A big reason for not wanting the ban against tobacco products was that many felt “the state was stepping in to tell smokers that they were incapable of deciding by themselves what was good or bad for their health…” (Government of India, 2001). Smokers who smoke every day know the risks of smoking, and have decided to continue to do so. It’s legal to make and sell tobacco products, it would make sense not to ban the advertisements. The intentions of tobacco companies’ advertisements aren’t to influence teenagers to take on smoking, but to the smokers they know already buy their brand. The Indian Market Research Bureau performed a survey about whether advertising influenced people; they found that “49% said they started smoking to see what it was like, 24% said ‘all my friends smoke’, and no one mentioned advertising” (Government of India, 2001). Another reason for being against the ban was because it wouldn’t actually cause any slowdowns or stop people from buying tobacco companies’ products. The ban wouldn’t cause any employment decreases, and it wouldn’t stop smokers. Smokers are going to smoke …show more content…
One conflict of interest would be the idea of a foreign TV company, like Formula One racing, being sponsored by tobacco companies. Viewers may not actually see any tobacco product advertisements, but the channel is sponsored by Marlboro – a well-known tobacco company. A sponsorship like this could put “Indian industry at a disadvantage” (Government of India, 2001). Another conflict of interest would be that even if tobacco advertisements were banned, it wouldn’t stop the product from being sold and it wouldn’t stop other products from being sold or talked about, such as beedi and ghutkas. This is hard for people because it’s hard for some people to distinguish the different products that are being