Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India

<< Previous

The Ayes' Contd...

In 1992, the Department of Health (DOH), UK reviewed various forms of evidence to assess whether tobacco advertising affected the aggregate demand for tobacco products.⁶ Four countries (Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand) were chosen, as these countries had already imposed an advertising ban and enforced it effectively. The main conclusion of the DOH was that the evidence available on these four countries indicated a significant effect.

In each case, the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking. In 1997, in a similar study for the International Union against Cancer, the available data in the same four countries was examined⁷. It was found that per capita consumption of cigarettes (15 years +) had dropped between 14 and 37 % after the implementation of the ban. (Refer Table I).

TABLE I
THE EFFECT OF BAN ON TOBACCO CONSUMPTION

In three out of the four countries, smoking among young people had decreased, while in one it remained stable. The conclusion was that advertising bans worked if they were properly implemented as part of a comprehensive tobacco control policy⁸.

The Nays'

Those who opposed the ban contended that by putting a ban on advertisements and sponsorships by tobacco companies, the state was effectively stepping in to tell smokers that they were incapable of deciding by themselves what was good or bad for their health and that, therefore it had to play the role of a responsible nanny. Said Amit Sarkar, Editor, Tobacco News⁹, "Adults who consume tobacco do so of their own free choice. The risk falls entirely on them and is fully explained to them.

If we lose sight of this principle, then we lose sight of the truth on which all the free societies depend, namely that freedom and risks are inextricable, and whomsoever assumes the right to save us from risks, is also assuming right to limit our freedom". The Supreme Court in Canada, held, "The State seeks to control the thought, beliefs and behavior of its citizens along the line it considers acceptable. This form of paternalism is unacceptable in a free and democratic society".

Also, if it were legal to manufacture and sell tobacco products, it should be legal to advertise it as well. Tobacco companies around the world have been vehemently denying that they sell the concept of smoking. They insist that the role of marketing, was merely to assist adults in making an informed brand choice and that advertising merely enhanced the market share of a particular brand.

The companies claimed that advertising for a particular brand was most relevant to consumers who already smoked that brand. Cigarette advertisements were least relevant to people who did not smoke and were neither directed at them nor likely to influence them. They also denied that they targeted teenagers and young people as a growth strategy and said that they only targeted adult smokers. In 1998, in a survey conducted by the Indian Market Research Bureau (IMRB), 49% of the respondents said they started smoking to see what it was like, 24% said 'all my friends smoke'; and no one said advertising had induced them to start smoking.

Next >>

---

6] Department of Health, Effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption, London, 1992.
7] Canada was replaced by France as in Canada a legal vacuum was created by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on 21st September 1995 to abolish the 1988 Tobacco Products Control Act, which was later replaced by the Tobacco Act of 25th April 1997.
8] Joossens L., The effectiveness of banning advertising for tobacco products, International Union against Cancer, Brussels, 1997.
9] Tobacco News is the newsletter of the Tobacco Institute of India (TII).