In 2001, Indian government officials began discussing laws regarding a ban on all tobacco advertising in India. Indian officials, like many other governments around the world that imposed similar bans, felt an ethical and social responsibility to discourage usage of a product that is very dangerous and posed significant health risks to the population. However, such a ban could have significant economic impacts, considering revenue collected from taxes on the sale of these products, as well as potential impacts to jobs in the tobacco industry if sales decreased as a result. When arguing the benefits to such a ban, an assumption is made by the analysts that a decrease in advertising would correlate with decreased smoking rates, positively impacting
…show more content…
In reading about the pros and cons to the advertising ban on tobacco products, the key question remain as to whether or not governments have a right to restrict advertising of a product. On one side of the argument, governments hold that they have an ethical responsibility to the public health. However, the economics of such a ban could pose other risks to local jobs and local businesses, as well revenue generated from the taxes generated on the sale of such products. In my opinion, governments and leaders have a responsibility to protect the public, and advertising for products such as tobacco products, which are most definitely harmful to our health, should be restricted. Earlier, I stated that tobacco companies used the data from the Indian Market Research Bureau where none of the respondents started smoking simply because of advertising. However, many responded that they started smoking because of curiosity. The whole idea of marketing and advertising is connecting with the consumer and creating some level of curiosity and connection with your product. Advertising piques a response of curiosity, so it is not unreasonable to make the connection that advertising tobacco products can lead to new consumers of the products. Laws that limit advertising these products does not take away my fundamental right to purchase or use these products, so I do not see how there is an infringement of personal rights by banning
In reading about the pros and cons to the advertising ban on tobacco products, the key question remain as to whether or not governments have a right to restrict advertising of a product. On one side of the argument, governments hold that they have an ethical responsibility to the public health. However, the economics of such a ban could pose other risks to local jobs and local businesses, as well revenue generated from the taxes generated on the sale of such products. In my opinion, governments and leaders have a responsibility to protect the public, and advertising for products such as tobacco products, which are most definitely harmful to our health, should be restricted. Earlier, I stated that tobacco companies used the data from the Indian Market Research Bureau where none of the respondents started smoking simply because of advertising. However, many responded that they started smoking because of curiosity. The whole idea of marketing and advertising is connecting with the consumer and creating some level of curiosity and connection with your product. Advertising piques a response of curiosity, so it is not unreasonable to make the connection that advertising tobacco products can lead to new consumers of the products. Laws that limit advertising these products does not take away my fundamental right to purchase or use these products, so I do not see how there is an infringement of personal rights by banning