This decision created intense debate due to ethical reasons as well as whether or not it would be achievable. (“Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India”, 2010). People who advocated for free choice felt this ban was intrusive on citizens by the state. Other countries had already created similar bans, and Belgium even ruled in 1981 that a ban on tobacco advertising was not unconstitutional. France followed in 1991 and felt it protected the health of the public.
In 2001 the government of India stated that it will soon pass a bill “banning tobacco companies from Advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events.” The reason for the ban was to Keep young adults away from tobacco products, and from consuming it. It was also so that they can help Aid the government to pitch an anti-tobacco program. Finland, Norway and France have are all countries That have enforced the same idea of banishments of tobacco Ads. Those that oppose the ban believed It to be unnecessary and a violation of their private lives. For the people who were all in for the ban Thought otherwise.
Let’s scrutinize the first of all the proponents' arguments then the opponents' arguments of the ban on tobacco advertising in India. The Proponents arguments The policy implemented by the government was consistent with the constitution as it empowers the government to take care and protects its citizens. The consumption of tobacco products harms roughly the health of the consumers because its consumption has been the cause of over 4.023 million deaths in 1998 and the number of victims is increasing, according to the world Health Organization (WHO). The advertising activities of the tobacco industry target the
The cigarette companies asserted that their adverts were only targeted at people who were already smokers and thus not targeted at non-smokers, a survey which was conducted by the Indian Market Research Bureau (IMRB) was used to defend their position that tobacco adverts did not persuade people to take up smoking. The survey results showed that 49% of the people surveyed admitted that they started smoking to see what it was like, 24% said their friends smoke and crucially for critics of the ban, none of the people surveyed said advertisements persuaded them to smoke. It was also noted that some supporters of the ban claimed that the government was spending substantial amounts on offering healthcare to more of its citizens as a consequence of illnesses attributed to smoking, opponents of the ban in reply to this contended that as was the case in developing nations like India, overall spending on healthcare, insurance and pension systems were so insignificant that the claim that India's government was expending a lot of its resources on healthcare was
Arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India There are many people that think that smokers should be capable of deciding by themselves what was good or bad for their health and that, therefore it had to play the role of a responsible mother. Amit Sarkar, Editor, Tobacco News said that “Adults who consume tobacco do so of their own free choice. The risk falls entirely on them and is fully explained to them. If we lose sight of this principle, then we lose sight of the truth on which all the free societies depend, namely that freedom and risks are inextricable, and whomsoever assumes the right to save us from risks, is also assuming right to limit our freedom". The Supreme Court in Canada, held, "The State seeks to control the thought, beliefs and behavior of its citizens along the line it considers acceptable.
Their arguments: -2 tobacco industry was the major contributor to state exchequer at the time of the study -3 tobacco industry produced 0.14 of GDP in India in 2000-2001 - unethical for a state to control citizen behaviour; in case of a ban the state is stepping in and tell to Indian population what to do and what to avoid - if it 's legal to produce and sell a product than also advertise should be legal - tobacco producers claimed they were not targeting adolescents with their Ads - 8in a survey conducted by IMRB showed that cigarettes ad did not create new
The government of India has many arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising. One of the arguments is the right of the government to step in and promote a healthier lifestyle. Many of the tobacco advertising companies stated that the ban on advertising was unconstitutional, but the supreme court in Belgium and France both agreed that the ban was not unconstitutional and was needed the ensure the public health. In 1990 tobacco attributed to over 3 million deaths and escalated to 4.023 million deaths in 1998. Studies show that when people quit smoking they spend their money in different sectors of the economy creating more jobs and economic growth.
However the government’s cautious approach in not implementing specific bans will result in a stunted growth of the full benefits of this strategy. The strategy document states that there is a known a link between advertising and people’s alcohol consumption, particularly those under the age of 18. (Secretary of State for the Home Department,2012). It then went on to say that a ban is not a proportionate response. Here it was identified that alcohol advertising is indeed a problem however the bitter medicine of banning, which would stem this problem is being eschewed by government.
This means that the information, which is from cigarettes advertisement, could lead to many side effects to people that are linked to health problems. According to Data 2, which is the bans on advertising, promotion and sponsorship data from the WHO report, it is clearly seen that controlling the policies on cigarette advertisement has been used by many countries around the world. There have shown that 101 countries, which are high-income, middle-income and low-income countries, take most actions on the TV, radio and print media (WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2011). What is more, according to the Data 6 of comparing the countries that ban all kind of the cigarettes advertisements and those that are not which is taken from the Worldbank on public health, it is noticeable that the country which take the banning action could decrease much more amount of tobacco consumption than those which are not such as the downward trend of cigarette consumption from over 1700 in 1981 to under 1500 per capita in 1991 (Measures To Reduce The Demand For Tobacco, 2011). By looking at these data, it is obvious that banning the cigarettes advertisement is an effective way that can help reducing the cigarettes
Even though it is written on all the packs of every tobacco product that, it is harmful and causes all kind of diseases and cancers in one's body. The topic I chose tells about how tobacco can destroy an individual's life and cause to have side effects which are innumerous and also how it has