|Previous Section||Home Page|
Mr. Rathbone : Smee has also expressed his belief that much more work needs to be done before any link can be established. Either of the statements can be interpreted in any way, and each side of the argument will do so, but Smee's belief is as true as the conclusion that my right hon. Friend quoted.
It is interesting that the four European Community countries with the best record on reducing smoking oppose further restrictions on cigarette advertising. It is not by chance that none of the four owns or has a monopoly in tobacco production and distribution, as is found in other countries. The power of advertising, in helping to sell a brand into a market, is clearly an insidious one as far as some countries' domestic trade is concerned. That influences their support of an advertising ban much more than any health circumstances. The hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) have said that the case for health must be given priority. It is extremely important to analyse the experience of other countries where an advertising ban has been put into effect and what other influences have come into play. I say that particularly because I believe that our Chancellor of the Exchequer has applied the most serious, strongest and successful determinant in deterring people from smoking cigarettes--putting up their price.
New Zealand was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. A partial ban on advertising was introduced there in December 1990. The British Medical Journal made much of the effect of the ban and declining consumption thereafter, but at the same time, and predating that Bill, there was a massive series of increases in excise tax. These figures will shock my hon. Friends who are worried about indirect taxation or taxation of any kind : excise tax was increased in July 1989 by 28 per cent. and again by 110 per cent., in September 1989 by 112 per cent., in March 1990 by 115 per cent., in September 1990 by 118 per cent., in March 1991 by 121 per cent., and in July 1991 by 146 per cent.
Tobacco consumption had been falling since 1975--long before the increases started--but it was given added impetus by them. It is not peculiar, therefore, that the New Zealand Health Minister commented in November 1991 :
Column 595"Changes in New Zealand's attitude to smoking led to a decline in tobacco consumption before the imposition of a ban and this decline has continued. At the same time economic factors such as a fall in incomes have had an effect on consumption."
Price increases, economic recession and changes in attitudes are responsible for the decline in overall consumption, rather than a partial advertising ban.
Let us go right the way round the world--to Canada, where there are similar circumstances. An advertising ban came into effect there in 1989. Simultaneously, excise tax was increased by more than 50 per cent. In 1990, the majority of provinces increased excise taxes by between 10 and 50 per cent. In 1991, the Federal Government increased their excise tax by another 58 per cent., and nine out of the 10 provinces increased excise tax by 20 to 40 per cent.
It is no wonder, therefore, that a recent appraisal by the Canadian Superior Court found
"the possibility (that advertising may affect overall consumption) goes no further than speculation and certainly does not rise to the level of probability."
Hon. Members may say that those are instances from other parts of the world, so let us return to an instance in our continent. An analysis of consumption for the period 1973 to 1990, carried out by the Institute for Youth Research for the German Federal Office for Health Education, concluded that there is no link between advertising for cigarettes and their consumption. Indeed, smoking had been decreasing among young people even though--
Smoking among young people had declined even though the weight of advertising had substantially increased. That is very important. I therefore remain committed to the reduction of smoking, but, contrary to popular opinion, and contrary to some of the arguments put in the House--in speeches and from a sedentary position--there is no case that will hold water that shows that the banning of tobacco advertising will contribute to that commitment. The gist of the Bill is that there is a link.
I share with other hon. Members considerable regret that so many children smoke, but all research shows that peer group pressure and parental influence are, and always were, the predominant factors in the problem. It is completely unproven, so it should not, especially when considering legislation, be unquestioningly accepted that advertising plays any significant part.
Of course children see advertising wherever they go--we all do--but that is because advertising is widespread in our daily life and is an expression of commercial freedom that allows our free market to operate. If ever advertising were restricted on the basis that children might see it, a peculiar foundation would have been laid for similar restrictions on all products that are inappropriate for sale to children, not always for reasons of health promotion.
Column 596Seeing is not the same as being influenced to consume. Advertising's task would be much simpler if that were the case. Further, in pursuing such an argument in the case of tobacco, one should not ignore the publicity given to health risks through the advertised health warning, an argument that was made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman).
