In early 2001, the Indian government enacted a sweeping ban on tobacco advertisement, designed to thwart adolescent smoking and empower the government’s anti-tobacco efforts (ICMR, 2001). There were strong arguments made on both sides of the issue of the ban. Both proponents and opponents of the ban were well aware of the conflict of interest that existed between the government of India and the tobacco companies. The situation, at its genesis, could rightly have been called a mess. It was, at best, complex. The law itself took some time to finally be enacted, and its enforcement and scope has been expanded several times over the years – related, no doubt, to India’s signing on to be a party of the World Health Organization’s Convention on Tobacco
…show more content…
The tobacco industry contributed (and still contributes) a significant amount of money to the Indian government through tax revenue and opponents of the ban thought it might not be wise to bite the hand that was feeding them (ICMR, 2001). Further, while tobacco advertising might be banned in India, the foreign magazines and television programs widely available from various sources were not subject to the ban and Indian consumers would still be exposed to tobacco advertising via that route. On that account, a ban made no sense (ICMR, 2001). Naysayers also argued that ads did not actually convince non-smokers to start smoking, but merely helped individuals who already smoked to differentiate between brands and make brand decisions (ICMR, 2001). Lastly, naysayers argued that the ban was enacted largely for show, in order to boost the popularity of the current government administration to make it appear as though they were concerned for their citizens’ health when, in reality, the ban was unenforceable(ICMR, 2001). The scope of the ban was later expanded to include those advertisements that had been leaking in from foreign sources, rendering this argument moot, but, at the time, it was a major part of the argument against the ban (Tobacco Free Kids, …show more content…
Given the growth in revenue over the last fifteen years, I am inclined to believe that the opponents are at least partly correct – the ban seems to have been at least partially ineffective. Even with bans on advertising, and restricting smoking in public to designated areas, people continue to make the choice to smoke. Although cigarette smoking has experienced a decline in recent years, people are still smoking. Tobacco companies are diversifying into electronic cigarettes, and chewing tobacco and the profits continue to roll in. I may be a proponent of personal freedom, but my opinion is that bans are not necessarily a bad thing. I am not one of those folks who believes that corporations should have the same rights as people, so I don’t think that this is a First Amendment/Free Speech issue. Every day at work, here at the hospital, I see people who are dying because they cannot manage to quit smoking, people who are having body parts amputated because they cannot shake their tobacco addiction. It is a public health issue. Maybe bans on tobacco advertising mitigate, even a little, the temptation on non-smokers who might be susceptible to advertising influence. And if a ban helps save even a few lives, or helps prevent smoking-related disease, then it is worth it. Adults who are capable of making informed decisions
The tobacco industry contributed (and still contributes) a significant amount of money to the Indian government through tax revenue and opponents of the ban thought it might not be wise to bite the hand that was feeding them (ICMR, 2001). Further, while tobacco advertising might be banned in India, the foreign magazines and television programs widely available from various sources were not subject to the ban and Indian consumers would still be exposed to tobacco advertising via that route. On that account, a ban made no sense (ICMR, 2001). Naysayers also argued that ads did not actually convince non-smokers to start smoking, but merely helped individuals who already smoked to differentiate between brands and make brand decisions (ICMR, 2001). Lastly, naysayers argued that the ban was enacted largely for show, in order to boost the popularity of the current government administration to make it appear as though they were concerned for their citizens’ health when, in reality, the ban was unenforceable(ICMR, 2001). The scope of the ban was later expanded to include those advertisements that had been leaking in from foreign sources, rendering this argument moot, but, at the time, it was a major part of the argument against the ban (Tobacco Free Kids, …show more content…
Given the growth in revenue over the last fifteen years, I am inclined to believe that the opponents are at least partly correct – the ban seems to have been at least partially ineffective. Even with bans on advertising, and restricting smoking in public to designated areas, people continue to make the choice to smoke. Although cigarette smoking has experienced a decline in recent years, people are still smoking. Tobacco companies are diversifying into electronic cigarettes, and chewing tobacco and the profits continue to roll in. I may be a proponent of personal freedom, but my opinion is that bans are not necessarily a bad thing. I am not one of those folks who believes that corporations should have the same rights as people, so I don’t think that this is a First Amendment/Free Speech issue. Every day at work, here at the hospital, I see people who are dying because they cannot manage to quit smoking, people who are having body parts amputated because they cannot shake their tobacco addiction. It is a public health issue. Maybe bans on tobacco advertising mitigate, even a little, the temptation on non-smokers who might be susceptible to advertising influence. And if a ban helps save even a few lives, or helps prevent smoking-related disease, then it is worth it. Adults who are capable of making informed decisions