Written assignment unit 4 Term 5 Smoking is bad as everyone knows. In order to stop this habit, governments are working on different solutions. Still there is a conflict of interest that makes a ban of advertising of tobacco a complex issue as I explain below. To summarize the argument in favor of banning tobacco advertising, I have to start by defining what is tobacco and why it is controversial. Tobacco is known to be a killer of humans for many years, like Cancer, HIV, and other diseases.
As there is a hope that with less marketing some people will try to drop the habit. This would create a new demand and products like nicotine gum would find more consumers. Lastly and possibly the most important reason for wanting such a ban is the drop in users. The article references reports from four countries all of which have a full ban on tobacco advertisements. These reports showcased a sharp decline in the amount of users in these countries over several years.
Even though there are many people claims that banning smoking in the public will bring many benefits to the society, however, this statement is only up to a certain extent. In fact, there are many arguments that disagree with the legalisation of banning smoking in the public area. Banning smoking would infringe a person’s choice and right and affect the business and economy of a country. The government should not implement the smoking ban in the public it is because banning smoking is an act of infringing a person’s choice and right. The government should not regulate a person’s choice and right just because smoking is harmful.
Depending on the state the prices of cigarettes can differ. But even at an affordable price the regular consumption of cigarettes will eventually take its economic toll. Therefore, banning smoking in public places can reduce at least some of these problems and would enable people to live in a healthier way. In conclusion, smoking really causes negative effect on one's health, society and environment. Smoking activity should continue being banned in public places so that a new page for health and development of the whole population would be open up.
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.
The devastating health effects and the costs involved in treating the affected, further intensified the internal conflict within the Indian government and made the decision to ban tobacco advertising a difficult one. My opinion on what governments should do in regards to tobacco advertising My personal opinion is that tobacco advertising should be heavily regulated and any advert must portray the damage done by the use of the product. Companies should be allowed to advertise, but at the same time they should be honest and informative about the consequences of using their products. Conclusion When coming to summarize this case analysis, one cannot escape the feeling of how charged an issue this is. Arguments for and against tobacco advertising seems to sway the pendulum back and forth.
Smoking Tabaco should be illegal Smoking brings about tons of arguments, and most individuals either support it or oppose it. Banning drugs should be the least of our concern, when a legal substance such as smoking cigarettes has a much higher death rate. Tobacco is expected to kill 7.5 million people worldwide by 2020. Smoking causes about 70% lung cancers, 50% of chronic respiratory disease, and almost 10% of cardiovascular diseases. It is one’s choice whether they would like to harm themselves or not.
To conclude this reason, a policy maker will have to do more than just a ban on smoking as I had earlier stated that a simple ban will not have much impact. But, it is still important to understand that I don’t intend to say that there will never be a reduction in the number of smokers through anti-smoking laws. It does. But, as we saw from the 1st graph, we can see that the number of people who stop smoking reduces through awareness rather than taxing the smokers. As a policy maker, the aim would be to shift the demand curve and the increase in price or a ban does not shift the demand curve.
In the past, such campaigns targeted on looks showing how a young man in his 20s looked like a 40-year-old, but rather than create the anticipated effected, most smokers were not touched by the commercial as it did not look like truth. In this case, not all 20-year olds look like 40-year-olds because of smoking; therefore, smoking cannot be harmful to your health. In another spectrum, when statistics are utilized such as showing every one in three people who smoke end up with a terminal health complication, most individuals are inclined to assume that they are the exception to the rule: genetic
The tobacco companies reference studies that show their advertising does not correlate to product consumption nor does a ban on their advertisements reduce consumption. Those opposed to the ban on tobacco advertisements say the ban would not be effective since most consumers use tobacco products from the non-organized sector, which does not produce advertisements. They contend that a ban would effect over 26 million jobs related to tobacco production and hurt the state exchequer. The opponents reason that India does not spend very much on healthcare to begin with, so any illness that may be created by tobacco use would not be a burden. They continue by reasoning that is people did become ill from tobacco consumption, then their premature death would relieve the old-age pension burden from the