One must, I believe, pay a compliment to the Government for the progress that has been made. It is well outlined in the "Smoke-free for Health" publication. I cite two items. There has been a decrease in smoking in the United Kingdom from 45 per cent. of the population in 1974 to 30 per cent. in 1990. A linear extrapolation of that line will lead to a rate of only 20 per cent. in the year 2000. Another item to which I draw the House's attention is the effect of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991. That gives additional protection to children at the point of sale, and it is crucial that they are protected at the point of sale.
Mr. Rathbone : I should like to draw the attention of the House to the importance of that Act. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who promoted the Bill and who is trying to draw attention to the fact now.
The freedom to communicate is what is at stake in the Bill. That must remain an extremely high priority for products that are legally and generally available. In a matter as important as that, I feel that the case for banning advertising has to be made--I believe that it has not been made in this case--before the Bill is given a Second Reading.
Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale) : On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am extremely happy to welcome the Bill. I wish the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) every success during its passage through Parliament. I also hope that the Government will allow hon. Members to express their own views rather than trying to impose the view of a section of the Cabinet. I have been part of the campaign against tobacco advertising for many years-- long before I was elected. I am sure that many other right hon. and hon. Members have waited even longer for an opportunity to introduce a ban on tobacco advertising. There is widespread evidence that tobacco advertising has an effect on consumption, whatever some right hon. and hon. Members may say. There is evidence that the Government themselves accept. Despite that, the Department of Health has failed to act decisively. The body of people-- and organisations--who have come out in favour of a ban has been growing daily. I am sure that most hon. Members here have received information from various groups urging us to support a ban. One group in favour of a ban is the Conservative Medical Society. The patrons of that esteemed organisation are the Prime Minister and his immediate predecessor, who is not exactly
Column 597well known for her anti-smoking stance. Even the Cabinet is split on the issue, with senior Ministers such as the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a former Secretary of State for Health, being reported as being in favour of a ban.
Despite the groundswell of support, the Government have failed to act. In its recent document, "Smoke-Free for Health", the Department of Health admitted that smoking and its consequences for the health of the nation were still a major problem and that it was especially unhappy that smoking levels among 11 to 15-year-olds were not declining as much as it would like. The Government's response to the news--proposals to tax advertising or a levy on hoardings--will merely swell the Treasury coffers. Despite accepting the link between advertising and consumption, all that the Department has given us is an action plan which plans to take no effective action.
What is the extent of the health problems related to smoking? There are some useful statistics on this, courtesy of the Department of Health. Every year, more than 100,000 people die from tobacco-related diseases, more than 1,100 of them in my constituency of Rochdale. One non-smoker dies each day from lung cancer as a result of inhaling other people's smoke.
About 50 children under five are admitted each day to hospital suffering from illnesses related to passive smoking. Those children also have more respiratory diseases than children from families who do not smoke. At a recent conference, it was declared that passive smoking was the biggest single factor in cot deaths. It is clear from those figures and many others that smoking is a major health hazard. Should we, therefore, be encouraging people to take up that addictive and dangerous habit? I think not.
Mr. Robert Banks : The hon. Lady has produced some figures, but she has not substantiated them. She has not explained how they have been evaluated or whether we can be sure about them. Will she enlighten us?
Ms Lynne : I suggest that the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) contacts the Department of Health. I am sure that the Department will give him all the statistics that he needs. Nobody here today is arguing that people should not have the right to choose to smoke.
Ms Lynne : I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We may in future want to consider measures such as those that the United States Government are proposing whereby smokers are limited to smoking in certain places. Today, we are simply talking about a ban on advertising tobacco products. Given that most of us agree that smoking is harmful, it must be questionable whether such activities should be advertised on that basis alone.
I admit that the evidence on the effects of a ban is mixed. However, it is clear that in many places a ban has been successful. In Norway, smoking has decreased by 9 per cent. since the introduction of a ban. In New Zealand, it has decreased by 5.5 per cent. and in Canada by 4 per cent. Of course I accept that there are other influences that lead people to smoke, such as parental example, which may be more important. However, that alone is not an adequate excuse for not tackling the problem of tobacco advertising.
