The Ban Of Tobacco Advertisements Banned

This paper will examine the history of the tobacco industry and its advertising campaigns from the 1920s to the present. Some of the issues discussed in this paper will include: What forms of mass communication has tobacco companies used to persuade the public, how changes in technology have influenced the way tobacco companies communicate with target audiences, and how the United States government restrictions affect the current efforts of tobacco companies advertising strategies. Other topics that this paper will expound upon are, the ethics of the tobacco industry’s advertising approaches, how tobacco companies responded to health warnings from the government, and what

Tobacco companies should be prevented from using advertising tactics that target teenagers. There has always been controversy as to how tobacco companies should prevent using advertising tactics to target teenagers. As controversial as this is tobacco companies shouldn’t advertise teen smoking. Many teens may be lured to believe cigarette advertising because it has been part of the American Culture for years, magazine ads and the media target young people, and these companies receive a drastic increase financially; however, the advertising by these cigarette companies has disadvantages such as having to campaign against their own company, limiting their cigarette advertising and becoming a controversial dilemma as to encouraging teenagers

Advertising in general influences everyone in many ways, particularly children imperiled by advertisements and its effects. (Raju & Lonial, 1989) I think it is an important topic to protect the children from advertising, specifically from tobacco advertising, because we all know that smoking is not good for your health, might cause cancer and could lead on to death.

The value-orientation theory argues that all human cultures are confronted with shared problems that emerge from five different orientations. Below I will explain the positive and negative consequences that have resulted from the U.S value orientations.

The points made for banning the advertising of tobacco ads were that other countries had also already enacted similar legislation. The reason given in justifying the legislation was that they had

1. The Government of India (GOI) proposed ban on tobacco advertising was not unusual keeping in view the international precedents. Countries like France, Finland, and Norway had already imposed similar bans. An example is Belgium whose Supreme Court (of Appeal in 1981, gave its ruling that a ban on tobacco advertising was not unconstitutional. In a case which started in 1991 and ended in 1997, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, marketer of Camel cigarettes, was forced to withdraw its mascot, Joe Carmel, an animated camel, from all its advertisements, after the California Supreme Court (USA) ruled that the company could be prosecuted for exploiting minors. The accusation was that the slick, colourful advertisements (using an animated camel) appealed to the children and encouraged them to smoke.

The Government of India (GOI) proposed ban on tobacco advertising was not unusual keeping in view the international precedents. Countries like France, Finland, and Norway had already imposed similar bans. An example is Belgium whose Supreme Court (of Appeal in 1981, gave its ruling that a ban on tobacco advertising was not unconstitutional. In a case which started in 1991 and ended in 1997, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, marketer of Camel cigarettes, was forced to withdraw its mascot, Joe Carmel, an animated camel, from all its advertisements, after the California Supreme Court (USA) ruled that the company could be prosecuted for exploiting minors. The accusation was that the slick, colourful advertisements (using an animated camel) appealed to the children and encouraged them to smoke.

There was an increasing fear that tobacco companies were inducing children and young people to begin experimenting with

Today we will analyze the issue of tobacco advertising, and weigh the merit of each opposing viewpoint on whether or not India’s government should ban tobacco advertisements.

Tobacco is one of the world’s most profitable industries. The top three producers of tobacco are: China, Brazil, and India, in that order. These industries provide direct and indirect work for many people in developing countries. Thus, like any good company it wishes to expose its products to the public by investing in ads and other merchandise of its product. All companies end goal (and of course this included tobacco) is to increase the appeal and acceptability of their product as well as to make the product available to the potential consumer. In the past couple of decades, tobacco has been a hotly debated subject from addiction, high blood pressure to lung disease. As time went on many countries started to band the product in some way shape or form and on February 6, 2001 the government of India (the third largest producer of tobacco in the world) dropped a bombshell on the tobacco industry when it too wanted to start its own band. The government would ban tobacco companies from advertising and sponsoring sports and cultural events all together (Case Studies, n.d.). India like many other European countries viewed the negative effects of smoking on its population and had boldly set out to ban tobacco ads from the public for three major reasons: the ads were found to be misleading, the introduction of a harmful product to its youth, and the increase cost of health care.

The arguments in favor of placing a ban on the advertising of tobacco products not only include the scientifically proven negative health impacts, but also show concern for the usage of tobacco in teenagers and young adults. Critics of big tobacco claim that tobacco companies tailor their ads in a manner that targets young people in order to maintain client base. There is also the issue of the government’s ethical responsibilities and its role as an enabler

· It was said that French Constitutional council declared that ban on advertising tobacco products was not constitutional, it based on the need to protect public health

India in 2001 proposed a ban on tobacco advertisement in an effort to curb tobacco use with adolescents. It was met with sharp criticism from the tobacco industry. However, some saw it as a great move by the government in looking after the welfare of its citizens. I hope to explore in the essay each side’s voice as well as deal with the myriad of issues the government faced upon the bans proposal. Lastly I will give my opinion on what position the government should take.

Smoking is on my list of not to do. Since I was a little girl my dad used to smoke a lot in our living room. I remember this, as it caused me a lot of trouble, and because our living room was a bedroom for me, I used to wake up coughing from his smoking. This memory came into my mind as we are going to speak of the ban on tobacco ads the government of India started in 2001, the arguments pro and contra, the conflict of interest and give our opinion on what should governments do in regards to tobacco advertising. There were many pros and contras about this issue and studies and research conducted. In the end the tobacco industry employed 26 million people in India.

In 2001, the Government of India proposed a bill that would place a ban on tobacco ads to discourage the use of tobacco products among the teenagers. This decision gave rise to a huge debate about the ethical responsibility of the government on the use of tobacco products. In