Should Society Be Baned With The Evils Of Tobacco
Summary :
Around the world societies have wrestled with the ills of tobacco consumption. No longer is it acceptable to claim ignorance of or take issue with the mounting evidence that proves the link between tobacco products and chronic illnesses such as cancers, heart disease, pulmonary disease, and more. Governments around the world have recognized the need, and have stepped in to play a role, in the reduction of the consumption of tobacco. This can be problematic when the government in question is also a grower and processor of tobacco for sale to its citizens. Such is the case in India where recent efforts to ban the advertising of tobacco products has been debated in an first step effort to reduce consumption.
The Arguments FOR Banning …show more content…
Therefore reducing consumption would reduce these negative effects. If advertising could be linked to the consumption of tobacco, eliminating that advertising could be justified. Such a link is noted in the ICMR website article in which the banning of tobacco advertising in European countries was accompanied by a precipitous drop in tobacco consumption.
It is undeniably one of the roles of government to protect its citizens from harm. The link between tobacco consumption and disease even death is now accepted science. If the government can influence a decrease in consumption, and indeed is even in the unique position to do so, it would be consistent with the requirement to protect the public welfare.
Citing the United States case against the marketers of Camel Cigarettes, in which a link was established between the marketing and a youthful demographic, the ICMR article supports the claim that the tobacco company was attempting to influence a younger market so that they could keep these people hooked on their product for a longer period of time. The Arguments AGAINST Banning Tobacco Advertisement in …show more content…
The tobacco companies claim, in the article, that advertising is merely a way to present brand choices to the demographic and not aimed at starting anyone smoking; a feat the cigarette manufacturers claim not even to know how to do.
There is also an issue with making the marketing of tobacco products illegal when the product itself is not. If it is not illegal and there are no grounds to make it so, why ban the advertising?
Limiting the advertising ban to the Indian society would mean that other media outlets who had access to India would still be able to advertise tobacco. Through imported media and television programming tobacco advertising would still be available to the Indian society.
26,000,000 Indian citizens are either directly or indirectly involved in the tobacco industry (ICMR, n.d.). Should the government be working to harm that industry and put people in that industry at risk?
To counter the pooled risk that the society was obliged to take on behalf of it’s smoking citizens, opponents of the ban make the case that Indian public spending on welfare and health insurance was too negligible to be an effective
Around the world societies have wrestled with the ills of tobacco consumption. No longer is it acceptable to claim ignorance of or take issue with the mounting evidence that proves the link between tobacco products and chronic illnesses such as cancers, heart disease, pulmonary disease, and more. Governments around the world have recognized the need, and have stepped in to play a role, in the reduction of the consumption of tobacco. This can be problematic when the government in question is also a grower and processor of tobacco for sale to its citizens. Such is the case in India where recent efforts to ban the advertising of tobacco products has been debated in an first step effort to reduce consumption.
The Arguments FOR Banning …show more content…
Therefore reducing consumption would reduce these negative effects. If advertising could be linked to the consumption of tobacco, eliminating that advertising could be justified. Such a link is noted in the ICMR website article in which the banning of tobacco advertising in European countries was accompanied by a precipitous drop in tobacco consumption.
It is undeniably one of the roles of government to protect its citizens from harm. The link between tobacco consumption and disease even death is now accepted science. If the government can influence a decrease in consumption, and indeed is even in the unique position to do so, it would be consistent with the requirement to protect the public welfare.
Citing the United States case against the marketers of Camel Cigarettes, in which a link was established between the marketing and a youthful demographic, the ICMR article supports the claim that the tobacco company was attempting to influence a younger market so that they could keep these people hooked on their product for a longer period of time. The Arguments AGAINST Banning Tobacco Advertisement in …show more content…
The tobacco companies claim, in the article, that advertising is merely a way to present brand choices to the demographic and not aimed at starting anyone smoking; a feat the cigarette manufacturers claim not even to know how to do.
There is also an issue with making the marketing of tobacco products illegal when the product itself is not. If it is not illegal and there are no grounds to make it so, why ban the advertising?
Limiting the advertising ban to the Indian society would mean that other media outlets who had access to India would still be able to advertise tobacco. Through imported media and television programming tobacco advertising would still be available to the Indian society.
26,000,000 Indian citizens are either directly or indirectly involved in the tobacco industry (ICMR, n.d.). Should the government be working to harm that industry and put people in that industry at risk?
To counter the pooled risk that the society was obliged to take on behalf of it’s smoking citizens, opponents of the ban make the case that Indian public spending on welfare and health insurance was too negligible to be an effective