Pros And Cons Of Tobacco Advertising

“Arguments For and Against the Ban on Tobacco Advertising in India, Conflicts of Interest, and Steps in an Ethical Decision Making Process”
There were many arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India and many arguments against it. Also, a conflict of interest issue existed between the Indian government and the welfare of its citizens. However, governments can follow the steps in the ethical decision making process that are outlined in the course textbook in order to make a decision regarding tobacco advertising.
In the case study, there were many arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India. Some people favored banning tobacco advertisements in India because they believed it would help keep the younger generation
Those who were against the ban on tobacco advertising in India argued that the ban limited people’s freedom of choice. Their view, like the view of the Editor of Tobacco News Amit Sarkar, was that the decision to smoke tobacco represented free choice and that we should be careful of anyone who puts a ban in place that limits our freedoms (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). Additionally, those not in favor of the ban argued that it would hurt those employed in the tobacco industry in India. The case study pointed out that “the industry provided direct and indirect employment to 26 million people- of this, roughly 6 million were farmers and almost 5 million were 'beedi' rollers” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). Those against the ban of tobacco advertising also raised argued that the ban would not greatly impact sales and, thus, consumption and public health expenses due to smoking tobacco. Lastly, some analysts felt that the ban could result in an increase in tobacco advertising from external countries or sources or for competing products. According to them, an increase in advertising of competing products would “reduce the consumers’ ability to distinguish between products of differing quality, and slow down the progression of Indian consumers up the scale from harmful tobacco consumption (like ghutka, zarda, etc.) to more refined forms”
The conflict of interest issue exists because the government received income from cigarette sales, but the government was also aware that its citizens suffered from life-threatening illnesses and died after smoking cigarettes (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). In fact, in India “the tobacco industry was a large contributor to the State Exchequer. In 2000-01 it contributed Rs 8,182 crore which was 12% of the total excise revenue. About 90% of this came from cigarettes” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). This was significant for the Indian government since it was in a financial crisis during that time. Also, “India was the world's third largest tobacco maker, with an annual output of 550 million Kg. Analysts were of the opinion that any control may have an adverse impact on the contributions to the state exchequer” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). Despite fears of these adverse impacts, the Indian government also had to keep the well-being of its citizens in mind. While some analysts focused on the adverse impacts that banning tobacco advertising would have on the Indian government, other analysts “contested claims that the state had to spend considerable amounts on providing healthcare as a result of smoking induced illness” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). The Indian government knew that tobacco was “the most dangerous consumer product known, which