Essay on Tobacco Advertising

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?

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.

Although tobacco and alcohol products differ, they share a high level of addiction and are “among the top causes of preventable deaths in the United States” ( U.S Department of Health & Human Services, 2007 ). As stated in Controversies In Contemporary Advertising by Kim Bartel Sheehan (2014), “tobacco and alcohol advertising are probably two of the most thoroughly examined and criticized categories of all advertised products” ( p.177 ). Yet, advertisers continue to heavily invest on promoting these products considering the “total spending on wine, beer, and spirits was almost $2 billion” with another “$10 billion spent on tobacco advertising globally in 2008” ( Sheehan, 2014, p.177 ). In response to the advertisers selling efforts and ad spendings,

There was also precedent set amongst other consumer products. The advertising of firearms and pharmaceuticals were also regulated by the government. This ban on advertising was not a ban on the sale of the products but only on their marketing.

The arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco related advertising in India are plentiful. First, proponents of the ban assert that the state has the right to intervene in the name of public health. Second, there are other precedents for dangerous or potentially dangerous products’ advertising being restricted such as firearms or pharmaceuticals. Third, tobacco related deaths are projected to increase over the next few years and we need to take action to stem the flow of new users. Fourth, youth targeted advertising campaigns are wrong and the tobacco industry’s own released documents indicate that the 14-24 year old demographic is targeted as “tomorrow’s cigarette business”, these campaigns need to stop to reduce the number of young people getting addicted to cigarettes. Fifth, policies aimed at reducing tobacco use are forecast to increase employment despite the tobacco industry itself contracting due to the fact that the money spent on tobacco products does not leave the economy if not spent on those products but actually is used on more complex products. Finally, complete bans on tobacco marketing result in reduced use of tobacco products over time according to studies in Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France, but the ban needs to cover all media outlets.

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

The most common disease caused by cigarettes is cancer and since the drug affects smokers and non-smokers as well, there has been a widespread call to illegalize cigarette advertising. The rationale behind banning cigarette advertising is to reduce the influence that adverts have on young and inexperienced smokers. In addition, the adverts believed to boost cigarette sales and lure unsuspecting victims do as to increase consumer demand. For this reason, cigarette-manufacturing companies have been using adverts to influence increased consumption without paying attention to the underlying dangers associated with the consumption of this harmful drug. Despite the effects associated with cigarette smoking and the dangers of influenced consumption of cigarettes, some researchers believe there is no need to ban cigarette smoking. Various reasons exist to support the legalization of cigarette advertising. The case for an outright ban on cigarette smoking seems to be very strong. However, there are those who argue to the contrary. Those who argue against a ban on cigarette smoking propose a range of arguments such as cigarette not being the only consumable that is lethal to human life. They say that junk food is also carcinogenic and that a ban on cigarette smoking should also mean a ban on fast-food restaurants that sell junk food. Equally, they argue that the right of smokers to choose what they consume will be compromised by a ban and that public warnings as to the dangers of

On February 26th, 2001 the Indian government announced they were going to enforce a ban regarding advertising their products in their country. The problem was that tobacco companies in India promote their products through every conceivable medium, including radio, television, newspapers, magazines, billboards and the internet. The government realized that most of these tobacco companies were adapting creative new ways to publicize their brands to young people.

Even though they blame its success on peer pressure the companies internal documents show otherwise. (2.a) Most of the evidence was industry studies on new smokers and how to attract them. One expert testimony showed that 90 % of six-year-olds recognized the popular characters on cigarette packs like Joe camel to be as familiar as Mickey Mouse and other childhood heroes. (3) Media advertising has a very subtle yet powerful effect on people and the tobacco companies have taken full advantage of its tools.

The arguments in favor of the government banning tobacco advertising generally begins with the belief that the government has the right to intervene in the best interest of its citizens. The banning of cocaine, which is generally seen as worldwide, is often used as an example of this. Public health is often the motive that is cited when countries such as Belgium and France banned tobacco advertising. It was 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.” (ICMR, 2001)

The most compelling reason to ban tobacco advertising is the growing body of evidence linking tobacco ads to increased tobacco use, particularly children. Studies following a 1998 settlement prohibiting U.S. tobacco companies from targeting American youth have shown a steady decline, with the lowest levels in forty years of teenage smoking reported in 2015. Despite COTPA, Indian youth’s exposure to cigarette advertising has increased in part because of aggressive point-of-sale marketing, promotional support of music and sporting events, through social media, and smoking portrayed in Bollywood films. Multiple authorities agree that a ban on tobacco advertising has to be all-encompassing and free from

The arguments in favor of placing a ban on the advertising of tobacco products not only include the scientifically proven negative health impacts, but also show concern for the usage of tobacco in teenagers and young adults. Critics of big tobacco claim that tobacco companies tailor their ads in a manner that targets young people in order to maintain client base. There is also the issue of the government’s ethical responsibilities and its role as an enabler

Tobacco Advertising was the hot topic it was in the late 90 's and early 2000 's, but it is still something we should strive to understand and functionally work with. The European Union and the United States have banned advertisements from television, while only the United States has banned tobacco advertising for sporting events.

1. The Government of India (GOI) proposed ban on tobacco advertising was not unusual keeping in view the international precedents. Countries like France, Finland, and Norway had already imposed similar bans. An example is Belgium whose Supreme Court (of Appeal in 1981, gave its ruling that a ban on tobacco advertising was not unconstitutional. In a case which started in 1991 and ended in 1997, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, marketer of Camel cigarettes, was forced to withdraw its mascot, Joe Carmel, an animated camel, from all its advertisements, after the California Supreme Court (USA) ruled that the company could be prosecuted for exploiting minors. The accusation was that the slick, colourful advertisements (using an animated camel) appealed to the children and encouraged them to smoke.

Studies made by the WHO (World Health Organization) shows that tobacco was responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000,000 people worldwide in 1990, with the figures continuing to rise, the number estimated to almost triple by 2020. (Morris, 2001)