The Argument Against Ban On Tobacco Related Advertising

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

Cigarette advertising has changed throughout history from how it has been advertised, what is being advertised, and who the intended audience is. In the 60’s seeing a cigarette advertisement in the Sunday paper would just be like any other advertisement, but recent generations would be appalled to see such a gruesome product being publicized. The annual deaths from smoking cigarettes are increasing each year and doctors and scientist are teaming together to try and help prevent more. Realizing that advertising may be playing a role the controversy over cigarette advertising has lead to the censoring of harmful products in other public advertising which still has a lasting effect today.

In addition, I felt astonished by who the companies were targeting. Particularly, my astonishment arose when I read that one of the target groups for advertisement were doctors themselves. In detail, Part Four of The Emperor of All Maladies by Siddhartha Mukherjee stating that including doctors engendered reassurance to other consumers that smoking cigarettes are safe (251). Surely, after reading that information, I felt astonished and cringed due to knowing how tobacco causes cancer and with my impression of doctors being health fanatics, I found myself in a state of shock. Nonetheless, I had wondered where the strategy of targeting audience came from and I ought to acknowledge that targeting audience is a brilliant idea, however, I felt that tobacco companies being the target is truly the devil in its

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

A controversy over tobacco has been the main interest of the Indian Government and Tobacco Industries. The value of profit and ethical concerns are the primary factors underlying the debate between two opposing parties.

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.

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

The issue of how tobacco companies try to influence teenagers into adulthood to consume tobacco was further highlighted in a legal case in the US that resulted in a ban on certain adverts that were said to attract the young into smoking Camel cigarettes.

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.

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

Some of the arguments which support the placing of the tobacco advertising ban in India are:

Advertisements involving smoking should be prohibited. Kids and teens that are the most impressionable and easily influenced. Cigarette promotions make smoking appear harmless and cool and have led to many kids under the age of 18 to have smoked for years. The advertisements on quitting smoking and how bad they are for you may be effective for older viewers however many teens and kids are drawn to cigarettes even more because adults are saying it is bad for you and it appeals to their “bad boy/girl” ideal. Many might argue that forbidding a company from advertising its product is against freedom of speech. This essay will show that the harmful effects of cigarettes will justify dramatic means to prevent people especially our youth from being encouraged to start smoking.

There has always been controversy around the subject of tobacco, and in particular cigarette, advertising. It has been much debated over the years, but lately there has been a surge in media on the discussion on restriction and even prohibition of tobacco advertising. The American legislation has banned commercials for cigarettes on TV and the topic has been highly debated within the European Union for many years now. Further, many American action groups, the Surgeon General together with the American Medical Association have stated their support for a complete ban of all advertising for these kinds of products.

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.