“Arguments For and Against the Ban on Tobacco Advertising in India, Conflicts of Interest, and Steps in an Ethical Decision Making Process” There were many arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India and many arguments against it. Also, a conflict of interest issue existed between the Indian government and the welfare of its citizens. However, governments can follow the steps in the ethical decision making process that are outlined in the course textbook in order to make a decision regarding tobacco advertising.
In the case study, there were many arguments in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India. Some people favored banning tobacco advertisements in India because they believed it would help keep the younger generation from becoming smokers. More specifically, some in favor of the ban feared that the tobacco advertising was targeting children and adolescents and influencing them to start smoking early (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). Thus, they believed that banning tobacco advertising would prevent the industry from targeting these individuals.
Another argument in favor of the ban on tobacco advertisements in India had to do with legal precedence. Many pointed out in the case study that the ban in India followed legal precedents in other countries like France, Finland, and Norway. Those in favor of the ban in other countries, including the Supreme Court in Belgium and the French Constitutional Council, believed that banning tobacco advertising was necessary to protect public health (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001).
This viewpoint aligned with yet another argument, which was that banning tobacco advertising comprehensively would diminish consumption, which would in turn diminish the tobacco related deaths that had been increasing since 1990. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) in the case study, “tobacco accounted for over 3 million deaths in 1990, the figure rising to 4. 023 million deaths in 1998” and “tobacco related deaths would rise to 8. 4 million in 2020 and to 10 million in about 2030” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001).
Lastly, those in favor of the ban of tobacco advertising in India felt that the ban would affect the economy positively. More specifically, they believed that comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising would increase employment because people who stopped smoking would spend their money in other areas of the economy (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). Although many people were in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India, there were also many others who were not in favor of the ban. Those who were against the ban on tobacco advertising in India argued that the ban limited people’s freedom of choice.
Their view, like the view of the Editor of Tobacco News Amit Sarkar, was that the decision to smoke tobacco represented free choice and that we should be careful of anyone who puts a ban in place that limits our freedoms (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). Additionally, those not in favor of the ban argued that it would hurt those employed in the tobacco industry in India. The case study pointed out that “the industry provided direct and indirect employment to 26 million people of this, roughly 6 million were farmers and almost 5 million were ‘beedi’ rollers” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001).
Those against the ban of tobacco advertising also raised argued that the ban would not greatly impact sales and, thus, consumption and public health expenses due to smoking tobacco. Lastly, some analysts felt that the ban could result in an increase in tobacco advertising from external countries or sources or for competing products. According to them, an increase in advertising of competing products would “reduce the consumers’ ability to distinguish between products of differing quality, and slow down the progression of Indian onsumers up the scale from harmful tobacco consumption (like ghutka, zarda, etc. ) to more refined forms” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001).
In the midst of arguments on both side of this issue, a conflict of interest also exists as it pertains to the government in India. The conflict of interest issue exists because the government received income from cigarette sales, but the government was also aware that its citizens suffered from lifethreatening illnesses and died after smoking cigarettes (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001).
In fact, in India “the tobacco industry was a large contributor to the State Exchequer. In 2000-01 it contributed Rs 8,182 crore which was 12% of the total excise revenue. About 90% of this came from cigarettes” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). This was significant for the Indian government since it was in a financial crisis during that time. Also, “India was the world’s third largest tobacco maker, with an annual output of 550 million Kg. Analysts were of the opinion that any control may have an adverse impact on the contributions to the state exchequer” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001).
Despite fears of these adverse impacts, the Indian government also had to keep the well-being of its citizens in mind. While some analysts focused on the adverse impacts that banning tobacco advertising would have on the Indian government, other analysts “contested claims that the state had to spend considerable amounts on providing healthcare as a result of smoking induced illness” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). The Indian government knew that tobacco was “the most dangerous consumer product known, which killed when used as the makers’ intended.
Therefore from an ethical standpoint, the Government had to discourage the habit, as it was responsible for the welfare of its citizens” (Dutta & Venkatakrishan, 2001). Due to the conflict of interest between commercialism and ethics, the Indian government had to make a decision regarding the ban on tobacco advertising. In the end, ethics won and commercialism lost: “concerned over the welfare of its citizens, who were fast becoming a prey, the Indian government decided to ban advertising by tobacco companies as a first step towards its goal of discouraging smokers” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001).
In regards to tobacco advertising, governments should follow the steps in an ethical decision making process. They should assess the situation, identify stakeholders and consider the situation from their point of view, consider the alternatives and how they would affect the stakeholders, make a decision, and monitor outcomes (Carpenter, Taylor, & Erdogan, 2009). The governments can take other actions, but this is just “one way to tackle ethical dilemmas” according to the textbook (Carpenter, Taylor, & Erdogan, 2009, p. 1).
In the case study, many arguments were presented in favor and against the ban on tobacco advertising in India. A conflict of interest issue was also discussed and described as it pertains to the government in India: “The issue involved the tussle between the ethical and commercial considerations” (Dutta & Venkatakrishnan, 2001). However, governments can use the steps in the ethical decision making process to decide what to do in regards to tobacco advertising
