Evaluate The Arguments In Favor Of The Ban On Tobacco Advertising India Case Study

1. Summarize the arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India

Those in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India were the Ayes. According to the Ayes, the ban was common because it had happened before internationally in other countries like France, Finland, and Norway. Their first argument was that tobacco was the cause of death. For example, According to the World Health Organization (WHO), tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths and rose to 4.023 million deaths in 1990 and 1998 respectively. It was estimated to rise to 8.4 million and 10 million deaths in 2020 and 2030 respectively. Their second argument was their accusation toward tobacco industry. They mentioned that these tobacco industries were aiming to

This was in a case which started in 1991 and ended in 1997 as internal industry documents describing 14-24 year olds as 'tomorrow 's cigarette business ' was released in USA. Their third argument was that the revenue, concluded by analysts, from cigarettes was invalid as they estimated that cigarettes contributed only 0.14% of the G.D.P and the health costs about 0.21% of the G.D.P. Their fourth argument was that a study on tobacco consumption and employment showed effective policies to reduce smoking but increased employment. Instead of people spending money on cigarettes, they invested it in goods and services thereby creating more jobs. Their fifth argument was that of the impact of cigarette advertising on consumers. According to a World Bank report, it advised policy makers to completely ban tobacco advertising and promotion, they should cover completely all media and all uses of brand names and logos. It also published the details of a comprehensive study of over 100 countries, comparing the consumption trends over time in those countries where they were relatively complete bans on advertising and promotion and where they were no such bans. It

They argued that the ban was just a way to intervene in their private lives. They gave an example of the issue in Canada where the Supreme Court held that, "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". The other argument was that if it were legal to manufacture and sell tobacco products, it should be legal to advertise it as well. The tobacco companies said that purpose of advertising was to help adults smokers chose between brands and that were irrelevant to non smokers. They also denied targeting teenagers and young people as a growth strategy. This was supported by a 1998 survey by the Indian Market Research Bureau (IMRB),.It was found that 49% of the respondents said they started smoking to see what it was like, 24% said 'all my friends smoke '; and no one said advertising had induced them to start smoking.. They also argued that the ban prevented only their products and not other products like ‘beedi’ and ‘ghutkas’ which accounted for 84% of the Indian Market. They also argued that the ban on the domestic players it senseless when the foreign magazines that sold in India and the television channels that were uplinked from foreign countries carried advertisements by cigarette multinationals. They gave an example of Marlboro, which sponsored Formula I racing because it very popular