More handpicked essays just for you.
Negative effects of banning tobacco advertisements
Implications of tobacco issues from a marketing perspective
Tobacco industries in india essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
1. To discourage the young and old people from smoking and consuming tobacco products the government of India imposed a ban on all advertisements of tobacco products. One of the main reasons why cigarette advertising was banned in India was was due to the hazardous health issues arising from smoking tobacco. Tobacco was considered the most dangerous product consumed by humans. The website, http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm, states that, “According to world health organization tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths in 1990, the figure rising to 4,023 million deaths in 1998, it was estimated that tobacco related deaths would rise to 8.4million in about 2030.” …show more content…
It was believed that consumers would not be able to distinguish between the low qualities of tobacco and highly refined ones. Which would eventually lead to a decrease in smoking harsh tobacco products. More refined tobacco would be to eliminate tobacco products entirely from their lives. Further research showed that banning of advertisement in smoking would only prove to work if they were properly put into effect, with a tobacco control policy.
2. The opposing ban on tobacco advertising argument to the ban on tobacco advertising argued that many people would lose their jobs as needs and wants for tobacco decreased. According to the article, the tobacco industry provided employment to 26 million people. Another important argument was that banning tobacco advertisements would not reduce the consumers’ consumption for cigarettes. This was because the ban did not take into account other markets of India. India had low graded tobacco products which were considered a ritual of tradition. Products such as beedi and ghutkas or even hookas were more common than cigarettes. For this reason the ban did not have its desired effect. The website http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm states
…show more content…
So where do the governments draw the line.
3. The government of India is facing a conflict of interest where there is a moral and ethical dilemma of health and welfare of the general public. Especially the youth are getting addicted to tobacco products by enticements of ads of smoking- This addiction has led to Lung cancer, respiratory diseases resulting in death. There is also an increase in the cost of healthcare burdening the government. This issue is in direct conflict with the profits of tobacco companies. For these companies, supporters and sponsors of tobacco products, health issues are not important, profits come first at the expense of the people.
Another conflict of interest is , if the government had a right to impose their decisions on the people. Many companies in opposition to the ban government had no right to thread on the free will of the people. It was their choice to smoke or not. Each person should decide for themselves. The
Amongst all the ethical issues stated above, the main ethical issue that would be of the utmost importance in the tobacco industry would be the relationship and obligation between the company and its consumers. In a nutshell a tobacco or cigarette selling company sells its products which according to numerous health and scientific research organizations such as ...
The tobacco industry seems like a beneficial addition to our economy. It has basically been a socially acceptable business in the past because it brings jobs to our people and tax money to the government to redistribute; but consider the cost of tobacco related treatment, mortality and disability- it exceeds the benefit to the producer by two hundred billion dollars US. (4) Tobacco is a very profitable industry determined to grow despite government loss or public health. Its history has demonstrated how money can blind morals like an addiction that is never satisfied. Past lawsuits were mostly unsuccessful because the juries blamed the smoker even though the definition of criminal negligence fits the industry’s acts perfectly. Some may argue for the industry in the name of free enterprise but since they have had such a clear understanding of the dangers of their product it changes the understanding of their business tactics and motives. The success of the industry has merely been a reflection of its immoral practices. These practices have been observed through its use of the media in regards to children, the tests that used underage smokers, the use of revenue to avoid the law, the use of nicotine manipulation and the suppression of research.
When I think of the 1st Amendment and advertising, I immediately think of the ban of tobacco advertising. In 1964, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) agreed that advertisers had a responsibility to warn the public of the health hazards of cigarette smoking. In 1969, after the surgeon general of the United States released an official report linking cigarette smoking to low birth weight, Congress signed the Cigarette Smoking Act. This act required cigarette manufacturers to place warning labels on their products that stated, "Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health." On April 1, 1970, President Richard Nixon signs legislation officially banning cigarette ads on television and radio. The last televised cigarette ad ran at 11:50 p.m. during The Johnny Carson Show on January 1, 1971 (History.com).
There is clearly no way tobacco will never be outlawed but I believe there should be tighter restrictions on age limits throughout the world, and restrictions on the materials that are used in cigarette processing. Who is just letting cigarette companies continue to poison people and cause cancer risk? Throughout my essay I will analyze the affects of cigarette use on the society of the world and the elaborate corruption that keeps cigarette companies in business.
