Action on Smoking and Health A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions    Search  | Info About  | ash.org| To Join |  Email Page

Excerpts from Ban evidence is undeniable; Karl Brookes of Action on Smoking and Health explains why the ban is the right thing to do and warns of what the tobacco brands might do to keep their names in the public eye

Creative Review [12/01/99]

Tobacco companies have long protested that advertising is about switching brands rather than taking up smoking in the first place and have challenged the prohibitionists to prove a link between advertising and smoking, but certain evidence is undeniable. When Norway banned tobacco advertising and sponsorship in 1975, the number of children taking up smoking halved. Finland in 1978, New Zealand in 1990 and France in 1993 have followed suit and banned tobacco advertising. Consumption of tobacco fell in every case.

With 90 per cent of smokers starting before their 18th birthday, there is a clear need to remove positive reinforcement of smoking, such as posters. Further evidence of the link between advertising and under-age smoking is provided by a BMA study from 1995, which found that three of the four most heavily advertised cigarette brands were among the top four brands smoked by 11 to 14 year-olds.

An obvious question, often missed, is that if (pressure group) Forest and other parts of the tobacco industry really do believe that smoking and advertising are unrelated, then why do they get so terribly excited whenever any government tries to ban their ads?