Ban On Tobacco Advertisements By The Government Of India

At the outset, there are numerous reasons why governments should protect their citizens from Tobacco products but the most conspicuous one being that wastage of funds that could have been used for different purposes for example, build new roads, schools or invest in healthcare itself.

     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

The non-health related arguments did the tobacco industry use to oppose the smoking restrictions were: smoking is a human right, and it is as any other human right shouldn’t be prohibited. Also tobacco industry represented stopping smoking policy as a policy shift from conciliating both smokers

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.

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.

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

Nowadays, tobacco has become the most globally used drug. In the form of cigarettes, a huge majority of adults inhale it daily. Consequently, long-term costs, for smokers as well as for the community, increase due to health care costs and lost productivity.

One of the commonly used drugs in the world is Tobacco, primarily in the form of cigarettes, with more than a billion adult smoke tobacco daily. The health care costs are high for smokers themselves, and also the society who is bearing both health care cost and lost productivity. Some believes that government plays an important role to regulate citizens from the negative effects of smoking, while others believe the decision is personal. In my opinion, government has all the rights to control tobacco use and set laws for the citizens to follow.

Studies have been done to examine the efficacy and vigorousness of these education programs. A number of these studies have determined such programs are effective in reducing tobacco use. Studies have also examined the effect of tobacco industry opposition to the federal anti-tobacco education effort. Policy has also been passed regarding promotion and advertising policy. The tobacco industry has fought back against the policies over the years and have had lobbyist trying to sway votes for these

In favor of the ban, there are multiple countries, such as France, Finland, and Norway, that have made the decision to prohibit tobacco companies from promoting their products. This ban extends to advertisements, as well as sponsorship of sporting and cultural events. While these countries have been able to keep most of these ads off their television and radio outlets, there are still a few that have been able to sneak by, through international programming. (IBS Center for Management Research, n.d.) Tobacco is currently the most dangerous consumer product out there, it is highly

In my opinion, these facts could be supported for or against the ban on tobacco. On one side, a business is clearly using

Some of the arguments which support the placing of the tobacco advertising ban in India are:

The Government of India (GOI) proposed ban on tobacco advertising was not unusual keeping in view the international precedents. Countries like France, Finland, and Norway had already imposed similar bans. An example is Belgium whose Supreme Court (of Appeal in 1981, gave its ruling that a ban on tobacco advertising was not unconstitutional. In a case which started in 1991 and ended in 1997, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, marketer of Camel cigarettes, was forced to withdraw its mascot, Joe Carmel, an animated camel, from all its advertisements, after the California Supreme Court (USA) ruled that the company could be prosecuted for exploiting minors. The accusation was that the slick, colourful advertisements (using an animated camel) appealed to the children and encouraged them to smoke.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths in 1990, the figure rising to 4.023 million in 1998.