The ban is also supported by those who believe it is morally wrong to entice people to engage in a behavior so detrimental to good health, and further argue that it is a government's responsibility to protect the health and well being of its peoples. There are also those who base their opposition based on the financial impact. The costs of lost productivity, treating tobacco related illness, the financial impact of illness and death on families are staggering. Monies not spent on cigarettes could be spent on services and goods. (2010. “Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India”)
There are those who do not support such a ban. Among the many reasons for their disapproval are those centering around limiting the intrusion of government into personal choice and restraint of trade. Many believe that government should not be able to restrict personal choice, or restrict the advertising practices of a legal product. They further argue that the ban will be difficult if not impossible to enforce, since the ban does not include traditional Indian tobacco alternatives or advertising in foreign media outlets. They also point to opposing studies that show no correlation between advertising dollars spent and tobacco products sold. (2010. “Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India”)
…show more content…
Those against the ad ban point out that the tax revenue generated by the tobacco industry add to the government coffers. They further argue that in India, the government contributes so little to its health and welfare systems that the benefits of tobacco’s monetary contribution to the economy trump the cost of healthcare. They further argue that the cost illnesses caused by tobacco usage are offset by those who die early from tobacco related illness. Premature deaths save the cost of government benefits and pensions. (2010. “Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of
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 is a very negative substance. It has caused many deaths in the past 100 years in the United States. The CDC says that they’re 480,000 deaths in the United States each year (Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking). There are many forms of tobacco such as cigarettes, menthols, e-cigarettes, hookahs and shishas, dissolvables, bidis, and cigars. The government should ban tobacco products in the United States because it has negative effects to an individual's health, they’re also very expensive, and cause harmful pollution to the Earth and its inhabitants.
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.
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 supporters made a strong argument on the financial contribution of the tobacco industry to the Indian economy, in that they showed that not only the profits made in tax were low, but the spending made on health as a result of smoking, surpassed the tax profits by one third of the tax revenue. In regards to lost jobs as a result of decreased sales of tobacco products, it was claimed that a study found that there was a good chance for job creation, as consumers will shift their money to other industries that require more workers than the tobacco industry.
To say that tobacco advertising stimulates tobacco sales may seem a simple and moderate statement. In reality, tobacco control activists often meet serious opposition in defending this fact. Achieving the restriction or banning of tobacco advertising is one of the fiercest battles to face. Tobacco lobbyists usually assert that advertising does not increase the overall quantity of tobacco sold. Rather, the tobacco industry maintains that advertising merely enhances the market share of a particular brand, without recruiting new smokers.
The discussion of advertising tobacco products is a controversial topic, there are relevant points on both sides of the argument, so it is hard to determine a true ethical decision. India’s government announced the bill banning tobacco companies from advertising their products in February 2001, their goal is to prevent adolescents from taking up smoking or any other form of tobacco products. Initiating this bill is the government answer to an ethical challenge, they are protecting the health of the entire country, rather than the financial future of one industry. (Bauer, 2016) Immediately, there was an uproar that sparked this intense debate, arguments between health concerns versus constitutional rights. In this paper I would like to discuss the pros and cons of banning the advertisement of tobacco products and the conflict of interest that it presents.
On Feb 6, 2001 Government of India (GOI) dropped a bombshell on the tobacco Industry when it announced that it would shortly table a bill banning Tobacco Companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events. The objective of such a ban was to discourage adolescents from consuming tobacco products and also arm the Government with powers to launch an anti-Tobacco Program.
Those in favor of the ban argued that the government had the moral responsibility to make sure teens weren’t smoking. They pointed out that tobacco causes millions of deaths every year, so it was important that the youth never started smoking in the first place. They also argued that the advertisements were too colorful or looked like cartoons which would get too much attention of children and, eventually, it would drive them to become smokers. The other argument that was made was that other countries had already done it, so India could do it as well. Finland, France, and Norway had implemented bans on advertising for tobacco products acting on what they believed was the best interest of their citizens. Part of the argument was that banning advertisements wasn’t illegal, therefore, there was nothing to stop the government from implementing it. However, the government was warned that a ban like this would only work
In an effort to discourage the consumption of tobacco products in India, a ban was issued stopping advertising and sponsoring of sporting events. This ban was brought to the table with the intentions of keeping the citizens of India from undue influence towards the use of a product that when used to the satisfaction of its producers would result in major health issues and eventual death. The use of tobacco products is directly attributable to the deaths of 3 million people in 1990 and the eventual death of 10 million people in the year 2030. Those in favor of the ban argued that a government that provides health insurance for the very people it collects taxes from in the purchase of the product that leads to their eventual illness is one
Cigarettes Kill. "Tobacco accounted for over 4.023 million deaths in 1998"1. There is a relation between cigarettes and long term health effects or smoking related illnesses. The case in India had the government engaged in a dialogue and democratic debate on if they wanted to create an advertising ban on cigarettes. They wanted to prevent undue influence on their youth to take up smoking and in so doing save their lives or possible future health care expenditures.
According to Suhel Seth, CEO, Equus Advertising said, "The ban does not have teeth. It is a typical knee-jerk reaction by any Government to create some kind of popularity for itself. The tobacco industry was a major contributor to the State Exchequer. The people who didn’t agree with the ban challenged that by putting a ban on advertisements and sponsorships by tobacco companies, the state was effectively stepping in to tell smokers that they were incompetent of deciding by themselves what was good or bad for their health and that, therefore it had to play the role of a responsible nanny. According to Amit Sarkar, Editor, Tobacco News “Adults who consume tobacco do so of their own free choice. The risk falls entirely on them and is fully explained to them.”
The following are the view points of those in favor of the tobacco-advertising ban in which the state intervene for the best interest of the citizens of India. The World Health Organization (WHO) stated, “tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths in 1990, the figure rising to 4.023 million deaths in 1998.” A more astonishing fact as described by WHO, “it was estimated that tobacco related deaths would rise to 8.4 million in 2020.” Secondly, the tax contribution from cigarettes only accounted for 0.14% of the G.D.P and the health cost was estimated to 0.21% of the G.D.P.
Smoking tobacco is a health hazard to humans, the smoker and the non smoker alike; hence the government of India stance to discourage smoking through the ban on perceived vehicle used to entice the public to take up smoking. According to WHO smoking accounted to 3 million deaths in 1990 and4, 028 million in1998 in the world and following that trend would lead to 8, 4 million deaths in 2020 and 10 million in 2030.
According to the case analysis, the ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India began in 2001 when the government stated that it would be putting forth a discussion on whether or not a bill should be passed banning Tobacco Companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events. It was widely debated by both sides both ethically and morally, and substantial points were made both for and against the subject. I will give a summary of the reasons and justifications both for and against the topic, made in the essay.