According to WHO, "each year 6 million people die due to tobacco related illnesses. If current trends continue, it is projected that by 2030, tobacco will be responsible for more than 8 million deaths each year and 80% of these premature deaths will be among people living in low- and middle-income countries.” Tobacco advertising is a worldwide marketing campaign that displays bright and colorful images that appeal towards teens and young adults. These images portray false ideal of masculinity, youth, and freedom. The prohibitions of tobacco advertising should be enforced by the government in order to prevent tobacco industries from targeting undeveloped countries with poor education, reduce tobacco related illnesses,
Not only does it affect the user but the people around the user as well, specifically smoking tobacco. Tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death and disease in the United States. Over 480,000 people lose their lives over smoking cigarettes each year, with at least 40,000 of those deaths caused by second hand smoke from the smoker. Tobacco use causes many diseases such as heart disease and lung diseases that eventually lead to a very brutal death. Cigarettes cause the people of the United States at least $170 million in medical care for adults which results in $156 billion in lost productivity. As tobacco use continues to rise in young adults, something must be done to persuade young people to not smoke cigarettes. The only way to prevent tobacco use is to spread awareness of the data that is provided above to persuade people to stay away from smoking tobacco. To prevent second hand smoke, regulations could be put in place that designates certain areas for people to smoke or possibly making smoking in public legal all together because of the harm it not only does to the smoker but to the people around them as well. But the only way to rid of this fatal problem is to make tobacco illegal all together but will never happen because the tobacco industry sums up to a huge amount of revenue for the United States economy. I do believe that anti-tobacco advertisements like this one serve a purpose because they serve as a clear message for the cause. They make people think about the causes and effects of the habit of smoking and realize they’re all cons. But the problem will be completely solved when tobacco no longer exists and thousands of lives are
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.
I believe that the Government should tell people what to do; however, the person has the decision to quit. People have the right to smoke, however, have the right to know the risks they take to smoke them that’s why the government should come into place and support the band and try quitting smoking, as not quitting makes it even harder and commercials play a big role in influencing this.
Although it is beneficial for the economy for the production of tobacco products it is extremely risky to use the product. According to researchers second-hand smoke is terrible for everyone in the world who walk by someone who is exhaling. In the article by Robert Proctor “Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition” he states that cigarettes are the “most deadl...
...allowed to make the choice to smoke in public. They must consider the risks of their actions and how it affects those around them. Health concerns cannot be the only driving factor when society allows other activities that are equally harmful to be legally allowed. Smokers have rights just as much as non smokers and as long as they do so in a manner that is respectful to others in a designated area, they should be permitted to do so.
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 is made from dried up tobacco leaves prepared with chemicals to create products such as: chewing tobacco, dip, and loose tobacco to be smoked on cigarettes and pipes. There is a demand for tobacco and if companies were to stop making tobacco, then another company will sell it due to supply and demand. Even though people do choose to buy tobacco products on their own free will. Tobacco companies are partly to blame for smoking related illnesses and deaths since they knowingly create a product that is harmful, in addition, they try to appeal to a younger audience, and lastly, tobacco products are highly addictive.
Those opposing a smoking ban say that freedom of choice would be affected by such legislation. Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business. A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places, and the ban is a limitation for smokers’ rights. Businesses, smokers, publicans, tobacco industries, stars, and some of the non-smokers oppose public smoking ban. Smokers light a cigarette because they need to smoke, not because they want it, because nicotine is physically addictive. Therefore, some smokers think that the public smoking ban is oppressiveness. They see the ban as a treatment to smokers as second-class citizens. Smokers agree that the smoking ban benefits the world, but cannot support the ban, because effects of nicotine obstruct them.
According to (Mackay, 2002), rapid increase in tobacco consumption and its spread around the world represent a great concern to public health both globally and at the national level. Tobacco is the second major cause of death in the world and the fourth most common risk factor for disease worldwide; it kills 4.9 million persons per year therefore it weighs heavily on the health care system of countries. Tobacco undermines the wellbeing of populations. The cost of treating tobacco-related illness is very high, not only in the governments but also to individuals and their families. In addition, the diseases and deaths that result from tobacco consumption impose great suffering and grief on the close family of the tobacco user, effects which are exacerbated by poverty.
One person dies every six seconds due to a tobacco related disease, which results in a shocking amount of ten deaths per minute. Tobacco is one of the most heavily used addictive products in the United States. Tobacco contains over 4,000 chemicals; approximately 250 are dangerously harmful to humans. Smoking is a major public health problem. All smokers face an increased risk of lung cancer, cardiovascular problems and many other disorders. Smoking should be banned due to the many health risks to the user, second hand related smoke illness, and excessive cost.