Ethics in Regards to the Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India The ban on tobacco ads by the Indian Government surely raises many concerns and ethical arguments going back and forth. There are those that strongly support such a ban, and there are those that strongly oppose it. They each have differing views and counter arguments to arguments presented. I plan to summarize each view in support of and against the ban, discuss the conflict of interest as it pertains to the government of India, as well as give my opinion on what governments should do in regards to tobaccoadvertising. The first thing I plan to do is summarize the arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising by the government of India.
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.
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.
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
First of all, it has been mentioned that there is proper allowance of individual rights and corporate rights. Anti smoking activists also said that everyone has a basic right to freedom of expression, but it is limited to till that moment when it is not causing any harm or devastation to any limit. Individuals have their right to smoke but they should not persuade others or force others to join this inhuman cause. As to those who are opposed to the promotion of cigarettes , they also argue that, the society as a whole has an obligation to protect the right of individuals not to be deceived or manipulated. Hence, the ban on advertising is not going to help the affected , instead they could be deprived of the information they get from the warning pictures and statements made along with the
With the alarming number of smokers, agencies spend billions of dollars every year on anti-smoking advertisements. Anti-smoking agencies enlighten audiences of the negative consequences of smoking and try to persuade them to stop. The visual I chose to analyze is a commercial engendered by an anti-smoking agency called Quit. The advertisement, “quit smoking commercial” shows a mother and a son walking in a busy airport terminal. Suddenly, the mother abandons the child, and after he realizes he is alone, he commences to cry.
Many countries throughout the world have been implementing laws regarding tobacco smoking. Scotland, England, France, and Argentina are only a few of many countries which have banned smoking in public areas (WHO, 2016). Additionally, there have been increases on tax rates on tobacco. Increase tax rates have shown to decrease tobacco rates. The World Health Organization
Firstly, the campaign of “National No Smoking Day” has been organized on Wednesday in 1983, when it was called Quit for the day in United Kingdom. This campaign remains as the foremost public health event in UK. The mission of this campaign is to appeal to smokers in a different age, sex or social class. Then, in Malaysia, Health Ministry was initiated the campaign of “Say No” to smoking in 2004 until 2010. Campaign posters were posted up on billboards, government premises, newspapers and magazines, while television and radio advertisements were bought and played on air.In addition, to increase the awareness of the negative consequences of smoking, tobacco companies are also banned from advertising their products.For 32 years, beginning in 1976, the warning on cigarette packs were one-line sentences stated that: “Warning by the Malaysian Government: Smoking is Hazardous to Health” and also the images on the pack of cigarettes demonstrate some of the consequences of smoking: cancers of the neck, lung and mouth and must cover at least 40% of the front of the pack, and 60% of the
Advertising Strategies for Cigarette Consumption Cigarette advertising has been an enormous industry in the United States from the 1920s until the current day. There have been changes in the allowable content and even the media that could and can be used to place tobacco manufacturer’s products in front of the consuming public. Due to public and health care professional’s pressure, the United States government passed legislation in 1969 that would curtail the ability for tobacco manufacturer’s to advertise their product on television and radio and made health effect warnings required on cigarette packaging. Did effective advertising strategies for cigarette manufactures create an environment where cigarette consumption could continue at a profitable level for those companies even after television and radio advertisements were banned in the early 1970s? Early Strategies
Ban is making the consumption and selling of alcohol illegal. But banning alcohol would have a large effect on the alcohol industry in terms of shareholders and employment. If alcohol is banned the company would start taking out people as they will not make enough revenue (price times quantity) to pay the workers and this would create high levels of unemployment and also the tax revenue for the government would decrease and the alcohol industry is one of the most profitable industry and pays the most tax. Banning a product needs votes and as most of the population of Singapore drinks they are unlikely to vote against the consumption of