laws to help prevent people from smoking and protect its people. They found the ethical decision was to use this power by creating and

The Tobacco manufacturing and sales industry is highly regulated due to high taxes and health problems smoking would cause. These regulations and laws limited the marketing capabilities of Tobacco manufacturing companies as a whole. But almost all of them handled these delicate situations in one way or another. Reynolds American Inc. states on the company’s website that they market responsibly through three main guidelines: Standards and Safeguards, absolutely certifiable and responsible advertising and promotion. The company explains these points by stating that, they do not market to consumers without confirming their ages to be above 21, training their employees on how to approach only existing tobacco consumers and not to encourage consumers who do not consume tobacco products to engage in its consumption. Also, the company mentions straightforward and transparent approach to marketing their products, for example “Cigarette smoking is harmful to your health. No additives in our tobacco do NOT mean a safer

Although cigarette advertisements were banned from broadcast media, including television and radio in 1971, the tobacco industry still continues to produce ads through other means but under strict restrictions. Cigarette advertising is allowed in business establishments or magazine publications that are strictly for adults over 21 years of age. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced many restrictions in 2010 on the way that tobacco can be advertised. For instance, tobacco companies can no longer sponsor sporting/entertainment events and cannot sell cigarettes in packs fewer than 20, which eliminates the “kiddie packs.” In addition, a regulation for billboard advertising is up for discussion and is being processed (Food and Drug Administration, 2014). However, the laws and strict regulations that have been passed are in conflict with the best interest of the cigarette companies.

A controversy over tobacco has been the main interest of the Indian Government and Tobacco Industries. The value of profit and ethical concerns are the primary factors underlying the debate between two opposing parties.

If the youths are the future leaders, then it directly shows that if we lose these people in the near future we shall have men and women who are irresponsible in the society and unproductive, therefore there is no future if the current trend is to persist (Pierce, 1986). Even though smoking poses these deadly effects to human life, tobacco industries have maintained their business globally. As such various organizations and institutions example human rights organizations, medical researchers and religious groups have joined hands to condemn the tobacco industries and oppose the kind of business they specialize in (Dwyer, 1986). Due to this pressures tobacco industries have been forced to re-evaluate their business and change tactics in order to counter the prevailing opposition so that they can still continue with their business. Their response has been to form ant-smoking campaigns which purpose to reduce the rate of smoking (Woo, 1985).

To protect the society the anti smoking law goes further and strongly restricts tobacco advertising moreover link to wellness and health image the cigarette, also provides that 100 % of back of the packaging is occupied by health warning, including real images of the effects of cigarette in human

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.

The discussion of advertising tobacco products is a controversial topic, there are relevant points on both sides of the argument, so it is hard to determine a true ethical decision. India’s government announced the bill banning tobacco companies from advertising their products in February 2001, their goal is to prevent adolescents from taking up smoking or any other form of tobacco products. Initiating this bill is the government answer to an ethical challenge, they are protecting the health of the entire country, rather than the financial future of one industry. (Bauer, 2016) Immediately, there was an uproar that sparked this intense debate, arguments between health concerns versus constitutional rights. In this paper I would like to discuss the pros and cons of banning the advertisement of tobacco products and the conflict of interest that it presents.

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.

In 2001, there was an argument by the government of India trying to decide whether or not it was a good idea to ban all advertising from the tobacco industry. The government’s main goal was to find a way to reduce the number of teenagers using tobacco. The government believed that these advertisements encouraged teens to start smoking or to continue smoking if they were doing it already. As expected, this situation created a lot of tension between the government and the tobacco industry. This created two sides: those in favor of the ban, and those against it.

A global hot topic that has been on debate for decades and does not appear to go silently into the night is the influence of tobacco advertising and its influence on the populous. Recently to join the discourse was the government of India versus the tobacco conglomerates. The Indian government hopes to follow suit of many other nations including: France, Finland, Norway, Canada and New Zealand who already imposed bans on cigarette advertising with successful results. The tobacco industry, however, holds their position that by placing a ban on advertising is controlling the opinion of the masses not allowing them to make their own decision of right and wrong. The government has the difficult task of weighing out the ethical issues of what causes more harm in the future, to allow tobacco advertisers to continue with business as usual or to out a halt on their advertising all together.

Apart from the financial benefits that come from the tobacco, it also has its positive consequences. For instance, ruling out the tobacco industry may be unethical especially if the product emerges to be the cure for the obesity because nicotine can clear fat residues from an individual's system (Mujtaba, 2013). Not only that but also the act of closing down tobacco production may shut down the farmer's industry hence affecting their lives. Moreover, allowing the tobacco industry will emphasize on the freedom, liberty and also enhance the right to choose by consumers. Meaning, a government that is paternalistic should never interfere with its consumers who are also adult's choices-whether bad or good. Ideally, a consumer does not

On February 6, 2001 Government of India released shock news on the tobacco Industry when it announced that it would soon table a bill banning Tobacco Companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events. The reason for doing this is to discourage the company’s adolescents from overwhelming tobacco products and also arm the Government with powers to launch an anti-Tobacco Program.

Tobacco advertising refers to promotion display of tobacco products in media such as; radio, television, print, billboards and at retail stores. The ban on tobacco advertising by the Indian Government has many effects on the people as well as their ethics and freedom of choice. This paper will provide a summary argument in favour of the ban as well as opposing the ban. And to conclude with my opinions on what the government should do with tobacco advertising.