Banning Ads on Certain Products in the Interest of Health - Research Paper Example

Banning Ads on Certain Products in the Interest of Health I. Introduction This paper argues that certain kinds of ads should be banned in the interest of health, morality or annoyance. Among the products to be banned for the purpose of this paper include cigarettes and alcohol. Banning advertising on cigarette and alcohol should be part of government regulation as there are innumerable disadvantages of smoking and alcohol abuse especially on the youth and children. The counter arguments of self-regulation and restricted advertising cannot overcome the fact that the effect would be more unfavourable in terms of health, morality or annoyance if ads are not banned for cigarette and alcohol. 2.1. Whether to ban advertising on tobacco or cigarette Companies in the manufacture or sale of cigarettes are expected to go against the ban. The said players of tobacco industry argue that such a ban would unjustifiably curtail or restrains their commercial freedom. They argue on the basis freedom with legality so that for them selling a product that is legal, should allow them to make known their products to the consuming public (Vickers). For them any effort or regulation to restrict their right to advertising would sound inconsistent or illegal to government allowing them to have their trade legally registered. The proponents are telling government to open up their minds if the said government would have to allow them to pay taxes, they must be allowed to advertise as part of their marketing strategies (Vickers). However, it can be seen that the propositions forwarded by industry players are based on weak or unstable foundations and government may not be willing to concede. While industry players argue that cigarette advertising should enable to compete effectively for bigger market share for their brands. In other words, they are saying that they are just promoting brands (Vickers). While sale of cigarette is allowed despite the dangers to health of smoking, allowing the trade legal would allow the right of the individual to take pleasure that they would want from consuming cigarette including claims of psychological benefits. The argument against the ban is primarily therefore addressed to the young people or children and a ban to advertising is mean to prevent or stop the children from becoming addicted to cigarettes which will they will carry to adulthood. If adults would have more chance for cancer from smoking than those other adults that do not smoke, it can be argued that the children would suffer the same way. Therefore banning advertising is a bold and real step in preventing them to become cigarette users. Studies found that five out of six adult smokers initiated smoking by the age of 16 (Vickers citing Office of Population Censuses and Surveys). At this point of their lives these young people can be categorized as not properly equipped to evaluate its health risks. They would be less powerful also to resist the tempting image of having to smoke cigarette which some companies may presented as socially rewarding (Vickers). Another problem with causing the young to smoke early is that it was found out also, that these young people who have learned how to smoke and have enjoyed the pleasure found the danger latter and within a few years, about 75% tried to give up but failed (Vickers citing Matheson). This piece of evidence should be convincing enough to tell the industry players that the young lives which they attempted not to influence in their advertising as they try to engage into what they call self-regulation has actually not removed the harm caused to the young people. If it would be difficult to give up a habit or addiction that what was not intended when the young ones were just trying to experiment, why cause the young to suffer? That would have the effect of committing a fraud against the youth or taking advantage of their innocence. What could be worse than having known latter that you did not know its effects? Who would protect the youth if the adults will not act properly in banning what should be banned? That children are swayed by cigarette advertising should not be difficult to appreciate. According to studies, indications of changing views in favor of smoking are associated with those who get their knowledge cigarette advertisements (Vickers citing Aitken). Survey respondents who approved of the advertisements or those who answered in positive, have the double tendency to become smokers than not. When smoking children were asked and they were found to have readily recalled, recognized, and identified advertisements made on cigarettes. That advertising likely encourage said children to continue the habit came as part of the finding. If government will not act despite the compelling evidence comes that 11 to 14 year-old children favor the four most heavily advertised cigarette brands including Marlboro, a nation that would have its children with diseases associated with smoking would come more easily (Vickers 1992). 2.2. Whether to ban advertising on tobacco or cigarette The ban on cigarette advertising should be made similarly with alcohol despite the seeming different differences of two products. The issue that relate to banning ads on alcohol is also about the concern for young people or those that may consumer under the minimum legal drinking age. The other problem that needs to be analyzed is the pattern of drinking whether consumers as characterized by occasional or periodic episodes of excessive drinking that puts such young people at increase risks of health and social problems, particularly in relation to accidents and injuries. It has been argued that advertising and marketing contribute to this problem. The position adopted by the industry members and organizations should not be to completely ban ads on alcohol but only s to regulate alcohol advertising and to promote social responsibility. In other words, the alcohol industry tried to suggest the beverage alcohol should not be marketed towards those under the legal drinking age in any country as a way of self-regulation through voluntary codes of good practice. They also proposed to create independent bodies which would responsively monitor advertising and marketing practices (WHO). However, results from research studies argue for banning alcohol ads also as the youth and children would also be seriously affected in there is no ban. An American study found removing heavy advertising on alcohol would lower underage drinking by 25% from 21% if complete completely done (“Alcohol and advertising” citing Saffer & Dave). An American study also found that those youth who saw ads drank on the average (“Alcohol and advertising” citing Snyder, et al.). An association of prior school advertising and exposure to marketing and the subsequent drinking behavior in young people was found by in a review of seven international research studies (“Alcohol and advertising”, citing Smith and Foxcroft). While alcohol industry players argue that they are only promoting their brands in relation to competition and not necessarily to increase consumption is simply flawed from the very start. It would be hard to accept the argument that argument is not aimed at promoting consumption. It is therefore more plausible to take the position that advertising would cause people especially the young to consume more alcohol than they would otherwise and would cause to people to drink when they may not otherwise drink without advertising. 3. Conclusion Certain ads should be banned in the interest of health/morality/annoyance for certain products as in the case of cigarettes and alcohol in the same way that things need not be promoted or told to the public as the consequences could be worse than when there is no ban. Advertising on cigarettes would seriously affect the young ones most primarily and the bad effects of having misinformed or not misled them would be harder to undo and would leave them a life of regret. The least that should be done is to make them as addicts from advertising as research studies have shown. While the arguments against ads on tobacco may not be completely similar in the case of alcohol, there is also strong evidence to prove the advertising on alcohol has their consequent effects on young which increases the tendency of the latter of addiction and other bad consequences in terms of health, morality and social problems caused to society. Works Cited “Alcohol and advertising” Institute of Alcohol Studies. n.d. 3 August 2011 Basham, P. & J. Luik. “What’s the BMA Been Drinking? The Case Against an Alcohol Ad Ban”. 2009. 3 August 2011 < http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Policy_Report_BMA_Alcohol_Ad_Ban.pdf> Marsh A, Matheson J. Smoking attitudes and behaviour. London: HMSO, 1983. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. General household survey 1988. London: HMSO, 1990. Saffer H & Dave D: Alcohol Advertising and Alcohol Consumption by Adolescents. NBER Working Paper No. 9482 Smith, L; Foxcroft, D. “The effect of alcohol advertising and marketing on drinking behavior in young people: A systematic review.” Alcohol Education and Research Council, November 2007 Snyder, L B; Milici, F F; Slater, M; Sun, H; Stritzhakova, Y: Effects of Alcohol Advertising Exposure on Drinking Among Youth. Arch Pediatrics Adolescent Medicine 2006; 160:18-24 Vickers, J. “Why cigarette advertising should be banned.” 1992 BMJ Volume 304. 3 August 2011 WHO “Industry Views on Beverage Alcohol Advertising and Marketing, with Special Reference to Young People” n.d. 3 August 2011 Outline: 1. Introduction 2.1 Whether to ban advertising on tobacco or cigarette 2.2 Whether to ban advertising on Alcohol 3. Conclusion Read More