Restricting Tobacco Advertising Essay

Studies have shown that 9 out of 10 tobacco smokers first attempted smoking by 18 years of age while greater than 3,200 American youths aged 18 years and below smoked their first cigarette, and 2100 youths and young adults became addicted users (4). However, this has reportedly led American middle and high school youths to become susceptible to one form of tobacco products or the other and are at higher

Psychology is defined as the study of the human mind and mental status in order to predict and also explain aspects of human behaviour. In regards to the behaviour concerning addiction, tobacco use is considered the most highly used (and abused) legal substance nationwide. It also has the highest leading risk factors causing considerable rates in morbidity and mortality and several types of cancer, respiratory disease and heart disease; relating to why promoting behavioural change (through aspects of psychology) is considered so imperative in today 's healthcare environment. In addition, the health promotion source that this essay will be examining is the National Tobacco Campaign, aimed at altering smoking behaviours, plus the associated advertisement strategies used, and lastly the psychological theories associated.

Alcohol and tobacco advertising is not a new concept to this world. Alcohol and tobacco advertising has been going on since the mid 1900’s. During this time, alcohol and tobacco ads were on the TV almost as much as regular programs (Danna). This source is credible because the author has written many articles for the Chicago Tribune before. When alcohol and tobacco advertising first started they actually argued that smoking and drinking was beneficial for the human body. Since then, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and many other departments have tried to put in laws and acts to help regulate the advertisement of alcohol and tobacco. For example, laws such as the "Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965”, and the

In recent year, non-governmental organization and other associations have been putting pressure on the government to ban cigarette production but these products contribution of these products to the national GDP cannot be neglected. As a result, of the huge sum, the government gets from these companies in the form of taxes it extremely difficult for the government ban the production of cigarettes but have instead resorted to banning advertisements of these products. Is the government doing enough as it claims it is doing to protect it population from a product whose effect go beyond harming secondary smokers as well?

Going into effect April 1 of this year, the Tobacco Tax Increase Initiative passed as the California Proposition 56 from the Nov. 8, 2016 election, approved the increase of a pack of cigarettes by $2.

By allowing the FDA to regulate the chemicals in cigarettes and outlaw a majority of flavorings it would help in reducing the number of children that would be enticed to try cigarettes. This in turn would save money on health care and many people would live longer more productive cancer free lives.

Studies have identified a greater contingency of persistent smokers in those who currently reside with a smoker or have a relative who smokes (Moyse, 2009). Moyse (2009) states peer pressure is particularly influential for young people who may hold the opinions of others in high esteem. Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2015) states that tobacco companies in the United States spend more than $9.6 billion in tobacco advertisements. More than 50% of their advertising is spent on targeting youth, such as through the development of candy and fruit-flavored nicotine vapors for e-cigarettes (CDC, 2015). According to the Hawaii Department of Health [DOH] (n.d.) the number of U.S. youth who had never smoked a cigarette but used electronic cigarettes tripled between 2011 and

I believe that tobacco companies should be strictly prohibited from advertising publicly using the media and magazines, because in my opinion it is unethical to sell something that marketers clearly are aware that tobacco gives many diseases and is deadly. According to the article, “Smoking & Tobacco Use,” “Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United States each year.” Many smokers every year die from diseases related to lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases. With that being said, it is clear that tobacco companies don’t necessarily think of the ethical perspective, and only focus on the investment profit. The majority of investors only worry about making profits and suiting their needs, rather

More than 480,000 people smoke every day and over 16 million people suffer from smoking related illnesses. For every dead smoker, at least thirty people live with a smoking related illness. Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly six million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than eight million deaths annually by the year 2030. On average, smokers dies ten years earlier than nonsmokers and if smoking continue at the current rate among U.S. youth, 5.6 million of today’s Americans younger than 18 years of age are expected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. This represents about one in every thirteen Americans aged 17 years or younger who are alive today.

Every day, more than 3,600 teens smoke their first cigarette and about 900 teens become daily smokers. Over 15 billion cigarettes are sold worldwide daily. Approximately one out of seven people smoke tobacco products which is about 1,142,857,143 people! 5 million of these smokers die every year and it costs them over 4,000 dollars each year to maintain their torturing addiction. Tobacco product consumption is a serous problem that must be resolved. These products are advertised as a product that will make users look cool and sexy to all people including kids. The more children that are attracted to this deadly product, the more deaths the world will have from the diseases that tobacco causes. Although tobacco products are the leading preventable cause of death and should be illegal, it is nearly impossible to achieve this goal. Instead, the tobacco industry should focus its efforts on creating a much healthier product for smokers.

My thoughts and reasoning may not be that of a business intent but more from a

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

The Government of India pursued 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 enact a ban for Tobacco Ads, but instead that the Government was using it to gain more acceptances. On the other hand, companies as such as ITC Ltd voluntarily withdrew its ads from events regardless “the legal position of the subject.” They were more open to “a constructive dialogue” that would lead to the development of a suitable legislation. My suggest is to summarize both the arguments of those who are in support of, as well as of those who are opposed to it, and the conflicts of interest issues that pertain to the Government of India and lastly my own point of view to what I believe governments should do in regards to tobacco ads.

Tobacco has been around for many years, and it should be stopped, but can the economy handle it. The tobacco is reaching young children, and not to mention the nonsmokers as well. The medical effects alone should convince people to stop smoking. Even if the people wanted to quit, it's hard because they are already addicted. If the health doesn't stop people from smoking the cost should because this year the tax on tobacco has gone up dramatically. So now the cost is weakening our pockets. The only ones that win in the tobacco field are the Tobacco Company, because they make all the money. If profits fall, all they have to do is advertise a little harder and profits will roll

I remembered years ago the California Supreme Courts forced RJ Reynolds to remove their mascot, Joe Camel from all its products. RJ Reynolds would argue that this advertising had nothing to do with selling cigarettes or marketing to minors. This is not a new concept for California, as early as the 1920’s Hollywood has glamorized smoking. It is clear, the direction that the tobacco companies wanted to have a say. The tobacco companies paid for many classics, TV shows like “I love Lucy” to product place their cigarettes. Giving the illusion of wealth and status. Personally, I think this was the most successful driver for the industry. However, the studies show the drop in tobacco sales upon removal of ads.