Tobacco consumption has been linked to many diseases. On every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States, there is a warning indicating the potential for adverse health effects from smoking. These effects include low birth weight of pregnant women, emphysema and cancer. This is demonstrated by numerous studies. The smoking population in India is not immune. To reduce public costs of caring for people affected by tobacco use, Indian lawmakers have decided to draft a bill banning tobacco companies from advertising and sponsoring sporting and cultural events. The effort was opposed by tobacco companies, saying the legislation would affect their businesses. Lawmakers cited their responsibility to the well-being of their constituents as a reason to ban tobacco advertising. In this case analysis, I will explain the positions of those who supported the ban on tobacco advertising, those who opposed it, and discuss the conflict of interest within the Indian government that hampered the adoption of legislation. In 2001, Indian lawmakers, with the best of intentions, cited numerous reasons why a ban on tobacco advertising would be in the best interest of the citizens they govern. Legislators felt moral responsibility to their people and, therefore, the health and well-being of their people were paramount to the tobacco companies' revenues. When people are healthy, they are more likely to live longer, work longer, and be more productive. Thanks to this, they will be able to contribute more money to the state coffers. Supporters of banning tobacco advertising looked to countries like France, Norway and Finland, which had already instituted the ban. They put... middle of paper......participate in my choice. The government is best placed to ensure the defense of its people and not behave like an excessive parental figure. Given the level of corruption in our government and the gross inefficiency in all aspects of government operations, I cannot trust the government to make decisions for me, regardless of the potential repercussions. The government is not in the business of prohibiting the possession of a substance by adults, nor should it prohibit a company from advertising its product. Unless advertising is aimed at those who are legally incapable of making their own decisions and meets societal standards of decency, the government should keep its nose out of the people's business. Ban on tobacco advertising by the Indian government. (2010). Accessed July 12, 2016 from http://www.icmrindia.org/free resources/casestudies/ban-tobacco-ads11.htm