A history of tobacco advertising regulation in Ukraine

In centralized USSR economics, advertising practically did not exist, and consequently tobacco advertising was not forbidden; it was simply absent. With market transformations, this kind of advertising appeared and at once received a negative public reaction. Soon after, this reaction was reflected in the law "The basics of legislation on health protection", which was adopted in 1992 by the Supreme Rada of Ukraine. Article 32 of this law declared a total ban of tobacco advertising in any form and at that time it had no exceptions. Unfortunately, the law did not contain the mechanism necessary to enforcement it, and so it was violated rather often. Therefore in December 1994 the President of Ukraine issued the Decree 723/94, which forbade advertising "of tobacco products, alcoholic drinks and other products, unhealthy for human beings". This Decree was to be replaced by a law on advertising. During those years, the situation in the Ukrainian tobacco market changed dramatically. By 1995 the transnational tobacco corporations already controlled over 90 % of cigarette production in Ukraine, and for further expansion needed to use advertising. Thus they began an expensive lobbying campaign, using all possible means. In 1995 all members of the Supreme Rada had received the document named "Questions and answers about the possible consequences of a tobacco advertising ban in Ukraine", prepared by a so-called Association of Independent Advisers for Reviving the Ukrainian Tobacco Sector. There was in fact no such association. Later Michael Parsons, a spokesman for Philip Morris International, acknowledged the company's authorship (Washington Post, November 19, 1996). This document included a forecast of consequences that would arise from a ban of tobacco advertising in Ukraine, which stated that if the ban were enacted, Ukraine would lose 400 million dollars. An analysis of this forecast revealed that it was badly grounded. Nevertheless, as a result of the expensive lobbying of the tobacco companies, the parliament Committee of the Supreme Rada on information and mass media prepared a draft Law on advertising containing only insignificant restrictions on tobacco advertising (for example, limited advertising on radio and TV was permitted). However, during the final reading of the law on March 6, 1996, the Supreme Rada supported the amendment of the MP Sergey Pasko about a complete ban of alcohol and tobacco advertising. The law was then to the President to be signed, and the campaign of the supporters of tobacco advertising reached its peak. As a result, the President vetoed the law, although an analysis of the text of the veto shows that the President was deliberately misinformed (for example, it was noted in the text that tobacco advertising will come to Ukraine from Russian broadcasting companies, while tobacco advertising on TV in Russia was already forbidden). In May 1996 the Supreme Rada discussed the President's veto and, while the majority of the deputies supported the advertising ban, they were unable to overcome the veto. In July 1996 the compromise proposal was adopted by the parliament without discussion: tobacco advertising was forbidden only on radio and TV.

Till 2001 the opposition of the supporters and opponents of tobacco advertising has not ceased, but no party could change the legislation. In June 2001 the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted the Conception of the governmental tobacco control policy, which states that the legislation should be improved and in particular "with the purpose of restriction and gradual ban of advertising of tobacco products ". In November 2001 the Supreme Rada considered amendments to the law on advertising. In spite of the fact that some deputies offered to include a complete tobacco-advertising ban into the law, the mass media committee presented the draft law for final consideration, which offered only small changes to the existing law. However, while considering the law, the deputy Juriy Sakhno insisted on voting his amendment on banning alcohol and tobacco advertising. The deputies, as was true in 1996, supported the amendment. The law again was sent to the President for his signature, and the President again vetoed the law. But this time the motives of the veto were quite different. Sakhno's amendment actually required an immediate liquidation of tobacco and alcoholic advertisements, and the President, having declared that he basically supports the ban, offered to enter it into force on January 1, 2003. Unfortunately, when the Supreme Rada considered the President's veto on February 7, 2002 it neither overcame the veto, nor supported the President's amendments, and the law was completely lost. The new Supreme Rada, elected in March 2002, has also become engaged in this issue, and some amendments to the advertising law were offered, and one of them (deputy Leonid Chernovetsky) proposed a complete ban of alcohol and tobacco advertising. Unfortunately, the mass media committee again presented parliament with the draft law (presented by the deputies Juriy Artemenko, Nikolay Bagraev and Olexander Omelchenko), which again has no actual changes in regulation of tobacco advertising.

Policy options