The Tobacco Advertising Ban

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

     Should tobacco advertising be restricted? This is a very controversial issue. There is the idea that young children that smoke started smoking because of advertisements, but there is also the idea that children start smoking for other reasons. Many big, well-known tobacco companies like RJ Reynolds are being sued for their advertisements. On Monday April 20th, 1998 the jury heard a testimony from Lynn Beasly, the marketing vice president of the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. The courts believed that the advertisement was directed towards children under the age of 18, due to a document from the RJ Reynolds Board of Directors showing that they set a goal to increase the company's market share among 14

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.

The extent to which tobacco advertising contributes to the increase in smoking habits has been debated and still is being debated. The focus is heavily on the degree to which the advertising affects adolescents. Previous research which is explored above, suggests significant relationships between smoking behavior among youth and these advertisements. Tobacco companies on the other hand, have tried to prove their ads are not directed towards our youth. Specifically, the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company has run full page ads in national magazines advising youth to not smoke. They have asserted

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.

The following statistics gave a solid argument as to why the government of India was on track in banning tobacco advertisement. In 1981, the Supreme Court (of Appeal) in Belgium gave its ruling that a ban on tobacco advertising was not unconstitutional. In 1991 the French Constitutional Council declared that the French ban on advertising tobacco products was not unconstitutional as it was based on the need to protect public health and did not curtail the freedom of trade.

In conclusion, the tobacco industry is very harmful to society’s health. Cigarettes are the only legal consumer products in the world that cause half of their long-term users to die prematurely. Putting a ban on advertisement was just a start to not advertise so the tobacco industry would not solicit children, but the tobacco industry has come up with different strategies to solicit adolescents even more. If a law was passed to ban tobacco completely, citizens of the United States would not have to worry about second hand smoke, reduces the chance of cancer, and health

Most kids will experience a tobacco product before walking across the graduation stage from their local high school. With stricter regulations we can eradicate the false hope of fitting in with society through the commercials that project groups of friends whom consume the product and pretend their life is excelling due to the usage of a product. False advertisement should be against the law, so, our youth will not be subjected to distorted information. Our country shouldn’t allow corporations to exaggerate about their products behind the colorful tempting packages. If we were given the right information then, we would be compelled to develop a personal opinion based on the product. Finally, allowing us to process the information these corporations give us and letting

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

Studies have been done to examine the efficacy and vigorousness of these education programs. A number of these studies have determined such programs are effective in reducing tobacco use. Studies have also examined the effect of tobacco industry opposition to the federal anti-tobacco education effort. Policy has also been passed regarding promotion and advertising policy. The tobacco industry has fought back against the policies over the years and have had lobbyist trying to sway votes for these

Jancey and Jones (2002) found that the tobacco industry claims that tobacco advertising and promotion are not aimed at those under age. It’s accepted that cigarette advertising and promotion play a part in a child’s decision to smoke.

The First Amendment is a constitutional doctrine which allows individuals to exercise certain freedoms such speech, the press, or the right of the people to peacefully assemble. However, what the First Amendment does not carefully articulate is how “free” one’s freedom really is, or how such freedoms should be practiced. Advertising is a subject many often overlook when considering the freedoms that The First Amendment protects. However, it is a subject certainly not overlooked when regarding the question of cigarette advertising. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal and state regulators have targeted tobacco manufacturers for decades. Many claims have accused

To say that tobacco advertising stimulates tobacco sales may seem a simple and moderate statement. In reality, tobacco control activists often meet serious opposition in defending this fact. Achieving the restriction or banning of tobacco advertising is one of the fiercest battles to face. Tobacco lobbyists usually assert that advertising does not increase the overall quantity of tobacco sold. Rather, the tobacco industry maintains that advertising merely enhances the market share of a particular brand, without recruiting new smokers.

The following are the view points of those in favor of the tobacco-advertising ban in which the state intervene for the best interest of the citizens of India. The World Health Organization (WHO) stated, “tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths in 1990, the figure rising to 4.023 million deaths in 1998.” A more astonishing fact as described by WHO, “it was estimated that tobacco related deaths would rise to 8.4 million in 2020.” Secondly, the tax contribution from cigarettes only accounted for 0.14% of the G.D.P and the health cost was estimated to 0.21% of the G.D.P.

Those opposed to the ban on tobacco advertising in India have their own logic for opposing the restrictions. Oppositionists first assert that a restriction on