Ban Tobacco Advertising Is The Right Move

There are several ways through which government can control the usage of Tobacco. One of them is that government can impose huge tax on tobacco products by which people will move out of tobacco. It can also be argued that government should ensure smoking should not be high-hand in advertisements

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

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.

They further claimed that adults smoke out of their own will, they are solely responsible for risk of tobacco, which is obvious to them. By banning it refers to limiting the right of freedom. Its banning refers to only limitation of the knowledge of specific brands, not tobacco. If it was referred to only one’s health then the whole tobacco consumption should be banned. They insisted that advertisements only assist adults about the right choice or brands; it plays no role in profit of company. They further claimed that advertisement of tobacco is only for those who had already smoked their cigarette, not for encouraging who do not smoke. Their target is not youth, nor

The points made for banning the advertising of tobacco ads were that other countries had also already enacted similar legislation. The reason given in justifying the legislation was that they had

Smoking is bad as everyone knows. In order to stop this habit, governments are working on different solutions. Still there is a conflict of interest that makes a ban on advertising of tobacco a complex issue as I explain below.

Smoking is a dangerous and expensive habit that comes with no benefit. Cigarettes are known for being one of the leading causes of preventable deaths worldwide. With very little success, many efforts have been made to put an end to smoking cigarettes, such as tax raises, restrictions on where smokers can smoke, and graphic advertising on the cigarette packet themselves. The harmful effects of cigarettes are endless, such as heart disease and various types of cancer. Cigarettes are also polluting the earths waters, land, and even wildlife. All in all, cigarettes should be banned because banning cigarettes would help save the environment, bring huge health benefits, and ultimately, put an end to preventable deaths.

Even though this is a topic that is constantly brought up. It is also a topic that stands out to myself greatly. Being raised in a family of smokers, I first-hand know the negatives of smoking and the tragedies that it can bring. Not only does it affect the user. It truly effects those around him or her. I cannot stress this enough. At the age of six, I had lost my grandfather to lung cancer. Even though I was at such a young age, I still vividly remember the pain that my grandfather was experiencing while he was in the hospital. Every time I heard him cough, my heart would sink. From hearing his cough, one would be able to tell that his lungs were poor and were badly damaged. My grandfather would have to muster all of his strength in order to let out one wheezing cough. He was a smoker for over

Often times the ethical values of a manager, business, or even nation are ignored when they place financial profits at risk.  Many nations have had to face these moral conflicts when dealing with substances, such as alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.  India is no different and like many developing and developed states, they were faced with the dilemma of the health risks related to tobacco use.  One of the ways to combat a product’s popularity is to limit the exposure of peoples to it by blocking their ability to advertise.  As with most ideas there are proponents and opponents.

The arguments in favor of placing a ban on the advertising of tobacco products not only include the scientifically proven negative health impacts, but also show concern for the usage of tobacco in teenagers and young adults. Critics of big tobacco claim that tobacco companies tailor their ads in a manner that targets young people in order to maintain client base. There is also the issue of the government’s ethical responsibilities and its role as an enabler

Supporters of the bill were clear that ethically the Indian Government was in their rights to propose the ban for the overall well-fare of their citizens. Supporters utilized the UK Department of Health 's 1992 study regarding the successful ban of tobacco advertising within Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand, and determined that there was a significant reduction in the use of tobacco products. The supporters also utilized a 1997 study regarding the ban of tobacco ads completed by the International Union against Cancer. It had found similar results as the UK study, showing data that these bans, when properly implemented, had a drop in consumption

The Government of India 's ban of cigarette advertisement at sporting events had many in support and many in opposition. The

The impact of cigarette advertising on consumers was another contentious issue. A World Bank report published the details of a comprehensive study of over 100 countries, comparing the consumption trends over time in those countries where relatively complete bans on advertising and promotion were and where were no such bans. In the countries with nearly complete bans, the downward trend in consumption was much steeper. In 1992, the Department of Health (DOH), UK reviewed various forms of evidence to assess whether tobacco advertising affected the aggregate demand for tobacco products. Four countries (Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand) were chosen, as these countries had already imposed

One the main arguments for this proposed ban was that the tobacco industry was targeting children. In fact citing an internal documents from the tobacco industry that referred to 14 to 24 year olds as their targets (Reynold, 2010). Recognizing this report for India was extremely important. Due to the increased health problems of smoking by targeting a younger age bracket they would effectively increase the weight the government had to carry when it comes to providing health care for its citizens. The government also had in its favor the fact that in all but one case smoking use by young people had decreased when these bans where put in effect. The government’s argument for banning tobacco ads can be summed up pretty simply. They were trying to watching out for the safety of their citizens and were working toward the betterment of India. The government had the advantage of being able to take the moral high road and being able to paint the tobacco industry as the “devil”.