Ban Tobacco Advertising Is The Right Move

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.

The statistics show everything needed for financial and personal benefits from the ban of cigarettes, “Tobacco taxes are a proven strategy to reduce smoking, particularly among teenagers and low-income people. Given the high health costs of tobacco use, reducing smoking rates would lead to substantial health gains,” (Marr 1). By raising higher taxes on cigarettes, it raises revenue, lowers the amount of people buying them while lowering the health care taxes for those who need medical care as an effect of smoking. There are clear financial and health positive changes that could be made by banning the market of cigarette sales. Hundreds of years have gone by and thousands of people are suffering an addiction that can be easily controlled, just beginning with taxes on cigarettes, “ Extensive research shows that tobacco taxes reduce smoking and extend lives,” (Marr 1). Since smoking begins at a young age, with the taxes, that will hopefully lead up to a complete ban, will make young adults unable to sustain the lifestyle to buy cigarettes. The taxes will make it difficult for adults with low incomes to spend money on something that is unhealthy for them anyways. There is the point that the taxes would take a greater amount on lower income households but that may not be the case, “They point out that low-income people have higher smoking rates: 29 percent of poor adults smoke, compared to 18 percent of non-poor adults. Also, expenditures for cigarettes account for a greater share of lower-income households’ budgets,” (Marr 1). If tobacco only harmed the smokers the taxes might not have the amount of impact it is striving for, but is used to reduce tobacco use. It may also be used to raise revenue for our country which is an added bonus. To smokers and non-smokers, it brings on numerous health risks and higher

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

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.

The Government of India sought to create a mechanism to ban Ads on Tobacco usage. In doing so, it raised ethical concerns and arguments from two different sides, those in favor of and against it. For instance, Suhel Seth, CEO of Equus Advertisement, made a strong differing statement such as “The ban does not have teeth. It is typical Knee-jerk reaction by any Government to create some kind of popularity for itself.” Mr. Seth thought the Government was not serious enough to endorse Tobacco Ads prohibition, but instead that the Government was using it to gain acceptance. On the other hand, companies such as ITC Ltd voluntarily withdrew its ads from events, regardless “the legal position of the subject.” They were accessible to “a constructive dialogue” that would lead to the development of a suitable legislation. I suggest summarizing both the arguments of those who are in support of, as well as of those who are opposed to ban Tobacco Ads, and the conflicts of interest issues that pertain to the Government of India and lastly my own point of view of what I believe governments should do in regards to tobacco ads.

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.

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.

Numerous countries around the world have passed legislation to ban the tobacco industry from advertising. These countries decided it was ethically in their best interest to establish these laws in attempts to curtail the youth from smoking, and to slow down the growing health crisis. Protecting the well-being of their citizens was their responsibility; that was the rationale that were explained to these citizens. Arguments have been made on each side of the spectrum if these bans are viable to the stated purpose. India is very popular for tobacco production abroad and with the Indian people. In 1987 100 million Indian citizens were consuming tobacco products (BMG 1990). By the year 1996 over eight million citizens were sickened

Supporters of the ban on tobacco in India realize the major health complications that will arise from the use of tobacco. The World Health Organization estimated “over 3 million people died from tobacco related deaths in 1990,” (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government in India; http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm ). It is the government’s duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by banning advertising harmful products that are designed to appeal to the masses. Children have been primed at a young age to identify cartoonish tobacco related characters, such as the Joe Cool camel (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government in India; http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm). By banning tobacco in India, the economy will not be affected negatively, as consumers would purchase other items or products, and may produce additional jobs for the country (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government in India; http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm ). Advertising directly impacts the number of smokers. According to the Depart of Health (DOH), “Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand reported a drop in smokers due to the ban on advertising cigarettes,” (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government in India; Department of Health, Effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption, London, 1992; http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm ). According

When it came to this ban against advertising tobacco products in India, Managers were faced with huge ethical challenges. Managers are in place to uphold the integrity of the company and insure they are maintaining the highest code of ethics possible. This ban was accusing tobacco companies of targeting youth through advertising.

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.

India 's tobacco problem is very complex; the quote above depicts how ethically wrong it is for tobacco to be advertised publicly without control or adequate legislation in India. Several people in India especially under age children smoke, with a large use of a variety of smoking forms and an array of smokeless tobacco products. Many of these products are manufactured as cottage and small-scale industries using varying mixtures and widely differing processes of manufacturing. Taking a look at the statistics released by world agency as stated in the passage, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths in 1990, the figure rising to 4.023 million deaths in 1998. It was estimated that tobacco related deaths would rise to 8.4 million in 2020 and to 10 million in about 2030. There was an increasing fear that tobacco companies were inducing children and young people to begin experimenting with tobacco products, and in this way initiate regular smoking.

· It was said that French Constitutional council declared that ban on advertising tobacco products was not constitutional, it based on the need to protect public health