The Ban On Tobacco Advertisements

Can one limit what is advertised? Who is to say whether cigarette advertising is ethical? There have been many bans on tobacco advertising. There is a notion that advertising cigarettes is unethical because society has claimed it to be. Smoking has been one of the biggest parts of advertising for decades. Doctors would promote certain cigarettes. Many believed cigarette smoking to be a way to relieve the stress of a long and stressful day at work. Today, many people view smoking as a form of suicide. It is a well-known fact that many people die from diseases that are caused by smoking. It is unethical to advertise tobacco use because

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

Tobacco ads have been barred from television for over twenty years. Young children don’t need the influence to smoke or dip, considering they’ll have enough peer pressure to do so later in life. By essentially censoring television ads, the government decreases the advertising power of tobacco companies. However, there are simply some things that should not be censored. When censored, any sort of art loses its meaning. When the government tries to censor art, such as music, paintings, digital art, movies, or TV shows, people can no longer truly express their feelings or convey the message they were attempting to portray.

Ethical Considerations: On the one hand, was tobacco, the most dangerous consumer product known, which killed when used as the makers ' intended. Just like most dangerous substances like cocaine were banned so from the ethical point of view it was not alien for the government of India to ban tobacco. Therefore from an ethical standpoint, the Government had to discourage the habit, as it was responsible for the welfare of its citizens.

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

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

The government of India serves the people. When a product is produced that affects the health of the people the government is justified to take action. With Tobacco products India banned the advertising and sponsorship of sport and cultural events (IBS Center for Management Research (ICMR), 2001). Those in favor of the ban cite the French who stated that Tobacco advertising ban was to protect public health. They also, state the World Health Organization’s (WHO) death toll numbers. These numbers show that tobacco products are one of the leading causes of death in the world are continuing to grow. People who are in favor of the banning of advertising for tobacco products use a World Bank report that shows a substantial decline in smoking when ban of advertising in enacted for all forms of media. Finally, the fear of children becoming addicted to smoking has helped to support the justification to ban advertising on tobacco products. With these reasons we can understand and support a governments action to ban advertising on tobacco products.

Supporters of the ban on tobacco in India realize the major health complications that will arise from the use of tobacco. The World Health Organization estimated “over 3 million people died from tobacco related deaths in 1990,” (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government in India; http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm ). It is the government’s duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by banning advertising harmful products that are designed to appeal to the masses. Children have been primed at a young age to identify cartoonish tobacco related characters, such as the Joe Cool camel (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government in India; http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm). By banning tobacco in India, the economy will not be affected negatively, as consumers would purchase other items or products, and may produce additional jobs for the country (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government in India; http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm ). Advertising directly impacts the number of smokers. According to the Depart of Health (DOH), “Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand reported a drop in smokers due to the ban on advertising cigarettes,” (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government in India; Department of Health, Effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption, London, 1992; http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm ). According

Therefore, in the favor of welfare of Indian citizen, I stand for ban on tobacco advertising

Many feel that the Indian government should be allowed to intervene, especially when dealing with a public health situation. This attitude is one of the main reasons many people are for banning commercializing cigarettes in modern media. With the statistics of millions of people worldwide dying, many want to see the continued marketing of this hazardous product banned. Citizens also worried about the affects of marketing on teens and children, and moved to have the animated Camel of a cigarettes company banned, since the cartoonish nature the creature was seen as appealing to youngsters. While this may arguably be an area where parents should have more control over what their children are exposed to, it is important to declare that cigarettes are meant for an adult audience. More evidence that can proves that a drastic change in advertising can result

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?

When it came to this ban against advertising tobacco products in India, Managers were faced with huge ethical challenges. Managers are in place to uphold the integrity of the company and insure they are maintaining the highest code of ethics possible. This ban was accusing tobacco companies of targeting youth through advertising.

Ban of advertisement is not a solution to discouraging smokers from smoking and the ban was unjustified as advertisement did not promote smoking and the ban was not the right solution. The ban is denying tobacco industry a fair level playing field. Tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship are only targeted to adult smokers and not youth and as such Tobacco companies do not promote selling to minors, in contrast they educate retailers about not selling to minors, and they educate youth about the harms of smoking by carrying out events and sponsorship for school base non smoking programs. Advertising is just for encouraging tobacco brand loyalty, inform about available products and entice current smokers to switch brands, but not to encourage people to start smoking. Advertisement is meant to provide consumers with information about which brands are available so they can make informed

One argument for the ban on tobacco advertising is the need to protect public health. According to the WHO statistics, tobacco related deaths rose to 4.023 million in 1998 across the globe. And the main concern lies upon children and youngsters who used to be smokers. Children are attracted to try to smoke cigarette by seductive animated brands of product’s cover.

On February 6th, 2001 the Government of India (GOI) announced that it would in a short time table a bill banning Tobacco Companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events. The objective of such a ban was to discourage adolescents from consuming tobacco products and also arm the government with powers to launch an anti-Tobacco Program.