India 's Government Should Ban Tobacco Advertisements

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

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

Now, more than ever, more and more people are beginning to look at tobacco use as a major public health concern. It is nineteen ninety nine, and the number of smokers is rising while the average age of smoking initiation decreases. There are those that believe using tobacco of any type should be illegal, or at least restricted. Others believe it is up to the person to choose whether to use tobacco products or not, however most of these people believe tobacco companies should warn their customers of their products harmful affects.

     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

Plastered all over magazines, buildings, and billboards used to be positive advertising of tobacco, encouraging people nationwide that tobacco use is fun, trendy, and completely innocuous. “More Doctors Smoke CAMELS than any other cigarette”, “More delicate in flavor, too...for those with keen, young tastes”, and “My throat is safe with Craven ‘A’... you can trust their smoothness and quality” were both notable examples of advertising that hooked the now addicted users (Lindstrom). Nowadays, although advertising has become more educational on the negative health effects of tobacco use, it is still normal to see people as young as 18 using the toxic products. However, how can it necessarily be considered ‘wrong’ if the legal age for tobacco

The extent to which tobacco advertising contributes to the increase in smoking habits has been debated and still is being debated. The focus is heavily on the degree to which the advertising affects adolescents. Previous research which is explored above, suggests significant relationships between smoking behavior among youth and these advertisements. Tobacco companies on the other hand, have tried to prove their ads are not directed towards our youth. Specifically, the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company has run full page ads in national magazines advising youth to not smoke. They have asserted

Guns do not kill people; people kill people. Cigarettes do not kill people; people who choose to smoke are killing themselves. The health risks of using tobacco are common knowledge. It is a known fact that if someone smokes their chance of getting lung cancer is increased drastically, yet so many Americans choose to do so. The FDA is taking steps to tighten the rules of tobacco marketing, some of these rules will include prohibiting self-service tobacco displays in stores, restricting vending-machine sales, and forbidding most free samples of tobacco products. (Reid pg. 1) These are just small hits to the big tobacco industry, but the FDA has no intention of stopping there. The question that comes to mind is, why attack the advertising

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 tobacco industry in America is one that every person is affected by. In the past year over 3,000 people died from second-hand smoke related deaths (Above the Influence.com).  Even non-smokers are heavily affected by this moneymaking industry. The real question though, is how is a product that kills justified in the market? This product is not only addictive, but also highly threatening to the lives of its users. The majority of users do not realize it, but in reality they are paying for their own funeral. Tobacco and cigarette companies continue to feed lies to the public through their marketing strategies and product makeup. Hidden documents containing information on the toxicity and pharmacological properties of nicotine

America has a drug problem and the majority of the public is aware of this; however, more than 480,000 premature deaths in the United States each year can be attributed to cigarette smoking (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). Additionally, 16 million Americans currently suffer from a tobacco-related illness (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). Despite tobacco being the top one preventable cause of death in the United States, 42.1 million Americans continue to consume the drug daily (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). Although many restrictions have been placed on tobacco marketing, the tobacco industry continues to use its economic power and powerful persuasion tactics to interfere with tobacco control.

Tobacco advertisements have been a sensitive subject in America especially among parents who do not want their children to become smokers. I know from personal experience that tobacco is extremely toxic and can do major bodily harm. My grandfather was a chain smoker for over twenty years. He started smoking in his late teens and he died from lung problems that were caused by his addiction to cigarette smoking. My father is also a chain smoker and he started smoking when he was sixteen. He is starting to experience the same problems that my grandfather had due to his chain smoking. This history of smokers in my family has struck a cord in me. It has caused me to look further at the history of tobacco advertisements aimed to people

The tobacco industry knowingly provides a product that is both addictive and detrimental to the health of their customer. Extensive studies have conclusively confirmed the significant negative health and economic impacts of this product. From a deontological perspective, the tobacco industry has a clear duty to educate their customers, and the public, of the dangers of being exposed to their product. Despite this duty, the industry has illustrated unethical behavior in the past. Over the last several decades, numerous studies have confirmed various health impacts on the users and bystanders. Even today the same unethical behavior continues. As regulations are imposed in developed nations the tobacco industry targets the poor in developing nations, where regulations may be lacking, and the target market may not fully understand the consequences of smoking.

Smoking is on my list of not to do. Since I was a little girl my dad used to smoke a lot in our living room. I remember this, as it caused me a lot of trouble, and because our living room was a bedroom for me, I used to wake up coughing from his smoking. This memory came into my mind as we are going to speak of the ban on tobacco ads the government of India started in 2001, the arguments pro and contra, the conflict of interest and give our opinion on what should governments do in regards to tobacco advertising. There were many pros and contras about this issue and studies and research conducted. In the end the tobacco industry employed 26 million people in India.

The arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India, include India’s Government of moral ethics and the obligation to protect its people. The health concern, for the consumers cleverly removed the additional threats (even if it’s subconscious) by banning the Ads in India. Internal notoriety also played up the venue of taking care of each countrymen. Because of the International publicity some Governments became (In many people’s eyes) more caring for their citizens, implying that someone is watching out for them and their best interests.

The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that worldwide, five million tobacco users die annually and estimates that one million Indians die each year prematurely from tobacco use (2015). As late at 2009, India was “the world’s second-largest consumer and third-largest producer of tobacco” (Economist, 2009, p. 5). In an attempt to reduce consumption, India introduced its first adverting ban on tobacco in 1990, followed in 2003 by the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) to close loopholes and further regulate tobacco adverting. This paper examines the arguments for and against these advertising bans and explores whether or not tobacco creates a conflict of interest when governments profit from the tobacco industry.