Column 598If, as many people argue, tobacco advertising is of little consequence and merely encourages people to change brands, why do tobacco companies spend about £100 million a year advertising their products? If the general public are so immune to advertising in general, why are the Government spending £12 million on an advertising and publicity campaign against smoking? Clearly, advertising does have an effect on people's behaviour. If it does not, the tobacco companies and the Department of Health are wasting an awful lot of money.
The final argument against banning tobacco advertising is that it is a terrible affront to freedom. As a Liberal Democrat, I am naturally concerned about attacks on individual liberties. However, we should consider whether it is more important for tobacco companies to have the freedom to advertise their wares or for individual citizens to have the freedom to live long and healthy lives. To my mind, a long and healthy life is of greater importance.
We have long had restrictions on the freedom of tobacco companies to advertise their products. Cigarette advertising, as has been mentioned, was banned on television in 1964 and the ban was extended to other tobacco products in 1991. Essentially, the theoretical argument for banning advertising was won more than 30 years ago. The Government's weak-kneed response to these arguments and to others that have been put by other hon. Members is that the voluntary controls that they have agreed with the industry are perfectly adequate. I would dispute that.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : If the argument that the advertising of tobacco was all about brands, would it not be true to say that if all brands were banned from advertising they would have nothing to lose? Does the hon. Lady agree that the reason why hon. Members are arguing against the Bill is that they want to atttract new people to smoking?
Ms Lynne : The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point with which I agree. Although the cigarette advertising code of practice says that adverts must not appeal more to the young than to the rest of the population, it is clear, as has been stated before, that the "Reg" campaign for Embassy Regal cigarettes did so. We all know that the series of advertisements was eventually withdrawn under pressure from the regulators. However, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley said, the adverts are back in a different form. The problem with regulations, voluntary or otherwise, is that advertisers will do their best to get around them and will often succeed in subtle ways which are not noticed by the regulator until it is too late.
Mr. Nigel Evans : What would happen if we banned the advertising of tobacco products and therefore the Government health warning disappeared from magazines and billboards? What impact would that have?
The health risks involved mean that smoking is not a habit that we should be encouraging people to take up. If tobacco had been discovered in the past 100 years, rather than in the time of Elizabeth I, it would have been declared illegal. The number of teenage smokers shows that current campaigns and regulations do not work among the group of people about which we should be most concerned. The freedom of potential smokers to live a long and healthy life
Column 599and the freedom of their children or partners to be unaffected by passive smoking for outweigh the freedom of the tobacco industry to market their products.
I therefore urge the House to support the Bill for the sake of the health of nation.
Sir John Hannam (Exeter) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on securing a place in the ballot and also on the selection of such an important subject for his Bill. Many of us have had the opportunity to promote private Members Bills in the past, but no one has had such an opportunity to save hundreds and possibly thousands of lives through such a Bill.
It is important for the House to remember that the Bill is an attempt not to remove an essential freedom from the individual, but to protect the susceptible individual from the dangers of addiction to a dangerous drug through subtle advertising. John Stuart Mill wrote on liberty :
"as soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty and placed in that of morality or law".
There are plenty of precedents for such limitations in the promotion of other goods. Prescription medicines are not allowed by law to be advertised to the general public, and under the British code of advertising practice, no advertisement to the lay public is allowed in respect of a long list of diseases and conditions including cataracts, glaucoma, kidney disease, tuberculosis, any heart disease, diabetes, cancer and a number of others. It is extremely ironic that it is illegal to advertise cures for cancer, but legal to advertise and promote the agent that causes it. Every year, 110,000 people die from smoking-related diseases in Britain. Smoking is the greatest preventable threat to health in the developed world. It kills 21 times as many people as road accidents and 15 times as many people as those who die of suicide, murder or manslaughter. Smoking is responsible for approximately one third of all cancers. Lung cancer kills more people than any other type of cancer, and 81 per cent. of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking.
The younger the person when he or she begins smoking, the greater the risk of developing lung cancer. When I see young boys and girls puffing away at cigarettes, I feel a deep sense of anguish at the dangers they are facing.
