Ban On Tobacco Advertisement Analysis

In the article “Ban on tobacco ads by the government of India” (page 2,3), the arguments in favor of a ban on tobacco advertising provide some of the following points: Precedents in other countries who have imposed bans on tobacco advertising show that laws enforcing the bans were upheld by the courts in Belgium and France. They point out that in these countries freedom of choice is respected but when a product can be dangerous or a detriment to public health the state has the right to ban advertising. This has already been done for other products like firearms and pharmaceutical products. Statistics are given showing the number of deaths that are caused by tobacco and that the health care cost outweigh the economic benefits of production and

That you have the choice to smoke or not to smoke and that your health is in your hands and not in the government’s. If you have the right to smoke then they should have the right to advertise. The argument is made that the advertising is not to entice nonsmokers to smoke but to inform smokers of brand choices and to enhance the market share of a brand. They stand by the statement that they do not advertise to children, young people or nonsmokers and advertising is strictly for adult smokers. Statistics are cited that show that no one was enticed to smoke by advertising, but by peers and curiosity. Tobacco advertising from foreign countries through magazines, TV shows and sporting events would not be affected by the ban. This would cause India’s ban to be completely ineffective. The number of jobs lost by the ban and the hardship this would cause on millions of workers is cited. They argue that India spends only a little money on public health care, insurance and pension systems, so the cost to the country is minimal. Statistical graphs are shown illustrating that advertising expenditures do not correlate with increased tobacco sales. Statistics are cited with examples in the United States, Norway, and Finland that support the argument that advertising does not increase tobacco sales. Their conclusion is that a ban on tobacco advertising does not reduce tobacco consumption

The evidence is overwhelming that tobacco kills. India should not allow the promotions of a product, especially if it encourages or even might encourage children and young people to smoke. The government is responsible for the welfare of its people and there is a clear danger to that welfare posed by tobacco. The government should not ban tobacco products because it is the right of adults to use or not use tobacco, but the advertising should be