Pros And Cons Of Banning Cigarettes

1212 Words 5 Pages
The Government of India decided to be proactive and ban cigarettes advertising in the country. Many voices were heard and many opinions shared.
The supporters of the ban theory had plenty of facts to support their demands. First of all that is a common practice in Western Europe. Countries like Belgium and France had done this decades ago. To ban advertising of cigarettes, which are hazardous to the people`s health and is in the top 5 leaderboards of addicting substances is also not against the country constitution. This was confirmed in the courts of both France and Belgium as the debate raised the question up to the supreme and to the constitutional court. The supporters also cite facts about mortality rate caused by smoking. Millions of
…show more content…
The goals mentioned are populists and it is not possible to be achieved. On the other hand the freedom of choice will be harmed. Consumers are informed and they have the complete freedom to choose what to buy and what to avoid. These consumers have one very logical question: How it is legal to manufacture but it is illegal to advertise. They blame the government to be hypocritical and to take taxes and in the same to pretend that it cares for the welfare of his citizens. This advertising is targeting mostly current customer. These customers are already aware of the brand qualities and the advertising is only to induce brand awareness. People who are denying the media ban of cigarettes continue the support of the previous idea, citing social research who shows that young people did not started smoking because of an add, but they started because of the environment and more specifically because of friends who are doing this. Obviously there is significant amount of smokers in India and this is also supported by the idea that if ban is put on cigarettes advertising on Indian market will increase the consumption of ghutka and zarda. These are low quality chewing gums with variety of highly toxic ingredients including tobacco. These type of goods will benefit strongly as they are not banned for advertising and they are considerably …show more content…
They are in conflict though, as they allow manufacture but not advertisement. They gather taxes from the tobacco industry but they mind the health care expenses for smokers. It is hard to evaluate is the government acts as populist or they want to prevent further increase of health issues within the nation. Often it is both. The government as institution has admirable desire to improve public health. It is important to understand that the people in this government, ministers and all other public figures could be approached through corruption or other means by the tobacco party in order to cancel or change the discussed ban of cigarette advertising. Therefore the focus should not be on the government symbols, but on the actual persons performing duties in the government. That would be the weak spot which could change the tide and sequentially help to abandon the idea of a better public welfare. The people involved in the solution should be with high moral values. That is the only way to estimate and recognize that smoking is bad for the public health for both children and adults. It is also very expensive as sick people are using state money for treatment. Meanwhile these sick people do not work, so they are not making any income for them and for their company, which is a loss for the society in general. That leads me to the conclusion that advertising of

Related Documents

Related Topics