The Argument Against Ban On Tobacco Related Advertising

850 Words4 Pages

The arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco related advertising in India are plentiful. First, proponents of the ban assert that the state has the right to intervene in the name of public health. Second, there are other precedents for dangerous or potentially dangerous products’ advertising being restricted such as firearms or pharmaceuticals. Third, tobacco related deaths are projected to increase over the next few years and we need to take action to stem the flow of new users. Fourth, youth targeted advertising campaigns are wrong and the tobacco industry’s own released documents indicate that the 14-24 year old demographic is targeted as “tomorrow’s cigarette business”, these campaigns need to stop to reduce the number of young people getting addicted to cigarettes. Fifth, policies aimed at reducing tobacco use are forecast to increase employment despite the tobacco industry itself contracting due to the fact that the money spent on tobacco products does not leave the economy if not spent on those products but actually is used on more complex products. Finally, complete bans on tobacco marketing result in reduced use of tobacco products over time according to studies in Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France, but the ban needs to cover all media outlets.

Those opposed to the ban on tobacco advertising in India have their own logic for opposing the restrictions. Oppositionists first assert that a restriction on
Get Access