BAN ON TOBACCO ADS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
CASE ANALYSIS ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE BAN
· There were international precedents, countries such as France, Finland, Norway and Belgium had imposed bans and a similar product, cocaine is banned in the whole world.
· The ITC was a major sponsor of sporting activities and festivals which involves the youth, the ITC therefore take advantage of such events to advertise to the youth.
· There was fear that tobacco companies were inducing children and young people to experiment with tobacco products and initiate regular smoking. Tobacco caused 3 million deaths in1990, 4.023 in1998, and estimated to rise to 8.4 million in 2020 and about 10 million in 2030. (WHO).
· The …show more content…
In one hand the government has the right to make law to protect its citizens, but in this case even the very people the government wants to protect see the action as encroachment on their fundamental right to decide for themselves.
The conflict of interest arises when the very government which sees tobacco business in a bad light tends round to collect taxes from them. Secondly, the government has given tobacco business legal right to existence. In my opinion looking at the arguments for and against, the policy “does not have teeth” as said by the CEO of Equus Advertising. I say this not because I am against the ban, but the empirical data available from the various countries with the ban indicated that banning advertising alone does not reduce smoking. And also due to globalization media ads by multinationals which uplinked outside India are shown in India which the ban in India does not affect. Also the ban affects only the formal sector which is only 16% of the market. Again smoking leads to addiction and once smokers are addicted they will continue to smoke whether it is advertised or
CASE ANALYSIS ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE BAN
· There were international precedents, countries such as France, Finland, Norway and Belgium had imposed bans and a similar product, cocaine is banned in the whole world.
· The ITC was a major sponsor of sporting activities and festivals which involves the youth, the ITC therefore take advantage of such events to advertise to the youth.
· There was fear that tobacco companies were inducing children and young people to experiment with tobacco products and initiate regular smoking. Tobacco caused 3 million deaths in1990, 4.023 in1998, and estimated to rise to 8.4 million in 2020 and about 10 million in 2030. (WHO).
· The …show more content…
In one hand the government has the right to make law to protect its citizens, but in this case even the very people the government wants to protect see the action as encroachment on their fundamental right to decide for themselves.
The conflict of interest arises when the very government which sees tobacco business in a bad light tends round to collect taxes from them. Secondly, the government has given tobacco business legal right to existence. In my opinion looking at the arguments for and against, the policy “does not have teeth” as said by the CEO of Equus Advertising. I say this not because I am against the ban, but the empirical data available from the various countries with the ban indicated that banning advertising alone does not reduce smoking. And also due to globalization media ads by multinationals which uplinked outside India are shown in India which the ban in India does not affect. Also the ban affects only the formal sector which is only 16% of the market. Again smoking leads to addiction and once smokers are addicted they will continue to smoke whether it is advertised or