SOME people just don't know when to drop their losing arguments.
In his December 21 letter to the South China Morning Post, Mr Robert Fletcher, Chairman of the Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong, once more claimed that there is no compelling evidence that advertising bans reduce tobacco consumption. Back on October 6, in these columns, he brazenly claimed that this was the conclusion of the Canadian Supreme Court in its decision overturning Canada's tobacco ad ban.
In my October 13 letter, I tried to correct Mr Fletcher as to what the court actually concluded. (The court only said that, based on evidence available in 1988, no evidence had been 'produced'; not that no evidence existed. The reason being that the tobacco industry succeeded in blocking evidence gathered between 1989 and 1994 from being introduced.) Nevertheless, Mr Fletcher soldiered on, calling my comments 'irrelevant' (Post, October 23). Irrelevant, indeed! Perhaps Mr Fletcher would like to reconsider.
In response to the Canadian court decision Mr Fletcher is so fond of, on December 11 the Canadian Government announced its intention to reintroduce a total ban on tobacco advertising.
In announcing plans for a new complete ad ban, the Canadian Minister of Health addressed the evidence question.
Canada, it seems, feels that evidence collected between 1988 and 1995 is compelling. As the minister said, evidence now shows that a complete ad ban would not be unconstitutional because only a complete ad ban would work.