THE HOUSE SHOULD BANNED THE CIGARETTES ADVERTISEMENTS THE HOUSE: The government, which means Indonesian or other

countries, or could be UN or World BANNED: Eliminate CIGARETTES ADVERTISEMENTS: Every display shown on media (can be a TV Ads, sponsors, radios, or print ads(posters, billboard))or shop to promote the cigarette products or to keep the consumer buying cigarettes.

PROS These adverts send an incorrect message. It is not only the peer pressure, but also the malign influence of advertisements that shows smoking as something "cool". Hardly ever is it pinpointed on fancy TV commercials or on billboards that the costs of smoking are far greater than the cost of a pack of cigarettes. The result is more (especially younger) people taking up this harmful habit.

CONS No significant impact. It is very difficult to manipulate people into doing something that is not particularly cheap or tasty. The most important reason why teen take up smoking are not fancy ads, but rather peer pressure and their feeling they "need"to belong somewhere.

Cigarettes will lose their

Advertising fosters non-

appeal. If we ban adverts on tobacco products, they will gradually lose their appeal, because they won't symbolize anything "cool", "smart" or "amazing". Tobacco products will become ordinary consumption goods and thus the number of young people who take up smoking in order to "be somebody" will decrease. "The US Surgeon General and the US Food and Drug Administration are among those who have examined the evidence and concluded that tobacco advertising does increase overall consumption.

rationality. There is nothing moral about encouraging customers to be non-rational and impulsive in spending.

These adverts promote the

use of toxic and addictive substances. Not only that cigarettes contain tens of toxic chemicals (such as tar) that ruin people' s health, but they also contain nicotine, which is highly addictive. We have already banned adverts on drugs (such as LSD, nicotine, weed), so why don't we ban tobacco advertisements? Because tobacco (nicotine) is no less addictive than other "soft"

http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publicati ons/Pages/default.aspx Advertising curbs imperfect information. Advertising is necessary for consumers, as it not only promotes new products, but it also provides essential information. Imperfect information can result in market failure, therefore anything that limits it should be encouraged.

drugs. There is a thin line between tobacco ads and "other" ads.Firstly, does the mere appearance of a cigarette in an advert count as "promotion"? Secondly, would the ban apply also to anti-smoking campaigns? And thirdly, what about adverts that use cigarettes just as a complement to a different product? And who is to distinguish between "pure tobacco adverts" and the "all right" category? Anti-smoking adverts have opposite effect than intended.As M. Lindstrom in his book Buyology explains, these "negative" advertisements do not prevent or discourage people from smoking, quite upon the contrary - a large neuromarketing study has concluded that anti-smoking adverts stimulate an area in brain associated with craving. That means that he very warnings intended to reduce smoking might well be an effective marketing tool for tobacco companies!

Anti-adverts send the right

message. Negative advertising shows that not only is harming yourself not cool, but also that harming others is rather unfair.

Anti-adverts contribute to

global awareness. Given that most negative adverts use either scientific evidence or real-life pictures in order to demonstrate the grave harm cause by tobacco products, they in effect contribute to people's awareness about the possible risks of smoking. Most of the smokers are also the

depressed, poor, and less educated citizens who use tobacco most frequently bcoz they think great to be glamor like the actor in the ads.

Profit of tobacco company used for retire payment for teachers in Washington. Also they use it for charitable events. Profit of tobacco is helping the countris economy

Advertising promotes non-

Advertising leaves everybody

rationality. There is nothing moral about encouraging customers to be non-rational and impulsive in spending.

better off. Not only do the consumers benefit from the products they buy thanks to adverts, but also the whole economy benefits from these "impulsive" buys, thus leaving

"Advertising manipulates small

children even before they reach the

age when they are legally responsible for their actions." [Vance Packard, "The Hidden Persuaders"]

everybody better off (both the producers and consumers). Thus, advertising cannot be really immoral.

Advertising exploits our deepest

fears, sensitivities and yearning. There is nothing moral about such actions, the less for commercial purposes.

Advertising boosts the

economy. The economy is boosted by the economy in many ways. First, it promote consumers from buying products from producers. Many companies, especially new, upcoming business, could not survive without advertising Second, the advertising industry is huge. Not only does it keep vast amounts of money cirulating throughout the economy, it also employs many workers responsible for generating the advertisments.

Advertising creates an attitude

of wastefulness. There is no justification for encouraging the "psychological obsolescence" of products currently in use.

Many adverts are not justifiable

on moral basis. There is no justification for promoting products that effectively ruin people's health (cigarettes, alcohol) and cause several millions of deaths annually. Worse still, it cannot be ensured that such advertisements do not reach and affect children.

Advertising curbs imperfect

information. Advertising is necessary for consumers, as it not only promotes new products, but it also provides essential information. Imperfect information can result in market failure, therefore anything that limits it should be encouraged.

Advertising exacerbates imperfect information.Advertising always presents one point of view and thus does not help consumers make more informed decisions, quite the contrary.

