DASHIELL Ross (July 29 to August 4) makes some strange claims about the proposed measures to limit the effectiveness of tobacco ads, for instance, that the measures would ”completely negate the purpose of advertising”.
I seem to recall hearing the tobacco lobby claim that their ads are not intended to make more people smoke, but instead to compete with other brands for attention. If this is the case, all brands will be equally affected so there should be no problem.
More serious, though, is the claim that the attempt at limiting enticement to nicotine addiction is some sort of ”fanaticism” that is more in keeping with an authoritarian society than a new democracy. This is absolute drivel. It is no coincidence that countries that are rated most highly on human rights are often the same countries that have tough tobacco laws.
The other very questionable statement is the claim that ”advertising does not turn people into smokers”. Why then does the tobacco trade saturate radio programmes popular with teenagers?
In fact there is a case for an outright ban on tobacco advertising, accompanied by an extra tax equal to the current tobacco advertising budget. This tax should be used to educate people about the health risks of tobacco and other dangerous addictive substances.
— Philip Machanick, Mowbray, Cape Town