The Case Ban On Tobacco Ads And Talks About The Conflict Of Interests Between Tobacco Producers And The Government Essay

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.

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?

The prohibition of tobacco has been trending in foreign nations such as Finland, Norway and France. To conduct similar constraints is the intention of the government of India. Endangerment and possible victims of hazards are the concerns of those who are in favor of banning tobacco as well as other precarious commodities such as handguns and narcotics in India. Millions of deaths around the world have been the aftereffect of tobacco and cigarette smoking since the 90’s. Predictions of an increase of death toll would occur in the latter years to come. Utilization of tobacco among the youth is the product of propagandas’ enticements. Consequently, an increase in medical expenses such as hospital bills and health care expenditures would become the repercussion of such consumption. Additionally, even supposing that the occupation of 26 million people is the liability of tobacco industries, a boycott of tobacco and job turnovers would not create an adverse impact on the economy of India. Investments in other stocks would enhance the Indian economy. Finally, a decline of tobacco consumption would become fruitful if there is a proper implementation of banning tobacco endorsements.

Tobacco is one of the largest industries funding to the economy of the United States. The tobacco industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and the revenue is constantly increasing due to needy consumers. The tobacco industry is now, more harmful than ever before. Even though, people realize that tobacco is harmful to one's health through tobacco taxes, advertisement bans, second hand smoke, and health warnings, many still smoke with the power of propaganda that tobacco companies have made. Tobacco industries are one of the most profitable industries that are able to sell products that will eventually kill their consumers.

These days, tobacco is the most common and easily available drug of choice for the people who are addicted to it. While some argue that government has a prime role in controlling it, but others believe that it can be controlled by individual effort. My stance is that both governments and individuals need to take steps to discourage its use and fashion among people. This essay will examine both sides of the contention before reaching to a reasonable conclusion.

On Feb 6, 2001 Government of India (GOI) dropped a bombshell on the tobacco Industry when it announced that it would shortly 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.

In 2001, there was an argument by the government of India trying to decide whether or not it was a good idea to ban all advertising from the tobacco industry. The government’s main goal was to find a way to reduce the number of teenagers using tobacco. The government believed that these advertisements encouraged teens to start smoking or to continue smoking if they were doing it already. As expected, this situation created a lot of tension between the government and the tobacco industry. This created two sides: those in favor of the ban, and those against it.

personal aspect, as for the ban on tobacco ads being shown in the country by the Indian Government 02/06/2001. Not only for health purposes such as lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, stroke, asthma, reproductive affects in women, diabetes, premature, low birth weight in babies, blindness, cataracts, or age related macular degeneration. With India being a nation with war, as well as lots of heat as they are in the middle of the Sahara desert, many people are subject to having breathing issues without smoking. The reasoning was to block adolescents from purchasing tobacco products, where here in the United States there actually is a sting operation in many cities that police officers pay someone to attempt to purchase tobacco products in order to ensure that businesses are not selling to minors. Minors are not the only reason any country should ban the ads, as I remember as a little girl, the commercial was “ like father, like son” and it showed everything the father did the son would do, and at the end of the day and they would go sit under a tree, the father would then light up a cigarette and then the son would look at the pack and then look up to the father and the words “ like father, like son would be said and the brand was Marlboro, this was 1968 if my memory serves me correctly.

Cigarettes Kill. "Tobacco accounted for over 4.023 million deaths in 1998"1. There is a relation between cigarettes and long term health effects or smoking related illnesses. The case in India had the government engaged in a dialogue and democratic debate on if they wanted to create an advertising ban on cigarettes. They wanted to prevent undue influence on their youth to take up smoking and in so doing save their lives or possible future health care expenditures.

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

· Countries like Belgium and France declared that banning tobacco was not unconstitutional as the right to freedom of trade right was not being affected and at the same time the good health of its nationals was being persued. This same argument can be applied to the people of India and its tobacco firms as they are still allowed to offer their products in shops and other establishments. The advertising ban would not hinder their right to trade their products with the community.

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?

On Feb 6 2001 the Government of India (GOI) made a radical decision when they announced the sudden tabling of a bill to banning Tobacco Companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports or cultural events. The decision caused a great uproar from the people. What had prompted such a move? Did the GOI consider the repercussions? What legislature was in place to reinforce the ban? ITC Ltd actually commented that the legislation had not been thought thorough. Suhel Seth, CEO, Equus advertising saw the move as a government strategy to gain publicity and popularity for itself.

For me tobacco is one of the useful but useless products that are consumed by some class of the human race in general. In the year 2001 the Government of India had announce an intention to lay an embargo on the advertisement of tobacco in the media in general, in-order to prevent luring the younger generation from getting involved in this act and also to arm the government with powers to launch an anti-Tobacco Program. After the declarations made by the government there is a negative uprising against the ban that the government want to lay on the advertisements of the tobacco in general. Some ideal people have seen the decision taken by the government as an impossible decision that can never come into fruition, even to the degree where some prominent media personnel like, Suhel Seth, CEO, Equus Advertising said have to speak against the intention of the government by saying, "The ban does not have teeth. It is a typical knee-jerk reaction by any Government to create some kind of popularity for itself.

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States and generates enormous individual and social costs. Indeed, estimated external costs of cigarette smoking are over \$300 billion per year.\footnote{This figure includes around \$170 billion in direct medical costs \citep{Xu2015}, the majority of which are payed for by public programs, and over \$156 billion in productivity lost to decreased health and premature death \citep{U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices2014}.}