I mean what is the use of government sponsored campaigns against cigarettes and liquor if these two items are their main source of revenue? If they want people to stay away, they can stop manufacturing otherwise they should not waste billions on advertisements and campaigns against these items.
Cigarettes are harmful. Yet many prefer smoking. Cigarette smoking cannot be considered as suicide or slow death. Every smoker does not get cancer. Also many non smoker get cancer. There is only possibility of cancer from cigarette ant not certainty. sir Winston Churchill was a chain smoker but he died at advanced age as a healthy person.
I remember that once Piloo Modi M.P. of Swatantra party remarked in Lok Sabha that he may agree not to smoke but nobody can snatch his right to smoke.
Cigarettes and tobacco is a source of revenue. But revenue earning is not object. In fact, heavy tax is imposed to discourage consumption of tobacco. You may advise people not to smoke but you cannot restrict them totally as this will be an infringement of a citizen's right. There is however restriction on smoking in public places.
Cigarettes are harmful. Yet many prefer smoking. Cigarette smoking cannot be considered as suicide or slow death. Every smoker does not get cancer. Also many non smoker get cancer. There is only possibility of cancer from cigarette ant not certainty. sir Winston Churchill was a chain smoker but he died at advanced age as a healthy person.
I remember that once Piloo Modi M.P. of Swatantra party remarked in Lok Sabha that he may agree not to smoke but nobody can snatch his right to smoke.
Cigarettes and tobacco is a source of revenue. But revenue earning is not object. In fact, heavy tax is imposed to discourage consumption of tobacco. You may advise people not to smoke but you cannot restrict them totally as this will be an infringement of a citizen's right. There is however restriction on smoking in public places.
Don't you think that simply stopping manufacturing of such items would be better way to discourage them? I agree this comes under people's right but there are many other things which are socially wrong although perfectly under peoples right. So there...
@UshaG- This is not bout the adverts but public utility adverts I am talking about which come from Social welfare department.
I mean what is the use of government sponsored campaigns against cigarettes and liquor if these two items are their main source of revenue? If they want people to stay away, they can stop manufacturing otherwise they should not waste billions on advertisements and campaigns against these items.
I mean what is the use of government sponsored campaigns against cigarettes and liquor if these two items are their main source of revenue? If they want people to stay away, they can stop manufacturing otherwise they should not waste billions on advertisements and campaigns against these items.
May be the revenues they generate from these items are much more than they spend in campaigning against these items.Hope I answered it correctly?. :laugh:
Cigarettes are harmful. Yet many prefer smoking. Cigarette smoking cannot be considered as suicide or slow death. Every smoker does not get cancer. Also many non smoker get cancer. There is only possibility of cancer from cigarette ant not certainty. sir Winston Churchill was a chain smoker but he died at advanced age as a healthy person.
I remember that once Piloo Modi M.P. of Swatantra party remarked in Lok Sabha that he may agree not to smoke but nobody can snatch his right to smoke.
Cigarettes and tobacco is a source of revenue. But revenue earning is not object. In fact, heavy tax is imposed to discourage consumption of tobacco. You may advise people not to smoke but you cannot restrict them totally as this will be an infringement of a citizen's right. There is however restriction on smoking in public places.
Don't you think that simply stopping manufacturing of such items would be better way to discourage them? I agree this comes under people's right but there are many other things which are socially wrong although perfectly under peoples right. So there...
@UshaG- This is not bout the adverts but public utility adverts I am talking about which come from Social welfare department.
If you still feel that smoking is not injurious to health, see warnings given in different parts of world.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/photos/aggressive-cigarette-pack-warnings-slideshow/
Today, I saw an advertisement in local Hindi daily. This is by smokeless tobacco manufacturers (Gutkha). The advertisement says- 14 states consider that cigarette smoking is good for health. This is indeed ironic. The advertisement highlights the fact that smokeless tobacco is banned by states but cigarette is still allowed as Cigarette companies are very big and powerful whereas Gutkha manufacturers are small entrepreneurs scattered throughout the country.
If you still feel that smoking is not injurious to health, see warnings given in different parts of world.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/photos/aggressive-cigarette-pack-warnings-slideshow/
Today, I saw an advertisement in local Hindi daily. This is by smokeless tobacco manufacturers (Gutkha). The advertisement says- 14 states consider that cigarette smoking is good for health. This is indeed ironic. The advertisement highlights the fact that smokeless tobacco is banned by states but cigarette is still allowed as Cigarette companies are very big and powerful whereas Gutkha manufacturers are small entrepreneurs scattered throughout the country.
I also saw that ad by Kaththa manufacturing companies trying to represent their case as they found cigarettes containing more harmful contents than Gutaka but I think both of these items are as harmful. Although this should be left for user to decide and government should only see to it that no harmful effects are spreading due to these.
@suni51