India 's Ban On Tobacco Advertising

Giving the health hazard that arises from tobacco, I am of the opinion that tobacco advertising be ban completely in Indian. Ethics is a system of moral principles governing the appropriate conduct of a person or a group. It is a way of being human and having a feeling of compassion, sympathy or regard for others the way we have for ourselves. There is this famous saying of Abraham Lincoln “When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.” Managers of tobacco companies cannot pretend they do not know that tobacco is dangerous for our health. Ethics is fundamental in any profession and is an integral part of any successful business today. If in our subconscious mind we are not comfortable it mean the consequences of our action are unethical: then we are doing bad business. . Albert Schweitzer says, “Ethics is the activity of man

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

According to the World Health Organization, "each year 6 million people die due to tobacco related illnesses. If current trends continue, it is projected that by 2030, tobacco will be responsible for more than 8 million deaths each year and 80% of these premature deaths will be among people living in low- and middle-income countries.” Tobacco advertising is a worldwide marketing campaign that displays bright and colorful images that appeal towards teens and young adults. These images portray false ideal of masculinity, youth, and freedom. The prohibitions of tobacco advertising should be enforced by the government in order to prevent tobacco industries from targeting undeveloped countries with poor education, reduce tobacco related illnesses, and limit the access of tobacco to children.

Tobacco is one of the world’s most profitable industries. The top three producers of tobacco are: China, Brazil, and India, in that order. These industries provide direct and indirect work for many people in developing countries. Thus, like any good company it wishes to expose its products to the public by investing in ads and other merchandise of its product. All companies end goal (and of course this included tobacco) is to increase the appeal and acceptability of their product as well as to make the product available to the potential consumer. In the past couple of decades, tobacco has been a hotly debated subject from addiction, high blood pressure to lung disease. As time went on many countries started to band the product in some way shape or form and on February 6, 2001 the government of India (the third largest producer of tobacco in the world) dropped a bombshell on the tobacco industry when it too wanted to start its own band. The government would ban tobacco companies from advertising and sponsoring sports and cultural events all together (Case Studies, n.d.). India like many other European countries viewed the negative effects of smoking on its population and had boldly set out to ban tobacco ads from the public for three major reasons: the ads were found to be misleading, the introduction of a harmful product to its youth, and the increase cost of health care.

The arguments in favor of the government banning tobacco advertising generally begins with the belief that the government has the right to intervene in the best interest of its citizens. The banning of cocaine, which is generally seen as worldwide, is often used as an example of this. Public health is often the motive that is cited when countries such as Belgium and France banned tobacco advertising. It was 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.” (ICMR, 2001)

                The ban in India had many driving factors for advocacy.  Much as had been done for deadly narcotics, the state felt that it had an ethical obligation to intercede if a product was putting the lives of their citizens at risk.  Smoking had become universally recognized as a health hazard and there was a concern globally that children were the target market.  Even in countries such as the United States, documents were being uncovered that described mid-teens to early twenties as “tomorrow’s cigarette business.” (IBS Center for Management Research, 2010)  This was leading to regulations, such as the Master Settlement Agreement (Public Health Law Center, n.d.), which in part forced the removal of animated mascots, implicated in the exploitation of minors, from advertising.  Additionally, India’s health costs associated with smoking were 50% higher than the GDP revenue generated from cigarettes.

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

Today we will analyze the issue of tobacco advertising, and weigh the merit of each opposing viewpoint on whether or not India’s government should ban tobacco advertisements.

On February 6, 2001, Government Of India (GOI) announces a bill about banning Tobacco companies from advertising their product and sponsoring sport and cultural events. The bill mission is to reduce consumption of tobacco products. This paper is based on information provided by the case study and is divided into four section. The first section summarizes arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India. The second section summarizes arguments in opposition of the ban on tobacco advertising in Indian. The third sections discuss the conflict of interest issue as it pertains to government in India. And the last section offers some suggestion on what government should do in regards to tobacco advertising.