Business >
Advertising
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould tobacco advertising be permitted?
Results so far:
| Yes | 36% | 181 votes | Total: 507 votes | |
| No | 64% | 326 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesTobacco advertising is not violating the rights or infringing the privacy of anyone; in fact, tobacco advertising is covered under free speech and press. Some articles have been written assuming that it is already illegal to advertise tobacco anywhere in the world, but it is indeed legal in some countries (the USA for example). The debate here is whether it should remain so, or whether it should be made legal in countries that have already banned tobacco advertising..
Admitte dly, the adverse effects of smoking are life-threatening, and smoking as a habit is frowned upon by medical officials. In fact, even the tobacco companies admit and even warn people about the effects of smoking. So why have the tobacco companies been put under pressure and looked upon as menaces? Because they knowingly promote and produce a known evil; but I digress. The tobacco companies, though distributors of death they may be, still have the right to advertise their product. They are, in fact, businesses, producing and marketing a viable product in a capitalist market. The natural path for any normal company is to advertise its product as much as possible, even if they have to put fine-print warnings on the product to let people know it could kill them.
Most commonly seen advertising tobacco are out-door bill-boards along roads and highways. These are owned by advertising companies, who, in turn, rent the signs to paying customers (in this case, tobacco companies). Following the argument, "Should tobacco advertising be permitted?", will not the bill-board companies also be penalized?
While I do not support the use of tobacco in any form, I also do not believe that tobacco companies should be kept from marketing their product. Though (supposedly) less harmful, soft drinks are often advertised publicly; are these companies invading privacy or infringing on any rights? No, they are not. Alcoholic beverages are also dangerous and life-threatening, causing problems from habitual drunkenness to liver disease, yet few people complain about beer or vodka commercials and advertisements.
Yet another harmful product is ironically designed to help cure diseases: prescription drugs. Have you ever taken the time to read the side effects to your prescribed pain medication, antibiotics, or other drugs? Some prescription drugs can even cause death, yet tobacco products, far from causing immediate harm, are frowned upon. Of course, may will argue that the side-effects are rare and that the benefits of prescription drugs out-weigh the possible harm. I admit, that may be true, but tobacco's effects are not felt till long after a habit has formed, giving the person plenty of time to get off of it.
How can tobacco companies be singled out and told not to advertise their product when many other companies are marketing products just as or more harmful than tobacco?
Learn more about this author, Malagrond.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
With the discovery of tobacco in the New World by European explorers seeking to enrich the coffers of their royal patrons, a rich and powerful industry was born. Today, there is hardly a country where tobacco, in some form or other, is not consumed. It is smoked, chewed and dipped (held in the jaw or lower lip). The tobacco industry is one of the world's largest, with annual revenues exceeding the national budgets of all but the richest countries.
Despite the industry's efforts to suppress or ignore the facts, tobacco is harmful. Armed with this knowledge, it remains an individual decision as long as it is a legal substance, whether or not to use tobacco.
Given economic and political realities, an outright ban on tobacco production and use is hardly likely. Tax revenues from the sale of tobacco products is something no government, including the United States, is willing to forego. The influence and power of the tobacco industry and their legions of lobbyists, also poses an almost insurmountable barrier to any such effort.
What is banned, and should continue to be banned, is the advertising of tobacco products.
The decision to smoke is one that adults should be allowed to make for themselves. That decision, however, should not be influenced in any way by those who produce the product. Advertising has one main aim - to build demand for a product and attract new customers. For a product that has shown to be slowly killing off its consumers, this is an important goal of tobacco companies who want to survive and grow.
The actions of the tobacco industry, prior to the ban on advertising, serves as a chilling example of just how far they are willing to go to achieve that goal.
Those who are old enough will recall the industry ads of the 50s and 60s. Remember the image of the rugged, handsome cowboy? "Smoking is the sign of a real man." They used cartoon images (remember Joe Camel?) to attract younger smokers, and produced minty 'light' cigarettes to entice women to smoke. Advertising campaigns were targeted at minority communities to increase that customer base. Only after legislation was passed did companies reluctantly put a warning label on tobacco products concerning its 'possible' effects on health. And that warning, by the way, was in the smallest legible print possible.
After the U.S. ban on tobacco advertising went into effect, companies turned their attention to the vast international market. In some instances, their actions bordered on the unscrupulous, as when in the late 80s some companies, trying to break into the Thai market, asked the U.S. Government to pressure the Thai to lift their own national ban on tobacco advertising to help them compete against local producers.
In the late 70s, it was a common practice of tobacco companies to sponsor sporting events or concerts, a favorite venue of young people. At these events, which always featured large banners advertising their products, free sample were liberally handed out.
If people chose to smoke, knowing the health hazards tobacco presents, they must live (or die) with that decision. The tobacco industry, however, must never again be allowed to use the medium of advertising to help them in making that decision.
Learn more about this author, Charles Ray.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
