Defending freedom of expression

DR Alan King's letter which appeared in these columns on September 15, clearly lays out the rationale behind the anti-smoking lobby argument to ban tobacco advertising.

In essence, Dr King, Dr Judith Mackay et al believe they are justified in seeking a ban because the content of such advertising (or indeed its mere presence) is so powerful that otherwise rational people can be made to act irrationally.

This argument needs to be examined more closely. First of all, it is a non-argument with regards to existing smokers. To deny them their rights, as protected under freedom of expression, to receive information about a legal product, they choose to use, has no justification whatsoever.

Therefore, we are left with the argument that tobacco advertising can in itself create a smoker from a non-smoker. For this to happen, one has to assume that tobacco advertising represents a risk that a reasonable person can neither understand nor avoid.

Research and common-sense show that this is simply not the case. For one thing, tobacco advertisements contain clear warnings about any alleged health risks, and the research conducted on the subject has failed to produce any compelling evidence of: A link between advertising and adults starting to smoke.

A link between advertising and children starting to smoke.

A link between advertising bans and a decrease in smoking.