India 's Effect On Television

Tobacco is the number one cause of preventable death in the United States. According to the American Lung Association in 2009, 20.6% of adults were current smokers. In 1970, the United States banned television and radio advertisements of cigarettes. Across the world countries battle similar issues in how to help prevent deaths, lower healthcare costs, and educate the population. Countries have banned advertising, posted health causes, renamed brands, and even included informational fliers in packs of cigarettes. In 2001, The Government of India decided to ban the advertising of cigarettes. This ban was created to help the youth of India and hoped to reduce the amount of future smokers. The proposal of this restriction caused debates between the government, advertising companies, and tobacco manufacturers. The supporting and dismantling arguments for these ethical and commercial causes of the ban have enabled the government to make their final decision.

Tobacco used is a major epidemic around the world. Many people start this terrible habit because stress, personal issues, or in the case of teenagers to fit in. They do not realize that when they smoke they are actually poisoning their body, and ignore the many health risks it poses not only to them, but those around them. According to the CDC (2016) smoking causes 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and women, and 80% of all deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Due to these reasons Companies are being required to include warning labels in the packaging. I personally agree with these regulations. The warning labels on Cigarette package describe the harmful effects of tobacco use. Their graphic images are intended to inform people

Most kids will experience a tobacco product before walking across the graduation stage from their local high school. With stricter regulations we can eradicate the false hope of fitting in with society through the commercials that project groups of friends whom consume the product and pretend their life is excelling due to the usage of a product. False advertisement should be against the law, so, our youth will not be subjected to distorted information. Our country shouldn’t allow corporations to exaggerate about their products behind the colorful tempting packages. If we were given the right information then, we would be compelled to develop a personal opinion based on the product. Finally, allowing us to process the information these corporations give us and letting

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

The general mood and the feeling of the ad are scared, anxiety, disgusted. They want to raise self-awareness in the people who are using tobacco. That in using tobacco there are some costly side effects like for example looking older than you really are. They are using scare tactics to instil fear into the consumers of tobacco. All in all this advertisement was created to give smokers a glimpse into the future.

Advertising influences smoking behavior in children and teenagers (Smoking & Tobacco Use). A way to tactical this issue is to employ informative entertaining anti-smoking advertisements for young adults (Clives and Andy). For example, a popular television channel for young adults is the CW. Incorporating popular themes, concepts, and actors from frequently watched shows from CW would be good persuasive tool. Using these ideas for commercial use against tobacco industry would deliver the message more clearly and be more relatable to adolescents and young

There are many reasons as to why antismoking campaigns and T.V advertising are growing and expanding worldwide. Smoking does not only affect health, but also affects the environment and non-smokers. The first cause is health. Many individuals smoke not caring about the harm and dangers that it might do to them. Some argue that they are physically addicted to smoking and others are just ignorant about the whole thing. Smoking can cause harm to a person’s body. It can cause fatigue and worsen activities which acquire walking, jogging, and other physical activities. For example,

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.

products that are known to cause death with prolonged use. A case study authored by Philip

First, when it comes to the arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India, from an international point of view “countries like France, Finland, and Norway had already imposed similar bans.” To make it difficult, some advocates of the “free choice” opposed to the ban but other supporters voiced out these states have

Most of the opposition of the ban on tobacco advertising in India, comes from the Corporations selling tobacco. This is a huge industry, with

In February of 2001, India joined many developed nations in a long-held and ongoing debate; that of the ethical responsibility of government in regards to the advertising of tobacco products. By 2001 many other nations had already decided to either place bans on or strongly restrict the advertising of tobacco products in an attempt to curb usage and thereby avoid the ill health effects associated with the product. While the notion of banning advertisement had and continues to have many supporters, there are also critics who claim that banning advertising is akin to restricting rights and questions the decision making abilities of capable adults. This essay will seek to discuss the pros and cons of banning advertisement of tobacco products as it relates to the 2001 case study on the decisions faced by the government of India. The paper will also touch on ethical considerations and personal opinion of the author on this topic of intense debate.

There was an increasing fear that tobacco companies were inducing children and young people to begin experimenting with

1. 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.

Those in favour of banning advertising believed it to be a necessary step in defending India’s citizens from a threat to public health. While the evidence that tobacco is bad for one’s health was not in dispute, that does not tell us if banning advertising is the right thing to do about it. The case for negative would prefer to treat smoking like other common vices, such as sugar, or coffee, or alcohol. The case for the affirmative sees smoking as a threat in the same way as cocaine or guns.