The government if India felt that they had an ethical responsibility to ban products that “Killed when used as the makers’ intended”(Morris, 2001). This included tobacco products, however the moral dilemma is that smoking has been a part of Indian life for a long time. The government also felt that they had a right to intervene when taking the “overall interest” of the countries’ people into account. Advertisements for other dangerous goods were already banned (guns, pharmaceuticals), so why not tobacco?
The health reasons were compelling enough. Tobacco related deaths were predicted to reach 8.4m by 2020 – the number was rising, even through 2030. Along with the health question was the cost related to it: in India, In India, the net contribution …show more content…
There had already been legislation set on banning tobacco products internationally, especially in Europe. Banning was largely on health and anti-social grounds and a huge campaign on encouraging citizens to give up tobacco accompanied the ban. Younger generations, that may have been influenced by the “Slick and colorful” (Morris, 2001) advertisements, were also in the mind when deciding to ban tobacco, in an attempt to stop a further generation from taking up the habit.
On the economic front, banning tobacco was found not to harm trade in other goods, and the money that was normally spent on tobacco was now being spent on other goods, which, it was ascertained, was more labor intensive and therefore job creating.
Banning of advertisements also ensured that tobacco was out of the minds of the population as much as possible, contributing towards the faster reduction in the population consuming products derived from tobacco.
The arguments in opposition of the ban on tobacco advertising were mainly centered on the free will of the individual to decide his or her destiny. It was argued that adults knew the risks, and were therefore able to make up their own minds about the choice to consume tobacco products. The phrase chosen by the opposition to the ban was “Nanny” state – the interfering in the private lives of the …show more content…
The adverts could be bent toward less harmful products and therefore be helpful overall in reducing the health cost burden on the state.
Economically, the opponents of the ban accused the Government of a “knee-jerk’ reaction, stating that they were throwing away not only the tax contribution that tobacco brings to the state coffers, but also that they were reducing jobs that were directly or indirectly involved with the tobacco industry (~26 million jobs) (Morris, 2001).
There is a clear conflict of interest with regard to the moral duty of care that the Government has to its population, and the sponsorship and advertising money that tobacco brings to the leisure economy, and the jobs that are created as part of the manufacturing of tobacco products. Tobacco companies put a lot of money into lobbying governments; in 2010 alone, lobbying funds in the US totaled over $21m (Opensecrets.org, 2010), funding campaigns and influencing legislature (Monbiot, 2014).
The key in all of this is that the government wants the consumption of tobacco products to be reduced, and the overall health of its population to be raised as a
The health reasons were compelling enough. Tobacco related deaths were predicted to reach 8.4m by 2020 – the number was rising, even through 2030. Along with the health question was the cost related to it: in India, In India, the net contribution …show more content…
There had already been legislation set on banning tobacco products internationally, especially in Europe. Banning was largely on health and anti-social grounds and a huge campaign on encouraging citizens to give up tobacco accompanied the ban. Younger generations, that may have been influenced by the “Slick and colorful” (Morris, 2001) advertisements, were also in the mind when deciding to ban tobacco, in an attempt to stop a further generation from taking up the habit.
On the economic front, banning tobacco was found not to harm trade in other goods, and the money that was normally spent on tobacco was now being spent on other goods, which, it was ascertained, was more labor intensive and therefore job creating.
Banning of advertisements also ensured that tobacco was out of the minds of the population as much as possible, contributing towards the faster reduction in the population consuming products derived from tobacco.
The arguments in opposition of the ban on tobacco advertising were mainly centered on the free will of the individual to decide his or her destiny. It was argued that adults knew the risks, and were therefore able to make up their own minds about the choice to consume tobacco products. The phrase chosen by the opposition to the ban was “Nanny” state – the interfering in the private lives of the …show more content…
The adverts could be bent toward less harmful products and therefore be helpful overall in reducing the health cost burden on the state.
Economically, the opponents of the ban accused the Government of a “knee-jerk’ reaction, stating that they were throwing away not only the tax contribution that tobacco brings to the state coffers, but also that they were reducing jobs that were directly or indirectly involved with the tobacco industry (~26 million jobs) (Morris, 2001).
There is a clear conflict of interest with regard to the moral duty of care that the Government has to its population, and the sponsorship and advertising money that tobacco brings to the leisure economy, and the jobs that are created as part of the manufacturing of tobacco products. Tobacco companies put a lot of money into lobbying governments; in 2010 alone, lobbying funds in the US totaled over $21m (Opensecrets.org, 2010), funding campaigns and influencing legislature (Monbiot, 2014).
The key in all of this is that the government wants the consumption of tobacco products to be reduced, and the overall health of its population to be raised as a