Ban On Tobacco Advertising And The Conflict Of Interest That It Presents

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 has existed for long as we have known about history, but due to the negative effects of it to the broader community Tobacco has sparked greater controversy across the globe. Many people argue that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the individual but on the contrary some disagree and believe it’s up to the individual. This essay will elaborate above mentioned aspects and lead to a logical conclusion.

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 Products Control Act of 1989 sought to impose restrictions on the promotion of tobacco products. These restrictions concerned limitations in three commercial categories: advertisement, promotion, and labelling. Under the Act, tobacco products cannot be advertised, and products must be labeled with viable health warnings and a list of toxins. The packaging must be minimal, as to not be ostentatious to persuade Canadians from buying. Furthermore, the Act would prohibit the distribution of free samples. Appellants RJR-Macdonald Inc. dissented, stating the Act was a direct infringement upon the Charter’s s.2 freedom of expression clause, and appellant Imperial Tobacco Ltd. further dissented.

Advertisements are a vital part of any company’s marketing strategy, and are used to inform or persuade an audience about a certain product or service. In fact, North American companies are among the world’s highest advertisers (Boone et al., 2010, 502). Today, an average consumer is exposed to hundreds of advertisements every day. It is when these companies attempt to promote a dangerous product that restrictions must be, and have been put in place. For several years, Canada’s regulations on tobacco advertisements have become stricter, while

     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

Marketing options for big tobacco companies fizzled after the original Surgeon General report was published which prohibited the mass advertisement of tobacco in America. The push for smoking cessation for all in the United States has become big business. Long gone are the days of tobacco ads showing young adults enjoying themselves on beaches and at parties smoking cigarettes. Now, electronic cigarettes (E- cigs), nicotine patches and gums, and pharmaceutical cessation aids are being marketed. Tobacco companies continue to fight for the freedom to market and enlist consumers, sighting that smoking is voluntary, and the choice should be made by the consumer not the government.

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.

Tobacco companies increasingly rely on their packaging to build brand loyalty and grab consumers. Limiting the right of private corporations to advertise and differentiate their perfectly legal products from those of their competitors only serves to punish tobacco companies and their customers (Kline 1). The government wants to have cigarette packages to contain disturbing images accompanied by stark warnings covering 75% of the packaging (Kline 1). The second viewpoint is about how regulating tobacco will cause more harm, and covering cigarette packages will make tobacco companies furious, and could cause trouble and go to court. If people do not

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.

The following statistics gave a solid argument as to why the government of India was on track in banning tobacco advertisement. In 1981, the Supreme Court (of Appeal) in Belgium gave its ruling that a ban on tobacco advertising was not unconstitutional. In 1991 the French Constitutional Council declared that the French ban on advertising tobacco products was not unconstitutional as it was based on the need to protect public health and did not curtail the freedom of trade.

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

The main ethical concerns involving tobacco is well known to educated Americans; however, the ethics around the marketing aspects of tobacco, especially tobacco exposure to children, are less talked about. Some of the early marketing decisions of tobacco can be traced back to one of the most renowned and valuable cigarette brands in the world, Marlboro. Marlboro first emerged onto the tobacco scene at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They originally were a cigarette brand with a female-based target market. Marlboros were considered feminine cigarettes because they had filters, which were very unpopular for men at the time because the purpose of the filter was to protect a woman’s lipstick so that the tobacco leaves would never actually make contact with the mouth or lips. In the 1950s a scientific study came out that linked smoking to lung cancer, and that is where the ethical problems begin with tobacco companies. The ethical health concerns of ciggerrets were not the only issue. Marketing right after the release of detrimental research, companies like Marlboro became manipulative and misleading with their advertising. Advertising that also was used to target children and establish lifetime customers. Now, in the twenty-first century, the E-cigarettes and other new technology products have creates new aspects to the ethical dilemmas involving cigarettes. The ethical dilemma of smoking, health concerns, children, and technology, will all be assessed to establish the

The First Amendment is a constitutional doctrine which allows individuals to exercise certain freedoms such speech, the press, or the right of the people to peacefully assemble. However, what the First Amendment does not carefully articulate is how “free” one’s freedom really is, or how such freedoms should be practiced. Advertising is a subject many often overlook when considering the freedoms that The First Amendment protects. However, it is a subject certainly not overlooked when regarding the question of cigarette advertising. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal and state regulators have targeted tobacco manufacturers for decades. Many claims have accused

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.