The Ban On Tobacco Advertising

Although tobacco advertisements are banned, people still consume it. The ban started in 1971 and since then has become even more strict on the sponsoring and promotion of tobacco brand logos. Now, all tobacco ads used, dissuade users from consuming. Advertisements in general can be obnoxious and tiresome, but they are sometimes necessary for the seller to get their point across. Ads are either trying to get money from the consumer or driving to change a person’s mind positively. The main reasoning for the creation of advertisements is to persuade the viewer or audience through the evocation of ethos, pathos, and logos, to have a change of mind about the product. The ads I chose are both similar, but have different goals towards their audience.

Tobacco companies that sponsor cultural and sporting events and other organizations, is a very effective form of indirect advertising. This advertising influences attitudes towards smoking tobacco products and their use. This affects the effectiveness of tobacco control programs, especially when it is aimed at young people. Therefore restriction on these promotions, such as the new act of law to ban tobacco sponsorship programs, is also to be a source of protection for children and youth from marketing activities that makes them to try the product.

Tobacco is the number one cause of preventable death in the United States. According to the American Lung Association in 2009, 20.6% of adults were current smokers. In 1970, the United States banned television and radio advertisements of cigarettes. Across the world countries battle similar issues in how to help prevent deaths, lower healthcare costs, and educate the population. Countries have banned advertising, posted health causes, renamed brands, and even included informational fliers in packs of cigarettes. In 2001, The Government of India decided to ban the advertising of cigarettes. This ban was created to help the youth of India and hoped to reduce the amount of future smokers. The proposal of this restriction caused debates between the government, advertising companies, and tobacco manufacturers. The supporting and dismantling arguments for these ethical and commercial causes of the ban have enabled the government to make their final decision.

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.

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.

It is crucial that tobacco usage in the United States ends because tobacco not only negatively affects the user, but also the people indirectly exposed, and as a result, the economy. Tobacco appears to be very profitable as a consumable product to the nation because of its wide usage, but the costs needed to cover medical charges overshadow the profit. Tobacco usage also demands a high price of human lives. Both the farming and waste of tobacco products damage the environment. The ceasing of American tobacco use will positively affect the country by creating a safer environment, reducing tobacco related deaths and illnesses, and providing cleaner communities.

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.

Marketing options for big tobacco companies fizzled after the original Surgeon General report was published which prohibited the mass advertisement of tobacco in America. The push for smoking cessation for all in the United States has become big business. Long gone are the days of tobacco ads showing young adults enjoying themselves on beaches and at parties smoking cigarettes. Now, electronic cigarettes (E- cigs), nicotine patches and gums, and pharmaceutical cessation aids are being marketed. Tobacco companies continue to fight for the freedom to market and enlist consumers, sighting that smoking is voluntary, and the choice should be made by the consumer not the government.

Although cigarette advertisements were banned from broadcast media, including television and radio in 1971, the tobacco industry still continues to produce ads through other means but under strict restrictions. Cigarette advertising is allowed in business establishments or magazine publications that are strictly for adults over 21 years of age. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced many restrictions in 2010 on the way that tobacco can be advertised. For instance, tobacco companies can no longer sponsor sporting/entertainment events and cannot sell cigarettes in packs fewer than 20, which eliminates the “kiddie packs.” In addition, a regulation for billboard advertising is up for discussion and is being processed (Food and Drug Administration, 2014). However, the laws and strict regulations that have been passed are in conflict with the best interest of the cigarette companies.

Tobacco companies increasingly rely on their packaging to build brand loyalty and grab consumers. Limiting the right of private corporations to advertise and differentiate their perfectly legal products from those of their competitors only serves to punish tobacco companies and their customers (Kline 1). The government wants to have cigarette packages to contain disturbing images accompanied by stark warnings covering 75% of the packaging (Kline 1). The second viewpoint is about how regulating tobacco will cause more harm, and covering cigarette packages will make tobacco companies furious, and could cause trouble and go to court. If people do not

Smoking-related causes are responsible for over $96 billion in healthcare expenditures in the U.S. alone. The average medical cost per pack of cigarettes is $5.31. So, for every pack someone buys, they will be paying double because of the horrible health effects. Researchers have also discovered that there is a wage gap between smokers and non-smokers. This is caused by productivity loss, health-related absences, and workplace bias. The average smoker earns 8% less than a non-smoker of the same background. Putting that in perspective, the average hourly wage is $25, and that adds up to a monthly loss of $275. That multiplies to a loss of $3,306 a year. That is a lot of

The tobacco industry uses sponsorship and media to advertise its products, the best selling product being cigarettes. The industry’s targeted demographic has changed over the years from general interest in men, to an abrupt shift toward women, targeting them with slim cigarettes and “girly” brands. It is common knowledge that the tobacco campaign has targeted

The intervention of the government defies one’s one will regarding health. The legalization of advertisements and the production of tobacco should go hand in

There are easily many reasons to support the banning of advertisement of tobacco products. The obvious reasons can be the smell, the public health risk, and simple things like fire hazards. Underlying the obvious there are numerous other reasons to support the need to ban tobacco with far more complex arguments and concerns like the targeting of children and impacts on the medical system of a nation. As a matter of ethical considerations, the purpose of a government is usually the protection or greater good of a nation and its people. This makes a direct point that a government has responsibility to protect its people and smoking kills undoubtedly

Tobacco advertising refers to promotion display of tobacco products in media such as; radio, television, print, billboards and at retail stores. The ban on tobacco advertising by the Indian Government has many effects on the people as well as their ethics and freedom of choice. This paper will provide a summary argument in favour of the ban as well as opposing the ban. And to conclude with my opinions on what the government should do with tobacco advertising.