The ban on tobacco ads in India has been a controversial policy imposed and enforced by the government of India. This policy was aimed to reduce health issues caused by the consumption of tobacco products and at the same time stimulate and enable the selling of anti- tobacco products launched by the government. This policy has split people in two camps: defendant of the policy and opponents of the policy. To support their respective stand on that matter, they put forward convincing argumentation and counter-arguments, claims and counter-claims. Let’s scrutinize the first of all the proponents' arguments then the opponents' arguments of the ban on tobacco advertising in India.
But the ban on indirect advertising requires agreements among governments, as well as effective means of control. 5. dull packaging and "generic". Another consequence of the limits on direct advertising: the cigarette pack itself has become an essential advertising medium (just drop it on the table of a café for it exerts its effect). The importance of packaging is confirmed by the fierce resistance of the manufacturers against attempts to introduce packages "generic", and illustrations without which all look alike. The obligation to use such packages would break the image of happiness, independence and social success that manufacturers are trying to associate with the consumption of their
There are two basic responses to the harm principle as a means of limiting speech. One is that it is too narrow; the other is that it is too broad. This latter view is not often expressed because, as already noted, most people think that free speech should be limited if it does cause illegitimate harm. George Kateb (1996), however, has made an interesting argument that runs as follows. If we want to limit speech because of harm then we will have to ban a lot of political speech.
"THE TOBACCO AD BAN IN INDIA" February 6, 2001 the government in India (called Government of India "GOI") announced that it would ban ads concerning tobacco sales. The ban was issued to deter adolescents from purchasing and using tobacco products. Knowing that tobacco is detrimental to the health of its users and even to its harvesters, it has been given large warning labels on the back of cigarette boxes and also has had heavy import taxes placed on its sales. Most people are aware of the dangers associated with the use of tobacco. Anti-tobacco campaigns are still in effect.
Devlin would have thought the act of polyandry to be immoral and disintegrates the society however, being a moderate moralism he would not have wanted to intervene with the privacy of other unless the act has become very widely practiced and start causing harm to the society. However, if the was a law to be passed to make polyandry legal, Devlin would have disagree with this because once it has been made legal it will drive and encourage many to conduct this immoral act. Devlin did not say that every immoral act is to be prohibited. Devlin used the jury box morality of average right minded citizens where moral standards of behaviour are the standards of behaviour of a reasonable man. Will a reasonable man think the act of polyandry as something good and to be done?
Banning books has always been a big debate if it’s acceptable or not in the field of language arts… most Americans believe people should have the freedom to choose what they want to read. By banning books, our basic rights as US citizens are kind of taken away. Book banning affects the people who read books to the people who write them. I feel that most people banned or try to ban books because they want to protect others from different ideas and information. Banned books are basically books that are thought to be “unsuited” for their intended age group and are therefore challenged by parents to be removed from a school or any local library shelf.
This is why the dumb act of smoking should be illegal in the U.S. and around the world. Though some people may say if you were to make smoking illegal people would still find a way to get there hands on it, but there will be a consunsince for those people. There are many reasons to support this claim like how it is harmful to the smoker and the people around them, the cigarettes are extremely
Fewer people have to provide for a large amount of old people. It would bring a large impact to Hong Kong’s society. Thus banning cigarette in Hong Kong can protect the young from the harm of cigarettes and prevent them to handle the issues of population
Is censorship of movies a crime against freedom of expression, or is it for the sake of protecting society’s morals? According to article 67 of the 2013 amended constitution, the government has to support and protect any form of creative expression and guarantee its freedom to be expressed, and that no lawsuits or legal action will be taken against the material or its creator. However, there are different opinions on whether movies should be banned in Egypt or not. One opinion supports the censorship of movies considering some of them to be against the moral values of our society and controversial for several religions. While others are against the censorship of movies considering it to be a constraint of free artistic expression and also inefficient.