When the Government of India dropped the news on the ban on the tobacco Industry, the objective
of such a ban was to discourage adolescents from consuming tobacco products and also arm the
Government with powers to launch an anti-Tobacco program but the ethical aspects of Government
objectives was in question because the tobacco company was a major revenue earner for the
government in past years. these fact of ethics situation was no news to the populace that 's why a
statement was made that the ban does not have teeth is was referred also as a typical knee-jerk
reaction by any Government to create some kind of popularity for itself.
Issue involved is the tussle between the ethical and commercial considerations, but it is believed that
this action on its part will create the right climate for a constructive dialogue that will help develop
appropriate content, rules & regulations to make the intended legislation equitable and implementable
From the ethical standpoint of the Government they have to have a way to discourage the habit of
smoking tobacco as the government was responsible for the welfare of its citizens also on the other
hand, the tobacco Industry was a major contributor to the government income because In the Year
2000-01 it contributed about 8000 crores in excise revenue which was a great income due to the
financial difficulty the government faced.
This leaves the government in problem to choose the ethical and lost the
market, in response of falling market prices of tobacco due to the oversaturated tobacco market, famers
Tobacco is a very large industry in Canada, providing very large tax revenue for the Canadian government. This paper examines the two sides to the argument; should Tobacco be made illegal in Canada? Is smoking tobacco ruining the Canadian economy? Or should Canadians be given the freedom to chose, and current rulings upheld?
Objections to this new policy might be met with the fact that use of tobacco
Facts: The Food and Drug Administration issued a rule in 1996 that prohibited the tobacco products labeling, promotion, and availability to young people (children and adolescents). The FDA claimed that as per Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), it had authority to regulate tobacco products because nicotine is a drug and devices such as cigarettes and smokeless tobacco deliver nicotine to the body. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation sued challenging the FDA regulations over tobacco product under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. They claimed that history of the Act did not allow the FDA to regulate the tobacco products. The United States District Court ruled that the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act allowed the FDA to regulate tobacco product as a device, but under section 360 (e) the agency had overstepped its authority to promote and advertise tobacco products. The Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit reversed the decision of District Court, holding that FDA had no jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. Because, the description of tobacco (as a device) was imperfect and the agency could not verify that the impact of tobacco products on the body was intended under the act.
The industry being analyzed is the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry manufacturer cigarettes, snuff, chewing tobacco, etc.
New Tobacco Atlas Estimates U.S. $35 Billion Tobacco Industry Profits and Almost 6 Million Annual Deaths. (2012) Retrieved August 2, 2015, from
La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gunthier, and Cory J.J. dissented, stating the appeals should be allowed and those questions raised answered. However, ss. 4 (advertisement), 8 (trademark use), and 9 (unattributed health warnings) of the Act cannot be found to coincide with the right of freedom of expression and do not present any limitations on that right. Furthermore, ss.5 (retail displays) and 6 (sponsorships) cannot be successfully removed from relating to ss. 4, 8, and 9, thusly making all of no effect in relation to s.
Consumption of Tobacco is a worldwide phenomenon. Nearly every country is planning to raise more restrictions around the consumption of Tobacco. The awareness about its ill effects is rising through the corridors of Parliaments of many countries with the help of governmental and non-governmental organizations. There are some internationally recognized organizations like the “World Lung Foundations” that are striving hard to reduce the consumption of tobacco to a bare minimum. There are numerous reasons that support the argument that tobacco should be completely banned from the United Sates.
Health concerns are the primary issue for nearly all of the stakeholders. Employees care about their job security and integrity for their occupations. The government is responsible for ensuring the safety and overall welfare of its community. If tobacco is known as a health hazard to the citizens, then it is the responsibility of the government to act on it. The customers of the tobacco industry are another huge factor. Of course, they care about their health, the ingredients of the product, the quality, the cost, etc. Then there are the owners and shareholders who, while they may also care about the reputation of the business, they are mainly concerned with the continuation of the corporation and the profits from it.
cigarettes and Tobacco was outlawed . In three paragraphs I will prove to you why it should be ,
legislation is made. Unfortunately, it is an industry that makes ridiculous amounts of money for
That is the only reason why cigarettes are legal. The government makes billions of dollars a year from selling cigarettes. About 25% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes goes to federal and local revenue. They
Tobacco is one of the world's dangerous drug which is haunting human lives to death. Over a billion adults are addicted to this drug and wasting their money, time and health. Nowadays there has been an ongoing debate/discussion among many people about the role of government in restricting the usage of Tobacco and thereby safeguarding the health of the public. In my personal opinion, both government and the Individual together needs to work to overcome this problem.
Supporters of the bill were clear that ethically the Indian Government was in their rights to propose the ban for the overall well-fare of their citizens. Supporters utilized the UK Department of Health 's 1992 study regarding the successful ban of tobacco advertising within Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand, and determined that there was a significant reduction in the use of tobacco products. The supporters also utilized a 1997 study regarding the ban of tobacco ads completed by the International Union against Cancer. It had found similar results as the UK study, showing data that these bans, when properly implemented, had a drop in consumption
India 's tobacco problem is very complex; the quote above depicts how ethically wrong it is for tobacco to be advertised publicly without control or adequate legislation in India. Several people in India especially under age children smoke, with a large use of a variety of smoking forms and an array of smokeless tobacco products. Many of these products are manufactured as cottage and small-scale industries using varying mixtures and widely differing processes of manufacturing. Taking a look at the statistics released by world agency as stated in the passage, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths in 1990, the figure rising to 4.023 million deaths in 1998. It was estimated that tobacco related deaths would rise to 8.4 million in 2020 and to 10 million in about 2030. There was an increasing fear that tobacco companies were inducing children and young people to begin experimenting with tobacco products, and in this way initiate regular smoking.