There’s no question that ethics, free speech, and the rights of manufacturers and consumers are all intertwined when it comes to the topic of tobacco. Tobacco can take many forms but for this case study we will focus on the overall topic of tobacco in general and the great step that one country took to not be an enabler to the addictions of tobacco through advertising. The tobacco industry is a massive income maker. According to an online source, The Guardian, (“Global, 2012) revenue from global tobacco sales are estimated to be close to 500 billion dollars, generating combined profits for the six largest firms at 35.1 billion - more than $1,100.00 per second. That is an astronomical amount of money. There’s no wonder that so many
…show more content…
The question can arise, is it ethical? In the case being studied in this paper, the Government of India took drastic measures in order to combat the growing rate of tobacco usage being encouraged with advertising. On Feb. 6, 2001, the Government of India took a great step when it announced that it would introduce a ban on tobacco companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events. (“Ban, n.d.”) This was a very hard hit in that some of the events that were banned catered to a large amount of people who, most likely, could be influenced by their advertising. Their ban was intended to target and discourage adolescents from being influenced to purchase and consume the tobacco products and to allow the government to begin a campaign to discourage the use of tobacco, especially at an early age. (“Ban, n.d.”) Was this a good move? Well, to support this decision oftentimes leaders are faced with an ethical situation in which the safety of employees, or in this case a country, is being negatively affected and the safety of those involved could be at risk. They likened their decision to the addictive qualities of tobacco to those of cocaine, which is banned all over the world. (“Banned, n.d.”). Thereby the safety of its citizens was their primary reason for the ban, and they stood behind their intervention on behalf of the citizens in which they were …show more content…
The conflict involved covers what is ethically correct and allowable in a situation where manufacturers have the right to advertise their product and citizens make their own lifestyle choices vs. the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens, especially those that are being influenced and aren’t to the age of accountability in which wise choices can be made on their own. In the U.S.since 2002, when the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed, companies have been required to write out their general code of ethics. (“Carpenter, M., Taylor, B., Erdogan, B. (2009” ) The main purpose of this law was to promote honesty and fair conduct within a company. This seems to be a fair and ethical necessity due to the fact that many companies, especially those providing a product, need to not only look at profit for their company but for the well-being of the consumer, as
The question can arise, is it ethical? In the case being studied in this paper, the Government of India took drastic measures in order to combat the growing rate of tobacco usage being encouraged with advertising. On Feb. 6, 2001, the Government of India took a great step when it announced that it would introduce a ban on tobacco companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events. (“Ban, n.d.”) This was a very hard hit in that some of the events that were banned catered to a large amount of people who, most likely, could be influenced by their advertising. Their ban was intended to target and discourage adolescents from being influenced to purchase and consume the tobacco products and to allow the government to begin a campaign to discourage the use of tobacco, especially at an early age. (“Ban, n.d.”) Was this a good move? Well, to support this decision oftentimes leaders are faced with an ethical situation in which the safety of employees, or in this case a country, is being negatively affected and the safety of those involved could be at risk. They likened their decision to the addictive qualities of tobacco to those of cocaine, which is banned all over the world. (“Banned, n.d.”). Thereby the safety of its citizens was their primary reason for the ban, and they stood behind their intervention on behalf of the citizens in which they were …show more content…
The conflict involved covers what is ethically correct and allowable in a situation where manufacturers have the right to advertise their product and citizens make their own lifestyle choices vs. the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens, especially those that are being influenced and aren’t to the age of accountability in which wise choices can be made on their own. In the U.S.since 2002, when the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed, companies have been required to write out their general code of ethics. (“Carpenter, M., Taylor, B., Erdogan, B. (2009” ) The main purpose of this law was to promote honesty and fair conduct within a company. This seems to be a fair and ethical necessity due to the fact that many companies, especially those providing a product, need to not only look at profit for their company but for the well-being of the consumer, as