The Ban On The Tobacco Industry

Tobacco is one of the world's dangerous drug which is haunting human lives to death. Over a billion adults are addicted to this drug and wasting their money, time and health. Nowadays there has been an ongoing debate/discussion among many people about the role of government in restricting the usage of Tobacco and thereby safeguarding the health of the public. In my personal opinion, both government and the Individual together needs to work to overcome this problem.

The tobacco industry has one objective and that was to save organization benefits, not the protection of public. It was not only to know the side effects of cigarettes also assure to finish the fear from public and encourage the smokers that no adjustment in smoking conduct was important and also give the prevention from government law and regulations. In 1962 a study found that the 1954 emergency appeared to have been sufficiently dealt and this experience had offered increase to an assertion by the tobacco business of a promoting issue that must be separated in light of an honest to goodness

market, in response of falling market prices of tobacco due to the oversaturated tobacco market, famers

Consumption of Tobacco is a worldwide phenomenon. Nearly every country is planning to raise more restrictions around the consumption of Tobacco. The awareness about its ill effects is rising through the corridors of Parliaments of many countries with the help of governmental and non-governmental organizations. There are some internationally recognized organizations like the “World Lung Foundations” that are striving hard to reduce the consumption of tobacco to a bare minimum. There are numerous reasons that support the argument that tobacco should be completely banned from the United Sates.

Objections to this new policy might be met with the fact that use of tobacco

Tobacco has existed for long as we have known about history, but due to the negative effects of it to the broader community Tobacco has sparked greater controversy across the globe. Many people argue that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the individual but on the contrary some disagree and believe it’s up to the individual. This essay will elaborate above mentioned aspects and lead to a logical conclusion.

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

The Tobacco Products Control Act of 1989 sought to impose restrictions on the promotion of tobacco products. These restrictions concerned limitations in three commercial categories: advertisement, promotion, and labelling. Under the Act, tobacco products cannot be advertised, and products must be labeled with viable health warnings and a list of toxins. The packaging must be minimal, as to not be ostentatious to persuade Canadians from buying. Furthermore, the Act would prohibit the distribution of free samples. Appellants RJR-Macdonald Inc. dissented, stating the Act was a direct infringement upon the Charter’s s.2 freedom of expression clause, and appellant Imperial Tobacco Ltd. further dissented.

Another strategy, the tobacco institute members agreed with the military that made the military did not support tobacco-free policies in their places. The tobacco industries were funding the political parties, many congress members got many from tobacco industries (WHO, 2000).

Therefore, we find the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act from 1992, the Tobacco Regulations from the year 2007 that amended the 1987 law or the Public Health (Tobacco) Act of 2008. With these policies, the Australian government wanted to reduce the sale and consumption of these carcinogenic products that are killing an average of 15,000 Australians a year and costing the Australian society and economy approximately $31.5 billion a year.

Facts: The Food and Drug Administration issued a rule in 1996 that prohibited the tobacco products labeling, promotion, and availability to young people (children and adolescents). The FDA claimed that as per Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), it had authority to regulate tobacco products because nicotine is a drug and devices such as cigarettes and smokeless tobacco deliver nicotine to the body. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation sued challenging the FDA regulations over tobacco product under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. They claimed that history of the Act did not allow the FDA to regulate the tobacco products. The United States District Court ruled that the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act allowed the FDA to regulate tobacco product as a device, but under section 360 (e) the agency had overstepped its authority to promote and advertise tobacco products. The Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit reversed the decision of District Court, holding that FDA had no jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. Because, the description of tobacco (as a device) was imperfect and the agency could not verify that the impact of tobacco products on the body was intended under the act.

The use of tobacco places a financial burden on the society that we live in. The amount of money that is spent each year for health care for the smokers is alarming. If they chose to ban tobacco, than the country wouldn’t be put in as much debt. Spending $170 billion each year on a problem that could be diminished is a no brainer. It should be put to an end. It is understood that our country didn’t know what they were getting themselves into with the production of tobacco back in 1612 when it was first grown, but now we are aware of the health effects it causes. (“History of

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 use of tobacco is a very controversial topic here in the United States. The harmful side effects of tobacco are well known and consequently, many believe that it should be outlawed. Though this has not yet occurred, constant regulations on the industry and

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.