The issue of the Indian Government possibly banning tobacco ads is cause for much ethical concern, and compelling arguments are made by both sides. Those in favor of the ban have many valid concerns, such as the health risks associated with long term tobacco use. Those opposed to the ban have strong arguments as well, such as the issue of should the government be able to tell people what they can or cannot do in regards to risking their health. Through is paper I will do my best to summarize the views of each side, as well as discuss how this issue creates a conflict of interest for the Indian Government.
Finally, I will present my personal opinion about whether or not I believe the Indian Government should go forward with the ban on tobacco advertising. Those in favor of the ban on tobacco advertising in India often refer to the fact that in many other countries similar bans are in place. The case study states that,”…. countries like France, Finland, and Norway had already imposed similar bans. ” The fact that more developed countries that were concerned about the health and well-being of their citizens, had already placed bans on tobacco ads definitely fuels the fire of those believing that such a ban would be beneficial in India.
Some may ask, does the government have a right to ban advertising for tobacco? Those in favor of the ban say yes, that when a product could damage the health of the people or is potentially dangerous, then the government should be able to ban the product, or ban advertising for it. The case study referred multiple times to one such product that is banned almost worldwide, cocaine. The study also spoke about advertising bans often being imposed on firearms and pharmaceuticals because these products could be dangerous, especially if used incorrectly or if they were put into the wrong hands.
Ethically the questions that the government has to keep in mind when discussing whether or not a product or its ads are acceptable would be, “Is/ are the product(s) safe? ” If the product(s) could be potentially dangerous the question would be, “Who could be harmed by this product? ” Those in favor of the ban addressed these questions completely. The ayes section of the case study had statistics from World Health Organization showing that tobacco use was the cause of over 3 million deaths in 1990, and over 4 million deaths in 1998, and these figures were expected to keep on rising.
Those in favor also pointed out that tobacco advertising is often focused on young people, and that the advertisements encouraged children and young people to try cigarettes in hopes that they would start smoking. If more people start and continue smoking inevitably, there will eventually be more healthcare costs. The conflict of interest that surrounds this issue is that the tobacco industry is one of the biggest employers in India, so if tobacco advertising is banned, and tobacco sales drop, 26 million people could potentially be out of work.
Those in favor of the ban cite a study based on tobacco consumption and employment which had results showing that policies to reduce smoking would most likely increase and not decrease employment because the money people spent on cigarettes before would not be taken out of the economy when they stopped smoking, it would simply be spent on other goods and services, which would create new jobs in industries other than the tobacco industry.
The final point made by those in favor of the ban is that in a study done by the UK Department of Health which showed that in four countries, Norway Finland, New Zealand and France, where tobacco advertising bans had been put in place there had been significant decline in smoking. This study provided proof that banning tobacco advertising would help decrease smoking, and improve the health of the Indian people. Those opposed to the ban on tobacco advertising’s main argument was that people should have their own free will, and should be able to decide for themselves based on all the facts whether or not to smoke.
Even though the government may have the best interests of the people at heart, by taking away the people’s rights to take risks to their health (like smoking), the government is taking away some of the people’s freedom. Those in opposition of the ban on advertising, also argue that tobacco advertising doesn’t target nonsmokers, the companies in the industry are focusing on promoting their brand through advertising and not on encouraging nonsmokers or young people to start smoking.
Another argument that those opposed to the ban on tobacco advertising present is that if it is legal to sell tobacco, it should be legal to advertise for it. If the government went so far as to ban growing, manufacturing and selling tobacco, cigarettes, and other tobacco products it would really hurt the Indian economy. India is the third largest tobacco producer in the world, and 26 million people are employed by their tobacco industry.
If the bans became too strong on tobacco, a large part of the Indian economy could collapse, and millions of people could be out of work. The other issue those opposed to the ban on tobacco advertising bring up is that only 16% of India’s tobacco industry produces cigarettes (which are the advertised form of tobacco. ) The other 84% of tobacco produced in India is sold in more dangerous forms that are unadvertised, and would still maintain, if not gain sales if cigarette advertising is banned.
Those opposed to the ban also point out that many international magazines are sold in India, which would continue to contain tobacco ads, as well as, international television networks that air in India and are extremely popular like Formula One Racing, which would continue to be sponsored by tobacco companies, regardless of a ban. In response to those in favor of the ban, who say that the ban would reduce smoking which would reduce healthcare cost, those opposed to the ban point out that the Indian government pends very little on healthcare, and that if fewer people pass away due to smoking related illnesses, the government will have to spend more money paying out pensions for the elderly.
The last argument presented by those opposed to the ban were the results of several studies which showed little to no correlation in tobacco advertising spending and cigarette consumption, and that advertising bans did not tend to reduce tobacco consumption. e idea of a tobacco ban in India creates several conflicts of interests within the Indian government, several of which have already been mentioned.
One potential conflict of interest would be that if the government did ban tobacco advertising, would the government have to stop allowing subscriptions to foreign magazines and sports channels that so many people are fans of like Formula One, because these channels and magazines would continue to have tobacco sponsorships and to air tobacco commercials? If the government continued to allow people access to these foreign channels and magazines is the tobacco ban really going to be effective, since the people will still be viewing tobacco advertisements on a regular basis.
The biggest conflict of interest for the government when considering a tobacco ban, is that the tobacco industry is such a big part of India’s economy, if the advertising ban works, and people stop smoking completely, (those opposed to the ban believe that it would only reduce the number of people who smoke cigarettes, since the other more dangerous forms of tobacco are not advertised), potentially millions of people could be out of work.
If this happens, hopefully those in favor of the ban are correct in believing that people would spend their money on other goods and services that would create jobs in other industries, otherwise the ban could be the catalyst that eventually leads to an economic recession. The situation the government officials are in having to make this decision is a terrible one. On one side the officials want to protect the health of the people, yet if they succeed in doing so, and reduce smoking, they could potentially ause millions of people to be without work or a way to make a living and provide for their families.
Which is the lesser of two evils? What is my view on this? Who do I side with those in favor of the ban or those opposed? Ttend to side with the opposed. Why? I believe the best government is a small government. People should be allowed the freedom to make their own informed choices and decisions. Enough research is available to show that smoking is dangerous to our health, and people should be intelligent enough to decide on their own.
The US put a ban on tobacco advertising on TV and radio in the 1970’s, but one can still see tobacco ads in magazines, at gas stations, in newspapers and online. Public health announcements can also be seen everywhere informing people of how harmful smoking can be to their health, showing people in the final stages of lung and throat cancer, so people can see the negative effects of smoking. These health announcements often list resources available to help you quit smoking, if you need help.
The Surgeon General even put warnings on all cigarette boxes and tobacco containers in stores about the potential dangers to one’s health. I believe the best decision for the Indian government would be to continue to allow tobacco advertising, but to require warnings labels on cigarettes and tobacco products. The government also should create and air public service announcements that inform people of the health risks tobacco poses, and allow them to make their own informed decisions.
