Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor - Rory Watson and Clare Dyer's articles on the EEC 'ban'
on tobacco advertising being likely annulled by the Court of Justice show
just how sad and stupid the battle has become.
Fair enough, the technicality of the European parliament imposing such a
ban is questionable in a strict legal sense, but does it matter ? NO, it
does not. If all the countries involved in the EU decide that it would be
a good thing if tobacco advertising was banned, it does not matter one
iota whether the EU parliament passes such a 'directive'.
What matters is whether the government of each country individually then
passes local legislation to ban tobacco advertising. Each Goverenment is
constitutionally able to do that. It would be 'nice', neat and tidy, if
ALL EU governments did the same at the same time.
Sadly, the tobacco companies seem willing to do anything to prevent
harmony in such issues, and, doubly sadly, it is questionable whether some
governments may be able to enact such a ban. I suspect some would be in
fear of losing sources of funding for their political parties, or even
from their own pockets, if they lost the favour of certain wealthy
supporters.
Good sense dictates that in the circumstances, each national government
should go ahead and legislate individually to ban tobacco advertising,
since it has majority support in the electorate. It would be a rampant
failure of democracy if the current situation is allowed to continue due
to minority
pressures from commercial stakeholders.
Smoking ban
Dear Editor - Rory Watson and Clare Dyer's articles on the EEC 'ban'
on tobacco advertising being likely annulled by the Court of Justice show
just how sad and stupid the battle has become.
Fair enough, the technicality of the European parliament imposing such a
ban is questionable in a strict legal sense, but does it matter ? NO, it
does not. If all the countries involved in the EU decide that it would be
a good thing if tobacco advertising was banned, it does not matter one
iota whether the EU parliament passes such a 'directive'.
What matters is whether the government of each country individually then
passes local legislation to ban tobacco advertising. Each Goverenment is
constitutionally able to do that. It would be 'nice', neat and tidy, if
ALL EU governments did the same at the same time.
Sadly, the tobacco companies seem willing to do anything to prevent
harmony in such issues, and, doubly sadly, it is questionable whether some
governments may be able to enact such a ban. I suspect some would be in
fear of losing sources of funding for their political parties, or even
from their own pockets, if they lost the favour of certain wealthy
supporters.
Good sense dictates that in the circumstances, each national government
should go ahead and legislate individually to ban tobacco advertising,
since it has majority support in the electorate. It would be a rampant
failure of democracy if the current situation is allowed to continue due
to minority
pressures from commercial stakeholders.
David Church.
GP, mid-Wales.
Competing interests: No competing interests