The ayes
Those in favor of the ban on advertising have not arrived here without thought and conviction. Supported by studies in many other countries and by organisations respected the world
over notably the World Health Organisation, who found that tobacco related deaths were on the rise and would continue to rise unabated if the tobacco companies
were allowed to target advertise to vulnerable groups. After reading about these experiences, I find it hard to believe that the tobacco companies would find it an
unexpected move, although it is not unusual for them to play the victim in these circumstances.
The arguments for the ban are underpinned by the fact that if a substance is addictive, as is the case with nicotine, then once the addiction is ‘set’ there …show more content…
Once an addiction is formed, the victim will put an unrealistic value on the consumption of the substance, and will do things out of character, even
criminal, to acquire it. Perhaps if there were positive benefits to the addiction, perhaps it would be easier to defend.
The government is aware a population that smokes will cost more and be less productive (and happy) than one that does not smoke. In addition to this a smoking
population is a much greater burden on the taxpayers, and families when diseases like chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) and other respiratory
diseases take hold. Tobacco companies have a proven history of being unscrupulous with little compunction to change their tactics or product, so the GOI has
taken the stance that the population needs to be protected (particularly children) without limiting a persons freedom to choose. Marketing companies hold powerful
knowledge and tools to manipulate the public and often defend this power by appearing to defend the rights of citizens.
The nays
“Adults who consume tobacco do so of their own free choice” This fundamental freedom should not be marginalized by the state as and when it sees fit.
Those in favor of the ban on advertising have not arrived here without thought and conviction. Supported by studies in many other countries and by organisations respected the world
over notably the World Health Organisation, who found that tobacco related deaths were on the rise and would continue to rise unabated if the tobacco companies
were allowed to target advertise to vulnerable groups. After reading about these experiences, I find it hard to believe that the tobacco companies would find it an
unexpected move, although it is not unusual for them to play the victim in these circumstances.
The arguments for the ban are underpinned by the fact that if a substance is addictive, as is the case with nicotine, then once the addiction is ‘set’ there …show more content…
Once an addiction is formed, the victim will put an unrealistic value on the consumption of the substance, and will do things out of character, even
criminal, to acquire it. Perhaps if there were positive benefits to the addiction, perhaps it would be easier to defend.
The government is aware a population that smokes will cost more and be less productive (and happy) than one that does not smoke. In addition to this a smoking
population is a much greater burden on the taxpayers, and families when diseases like chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) and other respiratory
diseases take hold. Tobacco companies have a proven history of being unscrupulous with little compunction to change their tactics or product, so the GOI has
taken the stance that the population needs to be protected (particularly children) without limiting a persons freedom to choose. Marketing companies hold powerful
knowledge and tools to manipulate the public and often defend this power by appearing to defend the rights of citizens.
The nays
“Adults who consume tobacco do so of their own free choice” This fundamental freedom should not be marginalized by the state as and when it sees fit.