More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues in tobacco industry
Smoking advertisements critical response
Smoking advertisements critical response
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues in tobacco industry
Tobacco products have long been a source of controversy. Although scientific data has proven that cigarettes contain harmful ingredients, they continue to be sold or smuggled into every country in the world. Famously, in 1960, the US Surgeon Dr. Luther Terry the devastating effects of tobacco use (General, 1972). Tobacco firms have since faced an uphill battle throughout developed countries. This has placed World governments, but also big tobacco companies, in a uniquely awkward situation. On the one hand, tobacco companies have been allowed to legally produce an addictive and toxic product for human consumption. Profits from their business have been massive. Mehra (n.d) conducted revenue analysis for 2014 and determined RJ Reynolds had received 6.8 billion dollars. On the other hand, World governments have made huge pushes towards strangling tobacco companies. This, presented as a public service, can be seen in the form of levied taxes and bans advertising. It is these bands on Tobacco advertising that I wish to address. Specifically, a February 2001 announcement by the government of India, to ban advertising by tobacco companies (ICMR, n.d.). …show more content…
The banning of tobacco advertising is nothing new. In countries such as Belgium, constitutional precedent has been set in favor of such bans (ICMR, n.d.).. The thinking is that if Government can regulate the distribution and advertising of dangerous products, why not tobacco? Moreover, cigarettes have been shown to adversely affect Public Health. In light of this, many believe legislation should be passed and enforced, by governments, with the intention of reducing and eliminating tobacco advertising. Concerning too many is the interpreted appeal of advertising on youth. It’s been suggested that tobacco companies maliciously target young people, for advertising, to maintain an addicted base for continued revenues (ICMR,
Tobacco companies should be prevented from using advertising tactics that target teenagers. There has always been controversy as to how tobacco companies should prevent using advertising tactics to target teenagers. As controversial as this is tobacco companies shouldn’t advertise teen smoking. Many teens may be lured to believe cigarette advertising because it has been part of the American Culture for years, magazine ads and the media target young people, and these companies receive a drastic increase financially; however, the advertising by these cigarette companies has disadvantages such as having to campaign against their own company, limiting their cigarette advertising and becoming a controversial dilemma as to encouraging teenagers to smoke. From billboards to newspaper advertisements, cigarette promotions started becoming part of the American Culture.
While todays major tobacco producers deny that they market to the youth. However, we still see them subliminally targeting children through magazine advertisements, store posters, and Internet ads. In addition, they continue to use product placement strategies in mov...
In conclusion the country of India has many supporters and non supporters of the tobacco advertising ban. While some argue that it is totally in the best interest of the citizens. Others feel it is a blatant abuse of power by the government. The conflict of interest arises from India being a country that is in the tobacco industry to banning the advertising of the product they are growing. And by having government put strict regulations on the production of tobacco in regards to the added contaminants would reduce the health risks involved with the consumption of the current products
This year alone cigarettes will kill over 420,000 Americans, and many more will suffer from cancers, and circulatory and respiratory system diseases. These horrible illnesses were known to come from cigarettes for years. Recently the Food and Drug Administration declared nicotine, the main chemical in cigarettes, addictive. This explains why smokers continue to use cigarettes even though smokers are aware of the constantly warned about health dangers in cigarettes. Some researchers have also found out that smoking by pregnant women causes the deaths of over 5,000 babies and 115,000 miscarriages. The only way to get rid of the suffering and loss of life by cigarettes is to ban them. . For years cigarettes have been known to cause cancer, emphysema, and other horrible illnesses. The deaths of over 420,000 of Americans this year will be do to cigarettes. With all the other causes of deaths, alcohol, illegal drugs, AIDS, suicide, transportation accidents, fires, and guns, cigarettes still count for more deaths than those do combined. We can’t stand and watch people die because they smoke cigarettes. Thousands of smokers try to rid themselves of cigarettes but can't because of additive nicotine. Nicotine was recently declared addictive by the Food and Drug Administration, which explains why many smokers continue to smoke despite the health warnings on cigarette smoking. Nicotine makes it almost impossible for cigarette smokers to quit smoking because of its addictive nature, and with the cigarette manufacturers putting just enough nicotine in the so they cant be outlawed. The benefits of outlawing cigarettes greatly outnumber the disadvantages, for example, many scientists believe a link between smoking and a shortened life span exists between the two, a ban on cigarettes could increase life spans. Many studies suggest that billions of dollars now spent on smoking related. Smoking related illnesses could be reduced by outlawing cigarettes, families could save money by not purchasing cigarettes, and accidental fires costing millions of dollars caused by cigarettes would stop. Although a complete ban on cigarettes currently remains almost impossible, several organizations recently helped create a bill that could control cigarettes much in the same way the government now controls drugs. One such organization, the Food and Drug Administration, headed by David Kesslar drafted a major part, which would require manufacturers to disclose the 700 chemical additives in cigarettes, reduce the level of harmful chemicals, require cigarette companies to warn of the addictive nicotine, restrict tobacco advertising and promotion, and control the level of nicotine cigarettes contain.
Furthermore, since young children have been introduced and exposed to tobacco advertising, children younger than the age o...
Some believe that companies should have the right to advertise their products, even if they 've proven to be harmful for the consumer. When it comes to a product like cigarettes, there have been many studies about the toxic effects it can have on the user over a long period of time therefore banning advertising for such a product doesn 't seem unreasonable. In 2001, the Indian government proposed a bill that would ban tobacco advertising from sporting and cultural events, with the intention to lessen the appeal to the younger audience. This bill was met with much resistance from the Indian Tobacco Company because less advertising meant less tobacco sales which would hurt the industries bottom line. Also, this showed the government was making an ethical decision and putting the health of it 's people first, because it financially benefitted from taxation on the sale of cigarettes.
