One part of this is in the case of cigarettes you know exactly what you are buying. Analysts were quick to point out that banning aids would lead to problems on this front. Without knowing what brand is okay people might never move past some of the more harmful tobacco products. The best example of this is Gutka, a local substance that is well known for the harmful effects along with its cheap prices. Even with a full-fledged ban on advisement there are times that it can still be seen.
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.
Then, the impact of the advertisement ban to the tobacco consumption will be viewed. Finally, other solutions such as mass media and health warning labels on cigarettes packages will be explored. Banning cigarette advertisement is an effective way that could decrease cigarettes consumption. First of all, the controlling tobacco advertisement is the action that many countries
The Supreme Court in Canada, held, "The State seeks to control the thought, beliefs and behavior of its citizens along the line it considers acceptable. This form of paternalism is unacceptable in a free and democratic society". Also, if it were legal to manufacture and sell tobacco products, it should be legal to advertise it as well. Tobacco companies around the world have been vehemently denying that they sell the concept of smoking. They insist that the role of marketing, was merely to assist adults in making an informed brand choice and that advertising merely enhanced the market share of a particular brand.
They would learn from their mistakes and their odds of repeating the same mistakes in the future would be low. Applying this idea to anti-smoking laws by state, paternalism believes that since smoking is not beneficial for the individual, therefore it is justifiable for the state to enact these laws. Mill contradicts this and believes that if an individual is competent, mature and of the legal age, he should be able to decide for himself if a thing is harmful in itself. In the case of smoking, an individual should be able to decide for himself whether smoking is harmful or not. If he decides that it is, he should have the individual liberty to buy cigarettes since he has agreed to all the negative effects that are associated with it.
shows that health professionals consider that girls are empowered to make decisions about the HPV vaccine for themselves, some of them decide not to take the vaccine for the lack of information. It is true that immunization could cause side effects, but nothing that would be extremely dangerous for humans, unless it is an allergy reaction but there are different kind of immunization to prevent that. It is worth the risk, better have a little bit of fever for a few days than get sick because of a disease that should be
The Government of India has wanted to start an anti-Tobacco Program by discouraging young people from smoking. The first step to achieve such program was to ban advertising from Tobacco Companies. This included the advertisement of tobacco products and sponsorship at sports and cultural events. From the ethical standpoint the government felt responsible for the wellbeing of its citizens so it had to come up with a plan or a program to discourage smoking. The government argued that Tobacco was a toxic product which caused death when consumed as the companies intended.
The reports of toxicity raise concern for potentially serious unpropitious effects in association with energy drink use. For the temporary period, pediatricians need to be aware of the likely consequences of these beverages on the vulnerable groups and share the adverse effects of its consumption to educate individuals. Long-term research should intend to comprehend the effects in at-risk groups. Toxicity inspection should be enhanced, and ordinances of energy drink sales and consumption should be based on suitable research. Comparing these beverages to alcohols, the only difference one may be able to identify is that alcohol is not marketed to minors whereas these caffeine-rich products are, which just makes the case worse.
Not only does this mean that the ban doesn’t solve anything but it also makes sure people will stray away from issues that need to be addressed and therefore, limiting the amount of soda a person can purchase is a unproductive concept. However much people may think that limiting soda will help control these health issues, it actually does a lot more harm than