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) : On that point, I am fortunate to have as one of my constituents Professor Baum, professor of surgery and director of clinical research at the Royal Marsden hospital. In a letter to me, he says that he was especially in favour of banning tobacco advertising, and says that it could prevent young people from developing the habit. The letter states :
"this could lead to the saving of say 20,000 premature deaths a year. This simple expedient could achieve more than the sum total of our research efforts into cancer".
Sir John Hannam : The hon. Lady is right to produce that evidence. All hon. Members have received a wide range of representations from medical experts that give the same message. There are other common killers in our lives, one of which is coronary heart disease. That is the leading
Column 600cause of death in the United Kingdom, and smoking is responsible for at least 20 per cent. of those 175,000 deaths.
My father died of a coronary attack 10 years before his normal life expectation. He was a chain smoker who smoked 50 or more a day. He was encouraged to smoke during the first world war, in which he served, by the free issue of good old Woodbine cigarettes to all service men. We talked about parental influence--I grew up with my two brothers and my sister to the sound each morning of a wracking smoker's cough. The effect of my father smoking meant that none of us ever smoked a cigarette in our lives.
In recent years, medical evidence has accumulated to the stage where any measure to prevent smoking addiction surely must have the support of anyone interested in preventive care.
Mr. John Carlisle : My hon. Friend has read out figures on the causes of death that are probably not in dispute. He mentioned coronary diseases and heart problems. To provide a sense of balance, he should inform us--if he knows the figures--how many diseases are alcohol-related, particularly in relation to young people. If, as I suspect, those figures are comparable with the ones that he has given on tobacco-related illness, would he follow the same course of action suggested in the Bill and ban the advertising of alcohol?
Sir John Hannam : I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to make the points that he wants to make in his own speech. As someone who is interested in preventing illness, disease and death, I find it astonishing that people should use another activity that also causes deaths to argue against a measure that could prevent hundreds and thousands of deaths.
We now know that unborn children are affected by their mothers smoking, just as non-smokers are affected by smokers in confined spaces. With all that evidence, I am amazed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health still defends the present position, although she is beginning to meet our wishes with the voluntary code. I am amazed that the Government oppose the European draft directive to ban tobacco advertising.
The costs to the health service are enormous. About 10,000 hospital beds are occupied daily by people suffering from smoking-related diseases, at an annual cost to the NHS of more than £325 million. The Government have set "Health of the Nation" targets for the reduction in the morbidity and mortality patterns in heart disease, cancers, HIV and AIDS, sexual health, accidents and mental illness. Smoking has been implicated directly or indirectly--including social settings--in the epidemiology of those diseases. If there is no ban on tobacco advertising, the Government's own good intentions for health of the nation issues will be seriously undermined.
If the Department of Health wishes to decrease the incidents and prevalence of those diseases, but stands out against banning advertisements, it sets up a contradiction. It is strange that, while the Department of Health pays lip service to the problem, I, and I expect other hon. Members, have received impassioned pleas from our constituency health organisations asking us to support the Bill. I have received letters from the Devon family health services authority, the Royal Devon and Exeter health care trust, the Exeter and district community health service trust, the Exeter and North Devon health authorities, the
Column 601Exeter and district branch of the National Council of Women of Great Britain and the local office of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Surely that combined call from integral parrts of our national health service should convince the Government of the need for a complete ban on tobacco advertising.
I received a letter from the British Thoracic Society which stated :
"In our work as respiratory physicians we are all too aware of the tragic consequences of smoking. Every year over 40,000 men and women die from lung cancer, and in 90 per cent. of these people the condition is caused by smoking. On top of this, 75 per cent. of the 22,000 people who die from chronic bronchitis and emphysema can blame their condition on smoking, and we know and see much of the long-term breathlessness and suffering which precedes death."
This is the important bit :
"It seems most unlikely that the Government's White Paper targets for smoking reduction among children will be achieved without a major new initiative particularly to reduce the alarming levels of children and especially young girls who continue to take up smoking. The Government's advisers, in the Smee Report, concluded after a full appraisal of the evidence that one of the most effective ways of reducing the uptake of smoking among young people would be a complete ban on all forms of tobacco advertising and promotion."
