The arguments that came up against the ban of tobacco advertisement were several. One of the main arguments is the one stating that passing such a bill was indicating that people were not able to make their own decisions. They believe that people had the right to decide whether they want to smoke or not regardless of advertisements. They insist on the rights of adults having a free choice, especially in a country that is “free and democratic”. Many thought Government was trying to control the thoughts, beliefs and behavior of the citizens too much.
The evidence is overwhelming that tobacco kills. India should not allow the promotions of a product, especially if it encourages or even might encourage children and young people to smoke. The government is responsible for the welfare of its people and there is a clear danger to that welfare posed by tobacco. The government should not ban tobacco products because it is the right of adults to use or not use tobacco, but the advertising should be
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.
Studies show that when people quit smoking they spend their money in different sectors of the economy creating more jobs and economic growth. Tobacco consumption in countries that had a ban showed a dramatic decrease in consumers compared to countries that did not have the ban in place. The ban on tobacco only works if it is properly implemented and tobacco control policies are intact. The opposition of the ban contend that the government is overstepping boundaries by telling adults that they are not able to decide what is good or bad for themselves. Also they argue that individuals who smoke are doing so of their own free will and that they know the effects of smoking and decide to smoke anyway.
Should smoking be banned? The topic of banning cigarettes has been a controversial subject for more than a century. More than 1 billion people around the world, but considering that it harms the smoker and everyone around him, should cigarettes be prohibited? Should the right to smoke be taken away? Firstly, All doctors and scientists agree that smoking is life threatening.
Managers of companies can often be faced with ethical dilemmas, especially in advertising if their product is not particularly safe, such as tobacco. These companies want to show their product in a good way. (Carpenter, Taylor, & Erdogan, 2009) In order to dissuade adolescents from consuming tobacco, the Government of India announced on Feb 6, 2001 that they would create a bill that banned tobacco companies from advertising their products and no longer would allow them to sponsor cultural or sporting events. This was part of an anti-tobacco program in India. This decision created intense debate due to ethical reasons as well as whether or not it would be achievable.
In reality I know that just because tobacco isn’t advertised doesn’t mean adults are not going consume it. In fact the Indian Market Research Bureau conducted a survey in 1998, which asked smokers what influenced their decision to start smoking. The results showed “49% of the respondents said they started smoking to see what it was like, 24% said 'all my friends smoke'; and no one said advertising had induced them to start smoking.” (Ban on Tobacco, 2001) Therefore it seems that if the government’s intent was based on the publics health, the best approach to decrease smoking would be to an out right ban on its sale and consumption. Without doing this people will still decide to smoke regardless of a lack of advertising or known health risks. It seems unfair to single out one industry like tobacco when there are much worse dangers created by polluters.
Government of India announced on February 6, 2001 the decision of legislate to stop Tobaco Companies from advertising their product and sponsor sports and cultural events. This create a conflict between pro and against ban, due to economical and ethical interest. Pro Ban this faction was more concerned with public health and ethical choices to improve the quality of life of the citizen , even if this means reduce some people 's freedom. Their arguments: - discourage adolescents from consuming - a ban will give power to the government to launch anti tobacco campaign - government will take side to help citizen wellness, as an ethical choice - help reduce the cost of surgery due to smoke related illness - if not smoking people will spend money
Irrespective of the continuously increasing deaths due to cigarette smoking, the government hasn’t been much responsive to this chronic concern . However, some government on the other hand has tried to put a leash around this issue, but hasn’t been much effective. The essay underneath would concentrate upon this in particular question that “should cigarette smoking be banned?” emphasizing over the arguments and others points to be considered for putting stop over this chronic and deadly habit. Thesis statement Smoking tobacco has been around civilization for centuries; people have enjoyed the puffs of a cigarette without considering the deadly health impact . While some government hasn’t showed much responsibility, some have continuously been engaged in making people aware of the hazardous impact of smoking tobacco.