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.
The Proponents arguments
The policy implemented by the government was consistent with the constitution as it empowers the government to take care and protects its citizens.
The consumption of tobacco products harms roughly the health of the consumers because its consumption has been the cause of over 4.023 million deaths in 1998 and the number of victims is increasing, according to the world Health Organization (WHO).
The advertising activities of the tobacco industry target the
…show more content…
Tobacco contains chemicals that are bad for smokers and also for non-smokers because they cause many diseases including lung cancer, whereas companies that are acting in unethical manner promote directly or indirectly smoking. Moreover, even minors are in jeopardy because of those ads they see in medias such as television, newspapers, or magazines that implicitly stipulate that smoking is fine. Tobacco products are harmful, addictive and poisonous. Although advocators of tobacco advertising claim that government should not restrain the freedom of people, it is ethical for democratic government to protect its
In his article, “Addicted to Health” Robert H. Bork has written about an ideal that is told through an informative argument on how government efforts are betraying what the founding fathers have built this great nation upon. The idea of freedom. Bork claims that many recent altercations with tobacco companies betray an ultimate ambition to control American lives. He implies many facts that include percentages about the smokers of American society and explains how the government relies on tobacco companies, to help cover up the funds that have been lost throughout the years. He also relates the issue to alcoholic beverages and the era of prohibition.
Nationally it is known cigarettes are an unhealthy addiction giving it a unique word choice that compares that crisis from 1970s to what the big foods industry is currently doing with its marketing. This provided a logical argument following up with credibility of discussing two meta-analysis done about how ads play in food roles. More in the article are numerous sources that makes a collage giving it an overall neatness and
Almost 17% of the adult population in the United States smoke cigarettes. Smokers are more likely to develop heart disease, stroke, lung cancer or blindness. Cigarettes smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, so there are ranges of advertisements showing the harmful effects of cigarettes, and always telling people to do not smoke it, either by images, statistics or phrases. Among all advertisements that shocks, there is one in particular that it was not necessary a single word on it to do that. This ad is a colorful one that was created by the Roy Castle which is a lung cancer foundation, and was released on December 2007 on magazines and newspapers in the United Kingdom.
The impact of Luther Terry’s contributions in regards to tobacco has drastically increased now more than ever. As a result of this contribution, awareness has been raised and the number of tobacco users has continued to drop throughout the years. Currently, the FDA is responsible for regulating the tobacco products. Bans have been placed tobacco products for certain types of advertising, and laws have been implemented which makes buying tobacco very hard. Through these restrictions, there is expected to be both negative and positive reports.
Different groups such as the American Lung Society and American Heart Society started advocating for stricter laws regarding cigarette advertising, and have helped inform the public about the effects that cigarettes could have on the body. Along with advocacy groups, taxes were also put into place to dissuade people from buying cigarettes. The changes that were put into place have allowed for Americans to make an informed decision on if they want to smoke, and the many risks associated with
In Tina Rosenberg’s article, “Ugly is the New Look for Cigarette Packs”, the main issue focuses mainly on how packaging is used to both dissuade and persuade people when purchasing the product. More specifically, smoking is a product, with the ability to sell based heavily on how its customers portray the product. The argument on how to dissuade people from purchasing cigarettes is discussed heavily, and Rosenberg includes many examples used by various countries to succeed in decreasing in cigarette sales. On the other hand, the discussion on what is used to persuade customers into buying the cigarettes is section of her article that shows how easily people are swayed into purchasing a specific brand of cigarette. By mentioning how cigarette companies persuade customers, it also provides a secondary issue in the article, about whether or not it is ethical to persuade customers in this manner.
Smoke Gun Advertisement Ever since the first cigarette was made, smoking has become a problem for our country, and it continues to negatively affect the people who smoke and even those who do not. People who smoke are damaging their health and making themselves susceptible to diseases like lung cancer and emphysema. People who do not smoke can be exposed to second-hand smoking, which can lead to serious health risks as well. The government has taken action to help the health of the country by paying for and creating anti-smoking advertisements to persuade smokers to quit or to prevent others from smoking in the future.
Throughout the seventies smoking cigarettes was one of America’s favorite past times considering it was “cool” and “in fashion”. One of the biggest and popular cigarette brands of the time was Benson and Hedges, and their newest product branches were Benson and Hedges 100’s, the cigarettes being advertised. Advertising provides a direct line of communication to existing and prospective customers about a product or service. The purpose of advertising is to coerce customers to become aware of the product or service and to draw customers to a business.
Arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India There are many people that think that smokers should be capable of deciding by themselves what was good or bad for their health and that, therefore it had to play the role of a responsible mother. Amit Sarkar, Editor, Tobacco News said that “Adults who consume tobacco do so of their own free choice. The risk falls entirely on them and is fully explained to them. If we lose sight of this principle, then we lose sight of the truth on which all the free societies depend, namely that freedom and risks are inextricable, and whomsoever assumes the right to save us from risks, is also assuming right to limit our freedom".
Smoking is a choice and no one is forcing that upon people. The public has been well warned about the risks of smoking; therefore, the people smoking are fully aware that their lives are at risk. Tobacco companies should not be held responsible for smoking-related illnesses and deaths because once people put the tobacco in their mouths, they are putting there own life at risk themselves, and because as individuals we have a choice on whether or not to smoke cigarette. It 's true that tobacco companies aren 't accountable for why people smoke. Nonetheless, every tobacco product has a warning label on it therefore it 's not the companies responsibility from smoking-related illnesses and deaths.
Firstly, All doctors and scientists agree that smoking is life threatening. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer and heart disease. Smoking does not just affect the smoker, but people nearby inhaling the smoke and becoming passive smokers. Even if Smokers desire to smoke, but some people near, do not choose to smoke without them doing it physically.
It affects the health of the human beings and also the environment. Despite having all these negative effects, tobacco is of great economic importance as it creates employment for the citizens. The negative effects of tobacco smoking supersede its positive contributions. Therefore, tobacco smoking should be banned. .
Smoking causes close to 40% of cancer death in the US. Each year, cigarettes kill about 500,000 deaths in the US and about 6 million deaths around the world. Cigarettes are the reason for most of the deaths in our society today that is not a death by a natural cause. Even though smoking has been in a sharp decline in the past decade, there are still around 40 million of people in the US that still smoke cigarettes. This high number really concerns many doctors and
To understand why this presents a significant challenge in the formulation of appropriate taxation policies, we must first understand the motivations that underlie the call for taxation and control. Courtwright outlines a few of the major contributing motivations - moral and religious objections, concerns over social costs and public health, and the need to raise government revenues. While moral and religious beliefs have historically played a role in the call for control of tobacco consumption, the rising public awareness of the links between cancer, smoking, and passive smoking and their associated social and healthcare costs is the more major modern motivations for regulation. There is, however, also the acknowledgement that the consumer’s demand tobacco products tend to be a bit “sticky”, that is, difficult to change within the short term, due to the addictive and habit-forming nature of the product. In many ways, then, governments came to see the increased taxation of tobacco an easy way to raise revenue in the short term, and as part of a longer-term consumption reduction strategy responding to the public’s call for
+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.