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
It would be interesting to see whether the same would happen to the alcohol industry seeing that it has a consistent demand. The alcohol Industry is a big contributor to advertising and could cause great financial loss. Focus Question If advertising for alcohol was banned similar to smoking advertisements would it decrease the sales of SAB breweries and Liquor stores local to Randpark Ridge? Aim My aim is to determine how dependant alcohol companies are on advertising to reach their satisfactory sales amount. Another sub aim is to see whether individuals are encouraged by advertisements to purchase alcohol.
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.
The gangs increase in numbers which means an increase in government problems. People will smoke in private places, ignoring the ban, these people are hard to monitor. People who do not smoke are unlikely to tell on smokers, in case they get in trouble with big gangs or even corrupt officers. If smoking is banned because it is harmful, then fast-food and even cars should be banned because they are also life threatening to human life as well. In my opinion, it is hard to ban smoking as there is a large amount of people addicted already.
Smoking has been one of the largest and most serious problems in the world. Countries try to combat this problem by showing anti-smoking advertisements to try to get people to quit smoking. The topic of the effectiveness of these advertisements has been debated by almost everyone that has a brain and can think clearly about it. Many people have completely different views on this topic because there are many reasons to support both sides of the argument. Anti-smoking advertisements are effective and play a huge role in how people view smoking because these advertisements catch the eyes of not only smokers but also others around them, giving someone a visual of what could happen if he or she were to smoke or continue to smoke and appealing to a person’s emotions .
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.
+ere we have the "ays’. !rom the very onset, speaking from an ethical standpoint, there is the argument of free will8free choice. 7oes the government, or anyone for that matter, have the right to say someone cannot do something$ 7oes the government have the right to ban advertising to even attempt to lower the usage of tobacco when it is argued that people should have the right to choose what they want to do with their health$ ne of the other ma'or arguments by those opposed is that a ban is that if it is legal to manufacture, then it should be legal to advertise. !urthermore, such a ban is no good for the economy. A lot of the tobacco industry is done through farming.
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.