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
Case Study on the Ban of Tobacco Advertising in India This case study analyzes the ban of tobacco advertising in India. The Government of India had decided to pass a bill where it prohibits or bans all companies producing tobacco to advertise their products and to participate in sponsoring youth events such as sports and cultural events. The main reason for the Government to ban tobacco advertising was to discourage the use of this product among young people. This however caused a great conflict between those who were in favor of the ban and those against it. Some of the arguments in favor of the ban of the tobacco advertising stated that India would not be the first or the only country taking this bold step.
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.
France followed in 1991 and felt it protected the health of the public. (“Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India”, 2010). The argument in favor of the ban in India was directed mostly at health and minors. Tobacco accounted for more than 3 million deaths in 1990 and climbing to over 4 million by 1998
Regardless of this fact, countries have felt the need to impose either a financial or legal restriction on its use and purchase. India is one such country to follow this growing trend. In Feb 2001, the country banned tobacco companies from advertising and sponsoring any events within the country in hopes it would decrease consumption. (Ban on Tobacco, 2001) There are some people who view the ban on advertising in a favorable way. Banning
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
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.
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.
Background Smoking is a deadly habit affecting the health of many globally, nationally, and locally. Smoking has immense negative health repercussions, reducing life expectancy by at least ten years compared to nonsmokers (CDC, 2016). Cigarette smoke contains thousands of chemicals, including tars, carcinogens, metals, and other toxins that cause harm. The carcinogens inhaled, are then freely transferred from the lungs to the bloodstream, which may cause various cancers (Peterken, 2014). Additionally, many constitutes of cigarette smoke is absorbed into the saliva and swallowed, which leads to various negative topical effects on the gastric mucosa.
The advertisements entice people to use more of the harmful drugs, thereby leading to addiction. In addition to these, the advertisements are not inclusive of the full details regarding the harmful effects of the drugs. It is, therefore, important for all countries around the globe to ban the misleading advertisements. References Hammond, D. (2011). Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review.