rther been noted that since brand loyalty for cigarettes is so strong (only around 10% of smokers swapping brands in a given year), that it is unlikely that the tobacco companies would seriously allocate such large advertising budgets to the protection of such a small sub-section of their overall market.(130)
The evidence most commonly cited by the tobacco industry in Australia and internationally in support of their contention that advertising does not increase consumption is research which has appeared in a number of publications over the past decade, edited by Professor J Boddewyn and commissioned by INFOTAB (now known as the Tobacco Documentation Centre), the international tobacco industry lobby group. This research examines data from a number of different countries and concludes that advertising is not a determining factor in uptake of smoking among the young.(173,174)
A detailed critique of this research has been published in the 1989 report of the Toxic Substances Board of New Zealand.(129) In brief, the research was criticised because:
ð it gave no information on advertising expenditure before or after bans;
ð consumption and other data are not consistent with what is known from other sources; referencing is not clear on these points;
ð the presence or absence of advertising is evaluated without consideration of other consumption-determining factors, for example price of tobacco, per capita income, prevalent cultural or other attitudes, education programs etc.
The Toxic Substances Board concluded that the data presented 'were deficient and the conclusions simplistic, unjustified, erroneous and misleading'.(129)
Finally, there is some evidence that the tobacco industry itself does not believe its no-effect-on-consumption argument. In arguing against advertising bans in Australia, the industry has mobilised the support of its employees with the fear that advertising bans will reduce sales and consumption, thereby threatening their future employment.(175)
The 'legal to sell, therefore legal to advertise' argument is much used by the tobacco industry and their advertisers to defend tobacco advertising. If tobacco can be legally grown, processed and sold, why should it not be legally promoted?
The argument does two things: it makes advertising bans on tobacco products appear unreasonable and unprincipled, and throws back the challenge that if tobacco smoking is so harmful, why is it not banned?
The argument plays on an historical accident. Tobacco is only legal today because it was introduced to the community on a wide scale decades before its health dangers were understood. If tobacco smoking were discovered tomorrow, it is unlikely that any responsible government anywhere in the world would allow tobacco to be manufactured, much less advertised, but legislators cannot now outlaw a product to which a quarter of the adult population is addicted, and no-one would seriously suggest that they should. The product may be well be sold legally under certain circumstances, but it cannot be ethical to promote it when it causes so much preventable death and disability. Banning its promotion seems a reasonable middle ground.(127)
In Australia there are already products which are legally available for sale, many without prescription (mainly drugs and therapeutic goods, for example insulin and Ventolin), but which are illegal to advertise to the general public. (There are also products and services which may legally be advertised, but for which some publications refuse to carry advertising as a matter of principle: for example, 'escort services' and brothels).(166)
The argument also ignores the fact that tobacco is not sold freely in Australia. In Tasmania and Queensland (legislation pending for an increase to 18 years) it is illegal to sell tobacco to children under 16 years of age, and in Western Australia, the ACT, Victoria, New South Wales and Northern Territory, the minimum age is 18. However, all children are exposed to tobacco advertising in the same ways as are adults.
The tobacco industry frequently refers to 'freedom' wh