Ban On Tobacco Advertisements By The Government Of India

Tobacco companies advertise in magazines, promote their products in convenience stores and market their brands through websites and social networks. Many of these tobacco industries get publicity and attract more young customers when using the newly in media to promote their products. Many of these tobacco companies don’t understand that tobacco advertising is a huge public health issue that increases smoking. Tobacco company advertising and promoting is the start of the use of tobacco among teenagers. Now, these media and magazine advertisements about cigars have caused teenagers to be exposed to cigarette advertising. Not only that but also these teenagers find ads appealing and also increase their desire to smoke. Cigarette companies spent about $8.37 billion on advertising and promotional expenses in the United States in 2011.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

This essay is a case study analysis that uses the case Ban on Tobacco Ads and talks about the conflict of interests between tobacco producers and the Government of India.

First, when it comes to the arguments in favor to ban tobacco advertising in India, from an international point of view, “countries like France, Finland, and Norway had already imposed similar bans.” As an obsticle, some advocates of the “free choice” opposed to the banning but other supporters voiced out that these states should have the right to protect their

personal aspect, as for the ban on tobacco ads being shown in the country by the Indian Government 02/06/2001. Not only for health purposes such as lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, stroke, asthma, reproductive affects in women, diabetes, premature, low birth weight in babies, blindness, cataracts, or age related macular degeneration. With India being a nation with war, as well as lots of heat as they are in the middle of the Sahara desert, many people are subject to having breathing issues without smoking. The reasoning was to block adolescents from purchasing tobacco products, where here in the United States there actually is a sting operation in many cities that police officers pay someone to attempt to purchase tobacco products in order to ensure that businesses are not selling to minors. Minors are not the only reason any country should ban the ads, as I remember as a little girl, the commercial was “ like father, like son” and it showed everything the father did the son would do, and at the end of the day and they would go sit under a tree, the father would then light up a cigarette and then the son would look at the pack and then look up to the father and the words “ like father, like son would be said and the brand was Marlboro, this was 1968 if my memory serves me correctly.

The government of India serves the people. When a product is produced that affects the health of the people the government is justified to take action. With Tobacco products India banned the advertising and sponsorship of sport and cultural events (IBS Center for Management Research (ICMR), 2001). Those in favor of the ban cite the French who stated that Tobacco advertising ban was to protect public health. They also, state the World Health Organization’s (WHO) death toll numbers. These numbers show that tobacco products are one of the leading causes of death in the world are continuing to grow. People who are in favor of the banning of advertising for tobacco products use a World Bank report that shows a substantial decline in smoking when ban of advertising in enacted for all forms of media. Finally, the fear of children becoming addicted to smoking has helped to support the justification to ban advertising on tobacco products. With these reasons we can understand and support a governments action to ban advertising on tobacco products.

This problem of creating a trendy stylish image of cigarettes are hurting many people by recruiting new young smokers from all around the world, winning over sales due to the false image and then addiction. Third world countries are hurt the most by this unethical way of advertising because they don’t have money for this extra expense that they now need due to addiction. Critics claim that sophisticated promotions in a unsophisticated societies entice people who cannot afford the necessities of life to spend money on luxury- and a dangerous one at that. Every cigarette manufacturer is in the image business, and tobacco companies say their promotional slant is both reasonable and common. They point out that in the Third World a lot of people cannot understand what is written in the ads anyway, so the ads zero in on the more understandable visual image. Due to actions such as this and the negative effect it has on people economically and physically, this is a good example of how the tobacco industry is unethical.

India wasn 't the first country to implement the ban on tobacco advertisements, other countries such as France, Belgium, Finland, and Norway had already banned tobacco advertisements from their countries. The French Constitutional Council said that their reason to implement the tobacco-advertising ban was in order to protect the public health of their people. By implementing such a ban, the Indian government might also be loosing money therefore the ban was meant to shelter their people from such a harmful and addictive drug. Indian Government banned not only the rights to advertise tobacco products but also the use of tobacco in public places. If young adults are less exposed to such a powerful drug they will be less likely to get tempted to try it themselves. “A 2003 World Health Organization report estimated that India is home to approximately 250 million

When the Government of India dropped the news on the ban on the tobacco Industry, the objective

On February 26th, 2001 the Indian government announced they were going to enforce a ban regarding advertising their products in their country. The problem was that tobacco companies in India promote their products through every conceivable medium, including radio, television, newspapers, magazines, billboards and the internet. The government realized that most of these tobacco companies were adapting creative new ways to publicize their brands to young people.

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