According to “Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India” (http://www.icmrindia.org
/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm) India in Feb 2001, following suite after
France, Finland and Norway, threatened to ban the advertising of cigarettes and the sponsoring of
sports and cultural events. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Belgium in 1981 and the French
Constitutional Council in 1991 supported banning advertising of tobacco products. The World Health
Organization projected 10 million deaths from tobacco smoking by 2030. Tobacco companies fully
intended targeting teens and young people to replenish the older people dying of smoking-related
illnesses. They did this by making smoking look fun, having cartoon characters …show more content…
Concerns that reducing or eliminating smoking
would seriously injure the economy were found not to be true. The health costs were .21% of the
GDP, as opposed to the .14% that the GDP gained from smoking related sales. There was also
concern that the employment attributed to smoking would be lost, however, since the money would
still be spent, just on different things, it was determined that likely, the smoking advertising ban would
actually increase employment, as other products could be more labor intensive than the making of
cigarettes. In an analysis of 102 countries, it was found that countries with bans on advertising
enjoyed a higher decrease in consumption than countries that did not have a ban. Additionally, The
United Kingdom Department of Health, in 1992, assessed the effectiveness of a ban which had …show more content…
This does not only apply to tobacco related products, in my opinion. I would include banning advertising on alcohol, guns and prescription drugs. Primarily, my reasoning for these bans are because the products, in general, have a detrimental effect on the health of the public. Further, the second-hand effects of the use of these products can be lethal. I include prescription drugs in the category not because of the detrimental effects on public health, although there are cases in which that is true. I include prescription drugs not because of the second-hand effects. I include prescription drugs because, at least in the United States, it seems that diseases are created in order to create a market for prescription drugs. People walk around now with the belief that they have this new disease and need this new drug because advertising tells them that if they have these symptoms, they should talk to their doctor about taking this new drug. People should talk to their doctors about symptoms that they are having, not cures for what they think they are having. I would like to see a ban on advertising for pharmaceuticals because I do not think it is in the best interest of the public health, and, I am tired of hearing about vaginal yeast infections, erectile dysfunction and a myriad of other symptoms which are less than savory for public conversation, or dinner conversation, as I often eat in front of the
/free%20resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm) India in Feb 2001, following suite after
France, Finland and Norway, threatened to ban the advertising of cigarettes and the sponsoring of
sports and cultural events. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Belgium in 1981 and the French
Constitutional Council in 1991 supported banning advertising of tobacco products. The World Health
Organization projected 10 million deaths from tobacco smoking by 2030. Tobacco companies fully
intended targeting teens and young people to replenish the older people dying of smoking-related
illnesses. They did this by making smoking look fun, having cartoon characters …show more content…
Concerns that reducing or eliminating smoking
would seriously injure the economy were found not to be true. The health costs were .21% of the
GDP, as opposed to the .14% that the GDP gained from smoking related sales. There was also
concern that the employment attributed to smoking would be lost, however, since the money would
still be spent, just on different things, it was determined that likely, the smoking advertising ban would
actually increase employment, as other products could be more labor intensive than the making of
cigarettes. In an analysis of 102 countries, it was found that countries with bans on advertising
enjoyed a higher decrease in consumption than countries that did not have a ban. Additionally, The
United Kingdom Department of Health, in 1992, assessed the effectiveness of a ban which had …show more content…
This does not only apply to tobacco related products, in my opinion. I would include banning advertising on alcohol, guns and prescription drugs. Primarily, my reasoning for these bans are because the products, in general, have a detrimental effect on the health of the public. Further, the second-hand effects of the use of these products can be lethal. I include prescription drugs in the category not because of the detrimental effects on public health, although there are cases in which that is true. I include prescription drugs not because of the second-hand effects. I include prescription drugs because, at least in the United States, it seems that diseases are created in order to create a market for prescription drugs. People walk around now with the belief that they have this new disease and need this new drug because advertising tells them that if they have these symptoms, they should talk to their doctor about taking this new drug. People should talk to their doctors about symptoms that they are having, not cures for what they think they are having. I would like to see a ban on advertising for pharmaceuticals because I do not think it is in the best interest of the public health, and, I am tired of hearing about vaginal yeast infections, erectile dysfunction and a myriad of other symptoms which are less than savory for public conversation, or dinner conversation, as I often eat in front of the