The more is produced, the more

needs to be consumed.Without advertising, people wouldn't be buying

things they do not necessarily need, which would slow the economy down, as economy cannot grow unless people consume. 53,800 people a year die from second hand smoking. Banning the advertisement of them will not "make children automatically decide that cigarettes are bad" but it will reduce the positive influence that they give off. Advertising is a mere distraction, disturbance.Omnipresent advertising merely annoys people, as it effectively destroys beauty of historic centres in cities, distracts drivers (and thus poses a threat to their security), and - for example - takes up space in newspapers (in place of articles).

More than two thirds of the world's smokers live in just 10 countries (WHO): 1. China 2. India 3. Indonesia 4. Russia 5. US 6. Japan 7. Brazil 8. Bangladesh 9. Germany 10.Turkey Tobacco is a "major health problem" in Southeast Asia. "Approximately 50 percent of males smoke and youths, especially girls, continue to take up smoking," experts from eight of the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members said. ASEAN consists of Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The global anti-smoking pact was operational beginning February 27, 2005 for countries that have actually ratified it. It was the first

There is no way to ban

advertising. Taking into consideration that adverts are omnipresent in today's society, it is not feasible to regulate them. The Internet, newspapers, TV, billboards, posters, radio, magazines,... - all media are packed with advertising, a flourishing business.

Difficult to "draw the

line". Are informative leaflets going to be banned as well? And negative adverts? And if there are colourful posters without an inscription, is it considered an advert (if the product for which it is a promotion is linked to the posters after some time)? Are "112" posters informing about police/ambulance/fire fighters also "an advert"?

international treaty against smoking, including an advertising ban, and was signed by more than 190 countries on May 21, 2003.
The last cigarette TV commercial (for Virginia Slims) was broadcast on the Johnny Carson Tonight Show at 11:59pm on January 1, 1971. It was expected to be devastating for the networks when tobacco ads were banned but they did all right without them, in spite of immediately losing $220 million dollars a year in revenues. They did it cause of the influence of the ads itself to people. Even they have to be losing, but they save the generation behind. Dangerous precedent. Ban on advertising is in effect a restriction on freedom of expression and freedom of press, which not only goes against the basic values of modern societies, but it also sets a precedent for censorship of media. Therefore, it would be made much easier for governments to control media and thereby deny their citizens basic human freedoms.

According to the social learning theory, people acquire behavioral scripts primarily through observing models, making young children especially vulnerable to the appeals of cigarettes.
Is it the terrible addiction? The lung cancer? Bladder, Kidney, Pancreas, Cervical Cancer? Blood clots? Potential heart attacks? Strokes? Iron deficiency? High blood pressure? Emphysema? Bronchitis? Fertility problems? Asthma? Macular degeneration, (which leads to gradual loss of eyesight)? Cataracts? Gum disease? Bad breath? Yellowing of the teeth? Shortness of breath? Voice change? Mouth ulsers? Wrinkles? Reduced blood supply to the skin? Attract people by ads means the ads attract people to get those diseases One British survey found that nearly 99% of women did not know of the link between smoking and cervical cancer. One survey found that 60% of Chinese adults did not know that smoking can cause lung cancer while 96% were unaware it can cause heart disease.

The ads giving so much funds for media industries. It almost 40% of Americas funding. Banned it means cut the profit for media so people should pay more to watch. Of course people wouldnt like this. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a report stating that every year in the U.S. more than 40,000 people die in automobile crashes. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933, 146212,00.html

one pedestrian is injured by a vehicle ever 8 minutes, and one pedestrian dies as a result of injuries from an accident with a vehicle ever 111 minutes. That's more than 1 per hourand-a-half. In the United States, 5,000 pedestrians die each year as a result of

Means that the ads not showing the truth, means that it trick the viewers that smoking wasnt that dangerous. Display the cigar between candies will indirectly gave children the association that candies are near with cigars and thats fine. Moreover in some countries cigar packages show the attracting things like bright beautiful colors.

these accidents, and over 60,000 more are injured." http://www.accidentattorneys.com

Critics of this theory suggest that the recent slowdown is the result of several elements acting together including a reduction in state funding for anti-smoking programs and advertisements - not just on screen smoking. Similarly, studies have shown that the proportion of teens who say that they prefer to date people who do not smoke has risen from sixty-four to seventy-two percent, meaning smoking in films has not succeeded in making cigarettes more socially acceptable. They also argue that it is misleading to place so much of the blame on movies because there are countless factors that influence teen tobacco use.

Major sponsor in thai is given by another industries (soda drink) and it reduce 70% of Smoker in thailand beside the country apply the strict regulation for those who wanted to buy cigars. the U.S. tobacco industry spends more than $1 billion annually on brand advertising and non-price promotions (FTC Report, 2004), and critics argue that this fact alone demonstrates that cigarette advertising must be important for smoking behaviors otherwise the industry would not spend so much on advertising.1 Nicotine in safe dosage can be used for curing schizoprenia, so why didnt it used for it, not for making it poison.