Alcohol and tobacco are generally considered socially undesirable products in the society today. However, I feel that alcohol and tobacco companies should not be deprived of their existing rights to advertise their products. I do acknowledge that alcohol and tobacco are harmful to the body, however, this is an issue on whether alcohol and tobacco companies should be allowed to advertise, not on the detriments of such products.

For a new policy to be introduced, and in this case, the banning of advertisements of alcohol and tobacco products, three criteria must be fulfilled before it can be implemented. Firstly, there must be a significant need for the policy. Secondly, the current status quo should be proven detrimental and lastly that it must be highly practical for the policy to be implemented.

Coming to my first point of argument, on why it is unnecessary to not allow alcohol and tobacco advertisements.

Society at large is already aware of the negative effects of alcohol and tobacco. This general knowledge provides people with the ability to protect themselves from the detriments of alcohol and tobacco consumption by making an appropriate choice with regards to these products. For those people who have been living in an ivory tower, the government does play a part in educating and informing the general public of these detriments through anti-smoking campaigns and advertisements that feature parts of the body that has deteriorated due to excessive smoking.

Once education has been carried out, it is no longer the responsibility of the government to be further protective of its people and prevent them from consuming or using alcohol or tobacco if they want to. Indeed, the government has fulfilled all the responsibility it holds to the people, and has no further part to play in the people’s choices, which is not THEIR responsibility. Therefore, with the people being informed consumers, there is no need for us to not allow alcohol and tobacco advertisements.

Furthermore, advertising is not going to alter the mindset of consumers about the benefits and drawbacks of alcohol and tobacco itself.

According to a study published in the Fall 1995 Journal of Marketing, most 6 years-olds were able to associate “Joe Camel”, which is a carton version of the dromedary that has appeared on packages of Camel cigarettes, to cigarettes. However, 85% of these kids had a negative attitude towards cigarettes. Even children at age 6 are able to recognize that cigarettes are harmful, and thus, expressed a negative attitude towards it, much less teens and adults who have been educated and informed. This shows that an advertisement, even when often viewed, have very little effect on the desire of these people to consume tobacco products, once they are educated to the effected of tobacco.

Adding on, not only are these advertisements a negligible factor in deciding the choice of people to use tobacco or alcohol products, they can also be used to push forward positive messages. Observe the advertisements for beer during festive seasons that often end with a message to avoid drink driving.

Also, since smoking and drinking has no real health benefits, there are limits to how much one can exaggerate when advertising. Thus, the advertisements will not be misleading to the people. To quote an example, Tiger beer cannot call beer beneficial to our health; what they do instead is to merely say that there are special occasions in which drinking is a good idea. Hence the popular phrase, “It’s Tiger Time”.

Hence, I strongly feel that it is unnecessary to ban alcohol and tobacco companies from advertising their products. 0 comments