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.
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.
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 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.
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
A 40% increase in phone inquiries. Think about how much percentage would go up if we would get more commercials like this. Anti-smoking should be a big thing across the world. If anti-smoker campaigns were to get more commercials like this one around the world maybe we could prevent more smoking diseases. Perhaps this commercial was one of the most effective commercials I have ever seen.
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.
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 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
The Government of India has wanted to start an anti-Tobacco Program by discouraging young people from smoking. The first step to achieve such program was to ban advertising from Tobacco Companies. This included the advertisement of tobacco products and sponsorship at sports and cultural events. From the ethical standpoint the government felt responsible for the wellbeing of its citizens so it had to come up with a plan or a program to discourage smoking. The government argued that Tobacco was a toxic product which caused death when consumed as the companies intended.