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) : I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend and take up time, but as two and a half hours have passed and only one speech has been made against the Bill, I hope that I will be allowed to make a point.
Surely my hon. Friend, who is a reasonable man, will accept that, notwithstanding one's disapproval of smoking--I do not smoke, either--there is a fundamental civil liberties point ; that never before have we banned advertising of something that was freely available over the counter, not on a prescription and not on a licence. It is truly a mark of a free society that one is prepared to tolerate other people's practices and opinions, even if one disapproves of them.
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham) : I do not want to labour the point, but does my hon. Friend accept that restrictions are different from total bans, and that there is no example of a product which has a total ban on advertising and yet is freely available? That is a crucial point.
Sir John Hannam : There is a total ban on the advertising of cigarattes on television and radio. There is a ban, in effect. It is untrue that it does not exist--it does exist. The Bill would extend the ban to try to alleviate a grave threat to the nation's health. The question is whether a ban would work and effectively reduce smoking. The fact that the Government are pursuing wide-ranging controls through their voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry shows that they believe that bans work.
Column 602In any case, the chief economic adviser of the Department of Health, who has been quoted several times, in his survey on the effectiveness of such bans, reported that other countries have introduced bans on advertising and that there have been evident significant drops in consumption. He has reported on four countries, but others, such as France, Italy, Australia, Sweden and Portugal, also now have bans on advertising, so we are not treading a lone course in following the proposal.
In this country, such a ban would replace the voluntary agreements between the Government and the tobacco industry which currently control tobacco advertising. All are agreed, I believe, that that self-regulatory system is flawed, as it regulates only the style and the media of tobacco advertising. Such advertising is banned on television and radio, but it is legal elsewhere. It is legal in streets, shops, cinemas, sponsored sports and entertainment venues. As we know, every year the tobacco industry spends more than £100 million on advertisements which help to recruit new users, usually young children and young adults.
If there is a problem with a loss of tax revenue, it is misplaced. The saving in health costs and in the health of the nation will more than outweigh the tax revenue lost through the introduction of the measure. In any case, the Government have power to adjust tax revenue through the tobacco duties that they apply.
We in the all-party disablement group place at the top of the list the prevention of illness, disease and disability. Prevention is absolutely at the top of the list. I passionately believe that the House should support the measure, and I ask hon. Members to give it a Second Reading today.
Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich) : This Bill, like the one introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Faulds), is partly aimed at the rights and protection of the health of children. This is one of the areas on which I wish to concentrate. Hon. Members may have seen the report from the Royal College of Physicians, a "Charter for children's rights to freedom from tobacco". Essentially, the message of the royal college, which is backed by a range of organisations such as the British Cardiac Society, the British Heart Foundation, the British Lung Foundation, the British Thoracic Society and numerous organisations concerned with health, is that they expect public health to reflect those rights.
There has been some discussion about who is influenced by advertising. There is no doubt that young people are especially susceptible to being affected by advertising. Eighty-four per cent. of regular smokers say that they became regular smokers before the age of 20. Forty-five per cent. of male smokers and 39 per cent. of female smokers say that they became regular smokers before the age of 16--before the age below which it is now illegal for retailers to sell and supply the product.
It has been suggested by those who speak for the advertising industry and the tobacco industry that tobacco advertising only increases the market share, not the total consumption. All the evidence points to the fact that the advertising of cigarettes has a particular effect, both in terms of total consumption and market share, on young people, especially those under the age of 16.
Column 603When we talk about this product, and whether it is right or wrong to ban specific products, we must examine the specific nature of tobacco. Can hon. Members name any other manufactured product that, if used according to the manufacturer's instructions, is likely to kill one in four of the people who use it? Tobacco must be seen in a specific light.
