This essay analyzes the “Ban on Tobacco advertising by the Government of India. The key aspects discussed in the article by IBS Center for Management Research, (2001) and retrieved from http://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm, discusses the point of views of those for, and against the ban. The argument of the “ayes” is that the proposed legislations is not uncommon in the democratic world and is in keeping with decisions that have been taken internationally by other countries. Generally, ethics is about what one perceives to be right or wrong, or behaviors which the individual deems to be acceptable. Ethics plays a very important role in management. (Carpenter, Taylor, & Erdogan, 2009, p. 71 explains the
…show more content…
The “nays” mentioned that citizens had the freedom of choice and that the Government of India was actually encroaching on the rights of individuals in the democratic world to make this choice of “to smoke or not to smoke”. Additionally, they argued that the act of “smoking” was not being sold to the public, but rather the advertisement were geared at assisting smokers with deciding on which cigarette brands. With regards to business and employment, the “nays” noted that if it is legal to manufacture tobacco then why should advertising sale for the tobacco base product be banned. Secondly, the nays claim that advertisements are aimed at actually to gain a greater percentage of the market share and not to convert smokers. (It actually remains interesting on how it is possible to gain market share without converting smokers) Is it at all possible to do one without the other? Earlier the “nays” disagreed that teenagers were being targeted as the future of the tobacco industry yet they have named Finland as an example where teenage smokers increased even after a band on advertisements. Unemployment and loss of revenue were refered to as reasons why advertisements should not be banned. Moreover the “nays “claimed that evidence showed that there was no difference in the consumption of cigarettes consumption in countries where advertisements were banned and those where it was
The “nays” mentioned that citizens had the freedom of choice and that the Government of India was actually encroaching on the rights of individuals in the democratic world to make this choice of “to smoke or not to smoke”. Additionally, they argued that the act of “smoking” was not being sold to the public, but rather the advertisement were geared at assisting smokers with deciding on which cigarette brands. With regards to business and employment, the “nays” noted that if it is legal to manufacture tobacco then why should advertising sale for the tobacco base product be banned. Secondly, the nays claim that advertisements are aimed at actually to gain a greater percentage of the market share and not to convert smokers. (It actually remains interesting on how it is possible to gain market share without converting smokers) Is it at all possible to do one without the other? Earlier the “nays” disagreed that teenagers were being targeted as the future of the tobacco industry yet they have named Finland as an example where teenage smokers increased even after a band on advertisements. Unemployment and loss of revenue were refered to as reasons why advertisements should not be banned. Moreover the “nays “claimed that evidence showed that there was no difference in the consumption of cigarettes consumption in countries where advertisements were banned and those where it was