The ban on tobacco has become an ethical challenge for the Government of India.
Tobacco was originally an expensive product, but it quickly became cheap through mass production in countries like India. It became so cheap that young children started smoking and it led to major health problems for the population of India. The Government noticed their increase in “state spending on health care” (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India. (n.d.), and now that they had to do something to prevent rising of costs, resulting in the government’s decision in favor on the ban of tobacco.
A study on tobacco consumption and employment showed that reducing smoking would actually increase, and not decrease employment and so increase the revenue. …show more content…
Although on one side they wanted to ban tobacco because of rising costs, on the other hand, they silently supported tobacco because it generated revenue from taxes on cigarettes. For example, in 2007, $9.9 billion was made in revenues. That amount should speak for itself; those were the profits that the government made from the revenue of tobacco. However there were also arguments made that were not in favor of the ban. For example, the first argument was about the effect of the ban on the freedom of individuals’ free-choice and personal rights. People wanted the right to choose whether or not they found tobacco to be a health risk for themselves. They felt that it was their choice to make. So, although arguments were both right and wrong/ important and unimportant, it is the government’s ethical job to create a safe environment for their citizens no matter how much revenue they would …show more content…
Another point would be to completely cut out advertising tobacco as the world already knows that tobacco is available. So there wouldn’t be a need to bring it up in public where children can view it. I would also suggest that they regulate their policies in limiting the production throughout the country as I said earlier, those “consumers” will end up spending money somewhere else
Tobacco was originally an expensive product, but it quickly became cheap through mass production in countries like India. It became so cheap that young children started smoking and it led to major health problems for the population of India. The Government noticed their increase in “state spending on health care” (Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India. (n.d.), and now that they had to do something to prevent rising of costs, resulting in the government’s decision in favor on the ban of tobacco.
A study on tobacco consumption and employment showed that reducing smoking would actually increase, and not decrease employment and so increase the revenue. …show more content…
Although on one side they wanted to ban tobacco because of rising costs, on the other hand, they silently supported tobacco because it generated revenue from taxes on cigarettes. For example, in 2007, $9.9 billion was made in revenues. That amount should speak for itself; those were the profits that the government made from the revenue of tobacco. However there were also arguments made that were not in favor of the ban. For example, the first argument was about the effect of the ban on the freedom of individuals’ free-choice and personal rights. People wanted the right to choose whether or not they found tobacco to be a health risk for themselves. They felt that it was their choice to make. So, although arguments were both right and wrong/ important and unimportant, it is the government’s ethical job to create a safe environment for their citizens no matter how much revenue they would …show more content…
Another point would be to completely cut out advertising tobacco as the world already knows that tobacco is available. So there wouldn’t be a need to bring it up in public where children can view it. I would also suggest that they regulate their policies in limiting the production throughout the country as I said earlier, those “consumers” will end up spending money somewhere else