The recent controversy regarding the imposition of a fine on celebrities for endorsing a surrogate tobacco product opens the door for a debate on policy ambivalence. The present case refers to celebrities coming for an advertisement of mouth freshener, which is actually a surrogate for paan masala.

The surrogate product has been permitted to be marketed. The same holds for paan masala, which, along with related products, has a weight of 1.2% in the consumer price index. The company is clean, as it is not dealing with a banned product.

The advertisement was passed as being fit for being on TV and other channels. The advertising firm, hence, is also clean, as no one is blaming it. But, curiously, the celebrity, who appears for the product, pays the fine.

Question Of Advertising Rules

The logical thing is that if the product is deleterious for health, it should be banned. Alternatively, if the product is tolerated, advertising of the same should be banned.

Everyone is aware of surrogate products for liquor and tobacco, but the advertisements run freely. Hence, there is dualism here because it is the presence of a celebrity which leads to a dual standard being practised, which smells of hypocrisy.

Today, taking drugs is banned in most countries, and, hence, it becomes illegal to sell or consume them. There is no question about advertising the product or its surrogate. When it comes to tobacco and alcohol, the products are not banned, but the model........

© Free Press Journal