Tobacco consumers

Tobacco advertising, as well as any other kind of advertising, is directed at the consumer. It is perceived that, due to advertising, a consumer makes a conscious choice as to which of the products are the most suitable for him, and, hence, a ban of advertising will deprive him of his choice. Actually, tobacco (and not only tobacco) advertising is basically made in such a way so as to make the consumer choose not consciously, but subconsciously. An analysis of tobacco advertising samples demonstrates that they usually do not contain the information necessary for a conscious choice - instead, only an attractive image is presented. It is possible to identify yourself with this image by buying the advertised cigarettes. Even if the presented information looks as if it is prompting a conscious choice (for example, it describes the properties of the filter or about tar and nicotine contents), this information, as scientific research has revealed, is usually misleading consumers. The consumer often believes that cigarettes with an advanced filter system or with low tar and nicotine contents are less harmful to his (her) health. In reality, this opinion has no scientific background. In short, all cigarettes are equally harmful to a consumer unless the opposite is proved. 

The disappearance of tobacco advertising will be favourable to consumers, since they will be able to make their choice more consciously than before. To allow some consumers the opportunity to receive information about tobacco products, advertising can be permitted inside special shops that sell only tobacco products and goods directly related to tobacco. Minors' access to such shops should, of course, be forbidden. This kind of approach can stop the influence that tobacco advertising has upon children. Other forms of restrictions (such as bans disallowing tobacco advertisements from being placed closer than 100 meters from schools) are just imitations of the given approach.

Taking into account that the majority (65 %) of tobacco products consumers in Ukraine would like to stop consuming these products [6], for them a ban on advertising can be favourable, as it will facilitate their quitting smoking.

Public opinion

The population surveys that have been conducted concerning the regulation of tobacco advertising have resulted in the following data (Table 2). They reveal that the population obviously does not support the first alternative (easing), and that the third and fourth options (a toughening or a ban) are the most preferred. For some respondents, a negative reaction was caused by the very word "ban", and while understanding the harm of tobacco advertising, they support a toughening of restrictions instead. 

Table 2. Population survey on tobacco advertising regulation in Ukraine

Proceeding from these responses, public opinion holds that the most acceptable option is a combination of the third and fourth alternatives, which sometimes called a comprehensive or rational ban. 

Governmental expenses

The acceptance of any legislative decisions on tobacco advertising has not caused any direct governmental expenses, however, subsequently such decisions can cause an increase or decrease in expense in order to enforce the accepted decisions. Enforcing an advertising ban has clear advantages, since it is much easier to enforce a ban than partial restrictions (Was the advertisement broadcast on TV before or after 11 p.m.? Was the billboard placed closer than 300 meters from school or not?).

Besides, as opposed to the first three options, an advertising ban would decrease the smoking prevalence, and the public health care expenses could be used more rationally. For example, in the UK it has been calculated that a ban of all cigarette advertising and promotion will save 3,000 lives a year and cut National Health Service bills by 340 million pounds (The Guardian, 21.10.2002).

Governmental revenues 

Potentially, a ban on tobacco advertising can, although not very significantly, reduce public revenues since advertising agencies and the tobacco industry pay taxes, and if their productivity is reduced, they will pay less money to the governmental budget. Taking into consideration the probable extent of reduction in the advertising market and manufacturing of tobacco, the decrease in the governmental coffers, if it happens at all, will be limited. It is also necessary to keep in mind that all of these revenues are taken from smokers' pockets (including potential smokers). Reducing tobacco production and tobacco advertising will cause a decrease in the amount of money that consumers spend on tobacco products, and the consumers can then use the saved money to purchase other goods upon which taxes also are paid. Besides having lowered the consumption of tobacco, consumers would become healthier, their productivity at work would grow, and the health service expenses would decrease. For the reasons discussed above (see Advertising business, Mass media and Tobacco industry), first three options have no basic differences concerning public revenues. 

Therefore, while a ban on tobacco advertising can slightly reduce revenues at first, in the long-term the ban is the best option for growth of the public incomes and people's wellbeing. 

Constitutional rights and duties