They asserted that the advertisement should be legal if a product is legally sold and they claimed that the government needs to stop production if the cigarette is illegal goods. They strongly raised objections that the advertising ban violates their freedom of expression as well and they denied that they targeted young smokers through advertisement. For instance, the survey from the Indian Market Research Bureau, 49% of respondent answered that they began smoking because of their curiosity and no one said advertising induced them to smoke. This research sympathized with tobacco companies and it verified that the advertisement did not have a serious impact on young people. Tobacco companies underlined that the ban on tobacco advertising will impact on the customer’s brand selection only and that does not result in an increase in tobacco consumption. For example, from the Indian market, the main producer of cigarettes comprised only 16% of the market and the other 84% was accounted for by other products such as ghutka, zarda. The ghutka and zarda are more harmful products and this result highlighted that the ban on tobacco advertising was not likely to have a major impact on the tobacco consumption rate. Moreover, there were weak correlation between cigarette consumption and money spent by cigarette companies on advertisements and this revealed that the advertisement does
The tobacco industry is a very unethical industry, due to the long term effects of tobacco on humans. The industry also does not assess the ethical and social responsibility the best way that it should. There are many factors that make the industry unethical; some of the reasons are the way the cigarette companies around the world Advertise, the way governments and cigarette companies make a huge profit from the sales of cigarettes, and the labeling health risks. I do believe however that there is something that the tobacco companies can do to better their strategy as far as their ethics go. I think that they should, always be looking for the best interest on their consumers, as well as advertise strictly on the effects that the cigarettes and what the people are getting for their money.
Cigarettes are publicized through commercials, newspaper ads, internet displays, and radio broadcasts. Consequently, a larger number of people have been exposed to the idea that smoking is good, which has led to more cigarette smokers of all ages, particularly teenagers and young adults. Cigarette advertising is also wasting money that could otherwise be used to benefit the public and country. According to the Food and Drug Administration, “a total ban of cigarette advertising would produce benefits ranging from $3 billion to $43 billion annually in reduced medical costs, productivity losses, and premature deaths avoided” (Emery et al. par.3). The advertisement and glorification of cigarettes is increasing the amount of smokers and further harming
There are many arguments in favor of banning tobacco advertising in India. The main reason for launching the ban was to try to reduce the number of teen smokers, as well as to build the beginnings of an official government anti-tobacco program. According to the case study, people also hoped that starting a ban would make politicians seriously think about tobacco and pursue other ways to make fair choices about tobacco and smoking in India. Reducing teen smokers was crucial, because everyone worried that enticing advertisements would persuade children and teens to start smoking, or at least experiment with tobacco products in order to replicate what they saw in advertisements. ...
Summarize the arguments in opposition of the ban on tobacco advertising in India. The fact that the product is still out there and available may
Should tobacco and alcohol advertising be allowed on television? The ban on advertising tobacco is already in affect, however, alcohol is another harmful substance. Should liquor be allowed to be advertised, if tobacco can not advertise their product? The ban on advertising tobacco products on television and radio, was passed through legislation in 1970 by Richard Nixon. This argument like others out there has two sides, one side in favor these advertisements and the other against these advertisements. Since both of these substances are highly addictive and costly. Would we like to see these advertisements continued? Are these advertisements the hazard they are communicated to be? Through the research of these two important sides, this essay will explore which side has a stronger stance on the topic.
Tobacco companies are strategical placed all over the world and in some countries that we did not know even existed. Cigarette companies are doing all they possibly can to make money, just like every other company. These tobacco companies do not care about the consumers and the risks that come along with consuming tobacco products. The companies are continuously suing countries because of the way these countries are advertising tobacco products. Yes, I am aware that these multimillion dollar operations need to make money, but however on the other hand the way that cigarettes get advertised should not end up with that country getting in trouble from those companies. Of course many will probably agree with me that suing countries should not be an option. The over all solution I have for this major problem contains the following: once tobacco is purchased from tobacco companies, countries will have the right to advertise these products in which ever ways they please. Also, this will further cancel tobacco companies from being able to sue countries.
Before India, many developed countries like France, Finland and Norway already stepped ahead in stopping tobacco advertisement appearing on broadcast channels. Will this threaten the human being’s freedom of choice? Maybe, but very similar, cocaine was banned long ago in worldwide but no body objected it. The truth is, the government has right to carry on decisions that are widely accepted as for the god sake of the citizens. Direct and indirect smokers are both influenced by the cigarette. “According to the WHO, tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths in 1990, the figure rising to over 4 million deaths in 1998” but there is impossible to stop people from consuming it because it’s considered as a legal drug. There is a fear that teenagers and young children would begin to smoke early if they know about it, hear about it. It’s very true that children now watch television a lot and are affected by what they see on the screen. A new toy, new fashion trend, new movie, new song – they surely want to try – and no doubt tobacco would be one of the “new thing” to experiment. Another reason is the cost for health care would exceed the contribution to the GDP. “In India, analyst estimated that cigarette contributed only 0.14% of the GDP and the health costs roughly translated to 0.21 % of the GDP”. The final reason is after conducting some researches on Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France, the result came positive. The consumption of
It is obvious that when you try to enforce a ban in advertisement, you have to have a good reason. Sex could be the one; guns could be another one, smoking too. Smoking causes serious health problems and often leads to death. In Europe, countries like France and Belgium had banned smoking advertisements. It was proved from the “International Union against Cancer” research in 1997, that lack of advertisement of cigarettes drove to a 37% reduce of cigarettes consumption, in the countries of Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand. It is encouraging also the fact that total ban and not just some measures in advertising, was more effective. World Bank report says that in 100 countries, where there was a total ban in advertising, there was also