Cigarette advert ban has failed to stop people lighting up

I refer to the report 'Tobacco firms exploiting loophole' (August 7), about how tobacco firms make use of brand stretching to get around the ban on tobacco advertising.

The ban on tobacco advertising has been enforced for varying lengths of time in different countries. While the purpose of the ban is obvious, the results are dubious. The ban has probably saved the firms huge sums of advertising dollars. While companies advertise mainly to beat competition, the ban should also reduce the overall demand for tobacco. However, the fact is that as a means to curb smoking, the advertising ban has proved to be ineffective.

I think the problem is that we have not been doing enough at a social level. We have been too inclined to see the ban as a solution. However, to smokers who are addicted, the advertising ban only means less brand switching. Of course they see the health warnings, but they might argue: what is not harmful nowadays? So, addicted smokers continue to be addicted and to smoke.

Introducing bans does not solve the problem. What we should do is cultivate a social movement, which motivates smokers and helps them to smoke less.

Of course, prevention is always better than cure and so teenagers have always been important to tobacco companies and governments.

The argument has been that advertising projects a cool image that teenagers emulate, so you ban advertising and the problem is solved.