The government of India has many arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising. One of the arguments is the right of the government to step in and promote a healthier lifestyle. Many of the tobacco advertising companies stated that the ban on advertising was unconstitutional, but the supreme court in Belgium and France both agreed that the ban was not unconstitutional and was needed the ensure the public health. In 1990 tobacco attributed to over 3 million deaths and escalated to 4.023 million deaths in 1998. Studies show that when people quit smoking they spend their money in different sectors of the economy creating more jobs and economic growth. Tobacco consumption in countries that had a ban showed a dramatic decrease in consumers compared to countries that did not have the ban in place. The ban on tobacco only works if it is properly implemented and tobacco control policies are intact.
The opposition of the ban contend that the government is overstepping boundaries by telling adults that they are not able to decide what is good or bad for themselves. Also they argue that individuals who smoke are doing so of their own free will and that they know the effects of smoking and decide to smoke anyway.
…show more content…
When I watch television there are many ads for not smoking and for tobacco companies making flavored products to appeal to children. This type of behavior by the antismoking groups is just as bad as advertising cigarettes themselves. I was really upset to see a commercial with a group of children all around 7 or 8 years old standing in front of a table of tobacco products to handle and examine them. This type of behavior would probably lead to those children smoking later on in life due to the exposure they were subjected to at a young age. When children go into a store they cannot ask the clerk to smell the cigars in the pretty wrapper and smell like