We know that the largest cause of preventable ill health is smoking. Each year, 110,000 premature deaths are caused by and linked directly to smoking. A comparison has been made between deaths from smoking and deaths from other causes such as road accidents and suicides. If we add together all the deaths from road accidents, suicides, murder, manslaughter, fires, the use of illicit drugs and AIDS, we still find that there are six times more premature deaths from smoking than the total number of deaths from those other causes.
We are talking about 300 deaths a day--that is 300 customers a day that the tobacco industry loses. To maintain its market, the industry needs to recruit 300 new smokers a day. Who are those new smokers whom the industry recruits? Are they people my age? Are they people of your age, Madam Deputy Speaker? Are they people of the age of the Minister? No. The people who are recruited daily are young people--and predominantly those under the age of 16.
All the advertising--it may have been banned on television and radio--is geared in its imagery to appeal to young people. Tory Members say that perhaps we should leave this to the good sense and trust of the tobacco industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley showed through the "Reg" campaign how much we can trust the tobacco industry. The industry will use every method available to get round the voluntary regulations.
In 1990, the Secretary of State said :
"if cigarettes were introduced today, their production and sale would probably be banned".--[ Official Report, 20 July 1990 ; Vol. 176, c. 1340.]
Tory Members have said that the sale and consumption of tobacco is not illegal. The sale of tobacco products to persons under 16 is unlawful, yet the basis of advertising campaigns is to attract people to whom it is illegal to sell the product. I do not believe that children, through advertising--
Mr. Merchant : The hon. Gentleman puts a persuasive case, which is widely accepted, about the health damage caused by smoking, and suggests that, if tobacco were a new product, it would not be legal in the first place. Is he therefore saying that he supports making the product illegal-- and if not, why not?
Mr. Austin-Walker : That is a wider debate. I am concerned today with getting through a Bill which will make a major contribution to saving lives, and particularly the lives of young people. All the advertising industry and most of the imagery in advertising is geared towards young people. I believe that that is inherently evil, and hon. Members have a responsibility to try to stop it. The Government have accepted the principle that it is right to put controls on advertising, because they have accepted that cigarettes and tobacco should be banned from advertising on radio and television.
Mr. John Carlisle : The hon. Gentleman says emphatically that advertising is aimed specifically at young people, and he mentioned the "Reg" campaign. "Reg", as we have heard, was an old and balding man, who I hardly think would appeal to young people. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how advertisements such as the one in which a dog was cocking its leg against a bollard and other tobacco advertisements which mystify the majority of the population, including children, actually influence young people to take up cigarette smoking?
Mr. Austin-Walker : The hon. Gentleman may find that children and young people are more adept at interpreting the messages which are concealed behind advertisements than perhaps people of his own age and generation.
Mr. Bayley : One year ago, Kirklees council conducted research on the effects of the "Reg" campaign among young people. In a sample of young people aged between 14 and 15, 43 per cent. said that the "Reg" advertisements would make them more likely to smoke, while 5 per cent. said that the advertisements would make them less likely to smoke.
The research was done long before the Health Education Authority research, and the tobacco companies said at the time that the research was flawed, and that it should be chucked into the waste bin and ignored. However, the HEA produced research later which was so damning, and which backed up those early findings so strongly, that the "Reg" campaign was banned.
I draw the House's attention to a resume of the academic research on the influence of advertising on children. The document is called "From the Billboard to the Playground", and was produced by the Cancer Research Campaign. It concentrated on the particular impact of advertising on young children.
The research shows that young people more readily remember advertisements. They can identify the product with its slogan ; the research shows that 83 per cent. of 11 to 14-year-olds recall seeing at least one cigarette advert, and over half remember seeing two or more. When those same children were shown examples of cigarette adverts, they were, on average, able to recognise as many as five different adverts.
Hon. Members should look at the interviews with children themselves, when they were asked what images they see from advertising. The children replied :
"hard men smoke this cigarette the advert was telling you that if you smoke them you are going to be a macho he-man it is colourful, like all cigaretts ads trying to associate the products with glamour glamourising cigarettes-- cocktails and all that fanciness". There is a suggestion that advertising is directed at young people to make smoking appear smart or cool because the tobacco industry needs to recruit those 300 new smokers a day.