The Ban Of Tobacco Advertisements Banned

Advertising in general influences everyone in many ways, particularly children imperiled by advertisements and its effects. (Raju & Lonial, 1989) I think it is an important topic to protect the children from advertising, specifically from tobacco advertising, because we all know that smoking is not good for your health, might cause cancer and could lead on to death.

Although the Tobacco Industry recently paid enormous fines to the US Government and Individual states, they continue to promote smoking and influence young human beings world wide to use their products through multi dimensional advertising. For decades Americans were not told the truth about the dangers of smoking. The media stayed silent because it did not want to lose the hundreds of millions of dollars it made from cigarette advertising.

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.

In 2001, the Government of India proposed a bill that would place a ban on tobacco ads to discourage the use of tobacco products among the teenagers. This decision gave rise to a huge debate about the ethical responsibility of the government on the use of tobacco products. In

Tobacco is one of the world’s most profitable industries. The top three producers of tobacco are: China, Brazil, and India, in that order. These industries provide direct and indirect work for many people in developing countries. Thus, like any good company it wishes to expose its products to the public by investing in ads and other merchandise of its product. All companies end goal (and of course this included tobacco) is to increase the appeal and acceptability of their product as well as to make the product available to the potential consumer. In the past couple of decades, tobacco has been a hotly debated subject from addiction, high blood pressure to lung disease. As time went on many countries started to band the product in some way shape or form and on February 6, 2001 the government of India (the third largest producer of tobacco in the world) dropped a bombshell on the tobacco industry when it too wanted to start its own band. The government would ban tobacco companies from advertising and sponsoring sports and cultural events all together (Case Studies, n.d.). India like many other European countries viewed the negative effects of smoking on its population and had boldly set out to ban tobacco ads from the public for three major reasons: the ads were found to be misleading, the introduction of a harmful product to its youth, and the increase cost of health care.

Company has the freedom of speech, they are free to advertise and inform consumers about their products. Consumers have the right to make choices for their own life, by preventing them this choice is against the meaning of freedom and democratic society. “If it were legal to manufacture and sell tobacco products, it should be legal to advertise it as well” (IBS Center, n.d.).

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 most compelling reason to ban tobacco advertising is the growing body of evidence linking tobacco ads to increased tobacco use, particularly children. Studies following a 1998 settlement prohibiting U.S. tobacco companies from targeting American youth have shown a steady decline, with the lowest levels in forty years of teenage smoking reported in 2015. Despite COTPA, Indian youth’s exposure to cigarette advertising has increased in part because of aggressive point-of-sale marketing, promotional support of music and sporting events, through social media, and smoking portrayed in Bollywood films. Multiple authorities agree that a ban on tobacco advertising has to be all-encompassing and free from

The arguments in favor of placing a ban on the advertising of tobacco products not only include the scientifically proven negative health impacts, but also show concern for the usage of tobacco in teenagers and young adults. Critics of big tobacco claim that tobacco companies tailor their ads in a manner that targets young people in order to maintain client base. There is also the issue of the government’s ethical responsibilities and its role as an enabler

The Government of India 's ban of cigarette advertisement at sporting events had many in support and many in opposition. The

1. 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.

One the main arguments for this proposed ban was that the tobacco industry was targeting children. In fact citing an internal documents from the tobacco industry that referred to 14 to 24 year olds as their targets (Reynold, 2010). Recognizing this report for India was extremely important. Due to the increased health problems of smoking by targeting a younger age bracket they would effectively increase the weight the government had to carry when it comes to providing health care for its citizens. The government also had in its favor the fact that in all but one case smoking use by young people had decreased when these bans where put in effect. The government’s argument for banning tobacco ads can be summed up pretty simply. They were trying to watching out for the safety of their citizens and were working toward the betterment of India. The government had the advantage of being able to take the moral high road and being able to paint the tobacco industry as the “devil”.

· They said that study of tobacco consumption and employment showed that effective policies to reduce smoking were likely to increase employment, that when people stop smoking money would get spent on other goods & services which studies showed were more labor intensive, this in turn produce more jobs

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.

Furthermore, there were already measures in place against the advertising of other potentially hazardous products like firearm weapons and certain pharmaceuticals. (Morris, 2001) As such, it seemed only fair if tobacco products were subject to similar regulations.