Opposition to the ban of tobacco advertising in India Banning tobacco advertising was infringing on the people’s rights of choice and advocates of free choice stated that this amounted to unnecessary intrusion by the state in the private lives of its citizens. Incidentally, the organized sector which mainly produced tobacco products accounted for only 16% of the market share while 84% comprised of other products like 'beedi, ' and 'ghutkas so the ban would have a negligible impact on the overall sales. Also if the government already legalized the production of tobacco products, it should be legal to advertise the same. Another negative impact was that the ban would reduce the awareness of consumers to distinguish between products of differing quality and would slow down the progression of consumer up the scale from harmful tobacco consumption (like ghutka, zarda etc) to more refined forms. The ban would lead to a surge in surrogate advertising which could defeat the purpose of the action.
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.
In fact, those who smoke have their life span shortened by about approximately. However, the government must ban tobacco smoking in order to prevent smokers from lethal diseases, protect nonsmokers as well as saving the environment. The most obvious reason as to why tobacco should be
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
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.
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.
It can give you many diseases, and eventually kill you. Tobacco can be very dangerous for tobacco and non-tobacco smokers. Tobacco should be banned in the country America. Even SIRS discoverer and Britannica agree with me. They both have reasons for why it 's bad.
I believe that smoking cigarettes in public places should be illegal for many reasons such as the health and safety dangers of others and even myself. Firstly those who believe that smoking should be banned say that cigarettes can affect smokers deeply in the long run. “Over 50,000 studies of the health effects of tobacco in dozens of countries have detailed its dangers. Worldwide, tobacco use causes about 90% of lung cancer deaths, 30% of all cancers, 20-25% of coronary heart diseases and stroke deaths, and more than 80% of chronic bronchitis and emphysema”. (Jordan 1).
that the controversy regarding the ban is just a smokescreen as the tobacco industry would have been notified about the law months before it came under public scrutiny. My position on what governments across the world should do in regards to tobacco advertising is that some form of tobacco advertising should be permitted like corporate sponsorships while others should be illegal like TV and magaCase Analysis: Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India The plan by India's government to ban tobacco advertising generated a lot of heated discussions for and against the move, this paper will summarize the arguments for and against the plan. The Ayes' Advocates for the ban argued that the ban wasn’t unusual as it was following precedents that
Besides all these harmful ingredients, cigarette also should be prohibited for all the incurable diseases such as lung cancer, throat cancer, liver cancer, pneumonia, bronchitis and many more fatal sickness. To add to it, millions died annually due to cigarettes. The number of deaths cigarettes caused is more than the number of deaths caused by illicit drugs combined. Last but not least, prohibiting cigarettes will bring good not only to humans but to the environment as well, there will be no cigarette buds laying on the floor if there are no smokers. This could help the littering issues too.