1. arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India The arguments in favor of the ban are fairly straightforward. First and foremost, there is the consideration of the proven and fatal effects of tobacco use. Those in favor clearly rely heavily on this issue. How can it be wrong to limit and decrease tobacco use, even if it is forcibly, so long as it saves lives? Looking at the entirety of the financial numbers, from the perspective of those in favor of the ban, there is no real or net loss of income or financial benefit to the economy stemming from the ban. Even if there was to be initial loss of income from taxes or from employment, those in favor of the ban cite higher healthcare costs due to tobacco use that would theoretically
…show more content…
It depends on your perception and your perspective, as well as how you view and manipulate the data. Those opposed to the ban list decreased revenue, encroachment on personal civil rights and decreased impact of advertising and quality of product. Ultimately, the issue of personal freedom seems to be the most heavily focused on. If the government can tell a person what they can and can’t do because it may or may not cause illness or harm, where does that limit stop? Who decides what is off limits and inalienable rights and what is able to be dictated by government entities? This issue is at the crux of the opposition’s …show more content…
While I understand the highly addictive and harmful effects of tobacco use, I believe in this, and every case like it, it is the responsibility of the consumer to research any item they are planning to purchase, especially if they are going to ingest it in any way. It is not the responsibility of the government in any form or fashion to make decisions on behalf of a citizen, even if it is supposedly in their best interests. It is not the government’s business what defines a citizen’s best interest. If a tobacco company is operating legally within the country and fulfills its requirements of the law or laws, the government should have no say in whether or not they can
It depends on your perception and your perspective, as well as how you view and manipulate the data. Those opposed to the ban list decreased revenue, encroachment on personal civil rights and decreased impact of advertising and quality of product. Ultimately, the issue of personal freedom seems to be the most heavily focused on. If the government can tell a person what they can and can’t do because it may or may not cause illness or harm, where does that limit stop? Who decides what is off limits and inalienable rights and what is able to be dictated by government entities? This issue is at the crux of the opposition’s …show more content…
While I understand the highly addictive and harmful effects of tobacco use, I believe in this, and every case like it, it is the responsibility of the consumer to research any item they are planning to purchase, especially if they are going to ingest it in any way. It is not the responsibility of the government in any form or fashion to make decisions on behalf of a citizen, even if it is supposedly in their best interests. It is not the government’s business what defines a citizen’s best interest. If a tobacco company is operating legally within the country and fulfills its requirements of the law or laws, the government should have no say in whether or not they can