Many health professionals believe that you should not expose your health to unnecessary risk, and you should completely stop using nicotine. Nevertheless, if there is no such possibility, buying an electronic cigarette will at least help to avoid the catastrophic destructive consequences that tobacco provokes. Tobacco companies that produce a wide range of malicious products strongly protest against the mass enthusiasm for electronic cigarettes. They conduct their research, but remembering the amount of sales of tobacco industry, the reliability of those conclusions is
Since 1991, Singapore has been increasing the tax of tobacco to discourage smoking (Lim, 2004). Cigarette packs also have pictures of the harmful effects of smoking, such as, throat cancer, miscarriage. Schools are also encouraged to have smoking cessation interventions so that adolescents will not pick up smoking, instead of thinking that they can quit anytime. While Singapore has all these policies and prohibitions in place, it has been found that it does not make that big of an impact on individuals that smoke (Subramaniam et al., 2015). Subramaniam and colleagues (2015) found that social influence played a central role in the initiation of smoking, and that adolescents with family members that smoke, are more likely to pick up the habit.
By enacting the ban on advertisements and sponsorships, the Government was actually looking down upon those who smoke that they were not adept at making sound decision on their own. The enthusiasts referred to court precedencies in other countries such Canada where the Supreme Court determined in a comparable case that placing ban tobacco advertisement was not a good form of parenting. Others argued that "Adults who consume tobacco do so of their own free choice. The risk falls entirely on them and is fully explained to them” (Amit Sarkar, Editor, Tobacco
They push it through public and online selling. Unfortunately, FDA and other health experts decided to ban it until they can decide whether to regulate it or not but makers of e-cigarette and some government officials opposed to this idea. How can e-cigarette be a cessation aid if there’s not enough evidence to prove that it does contribute lesser harmful effects to the users? This topic needs to be carefully studied but FDA and other health experts should be quick to avoid large numbers of problems and deaths in the future. Smoking is hard to stop especially when the user is using it for a long time.
Some also interpret this ban as if people were not smart enough to decide by themselves, that the government had to take up the father figure roll, step up, and make the decision for them. By doing this, taking the freedom of society, because of the information about the harm of tabaccos was out there, and who ever smoked, did so because it was their choice and by their own free will. Some people pointed that the government had the right to intervene in the overall interest of the
In the article “Ban on tobacco ads by the government of India” (page 2,3), the arguments in favor of a ban on tobacco advertising provide some of the following points: Precedents in other countries who have imposed bans on tobacco advertising show that laws enforcing the bans were upheld by the courts in Belgium and France. They point out that in these countries freedom of choice is respected but when a product can be dangerous or a detriment to public health the state has the right to ban advertising. This has already been done for other products like firearms and pharmaceutical products. Statistics are given showing the number of deaths that are caused by tobacco and that the health care cost outweigh the economic benefits of production and sales of tobacco. The fear that the advertising was inducing children and young people to smoke and that the advertising was targeting young people was pointed out.
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.
In this article, Gross quotes Professor Melanie Wakefield, a Cancer Council Victoria researcher, “‘... the clearest evidence to date that tobacco-industry-sponsored smoking prevention ads don’t work, and they are acting as a marketing smokescreen to promote tobacco to youth’” (Gross). This shows how some people take anti-smoking advertisements out of context. Also in this article, there
Advertisers use emotions to evoke feelings in consumers in order to sell products. One of the main emotions advertisers use is fair. Public service announcements tries to invoke fear in people to promote a change of behavior and lifestyle. One of the current social causes that the public are fighting against is smoking. According to the Truth Initiation in 2003 23% of teens smoked cigarettes and now in 2017, only 6% of teens smoke cigarettes.
If someone raises his voice against them, he may have a chance to be humiliated. And smoking in front of adolescents most alarmingly encourages them to habituate smoker. Not to mention that such kind of heinous acts is obviously the crime that must not go unpunished. And it would be the crucial to ensure nonsmokers protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces. In the context of halting smoking in public places, we have two news – encouraging and disheartening.