They argued that the ban was just a way to intervene in their private lives. They gave an example of the Canadian issue, where the Supreme Court stated that "The State seeks to control the thinking, beliefs and behavior of its citizens along the line it considers acceptable. This form of paternalism is unacceptable in a free and democratic". ". The other argument was that if it was legal to make and sell tobacco products, it should also be legal to advertise them. Tobacco companies argued that the purpose of advertising was to help adult smokers choose between brands and that these were irrelevant to non-smokers. They also denied targeting adolescents and youth as a growth strategy. This was supported by a 1998 survey conducted by the Indian Market Research Bureau (IMRB). said they started smoking to see what it was like, 24% said "all my friends smoke"; and none said that advertising had made them start smoking. They also claimed that the ban only prevented their products and not other products like 'beedi' and 'ghutkas' which accounted for 84% of the Indian market They also argued that the ban imposed on domestic players was senseless as foreign magazines sold in India and related TV channels from foreign countries contained. advertising by multinational cigarette companies. They gave the example of Marlboro, which sponsored Formula I races because they were very popular