It is obvious that when you try to impose a ban in advertising, you have to have a good reason. The sex might be right; guns might be another, and smoking too. Smoking causes serious health problems and often leads to death. In Europe, countries such as France and Belgium had banned smoking advertisements. Research conducted by the International Union Against Cancer in 1997 showed that the lack of cigarette advertising led to a reduction in cigarette consumption by 37% in the countries of Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand. It is also encouraging that the total ban and not just certain measures in advertising was more effective. The World Bank report says that in 100 countries, where there was a total ban on advertising, there were also supporters of smoking, with quite good points. One point is that since it is legal to be sold, it is also legal to be advertised. Furthermore, it is fair to say that the advertisement is for those who are already smokers and the purpose of the advertisement is to promote one brand of cigarettes among others. To add weight to this attitude, the tobacco industry used IMRB research in 1998, which found that none of those interviewed said they had been influenced by advertising to start smoking. It makes sense to me. I am vegetarian; Do I get influenced by Pizza and Hamburger advertising? Probably not... To strengthen their thesis, they promote research conducted in 22 countries, from 1964 to 1990, which concluded that cigarette consumption was not affected wherever there was an advertising ban. An important fact is that India is the third largest country in terms of tobacco production volume. Scaling back the smoking industry in India would be like banning scotch whiskey in Scotland. And now that I mentioned whiskey, when alcohol was prohibited in the United States in 1920, it was eventually discovered to be a far superior outlawed liquor. Similarly, it is thought that second-class tobacco products or by-products could increase significantly in India,