Consumers have the right to be protected and as such more informative advertisements need to be proposed. Restrictions become inevitable when one considers the fact that apart from general consumers, there are vulnerable groups such as women, children, sportsmen and old people who must be protected against exposure to hidden persuasion that cannot be resisted (Y.Danesi 1998).

As at 2000 there were 1.1 billion smokers, and 80% were in the developing world. Tobacco use may have been responsible for the death of three million people worldwide each year thereby becoming the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the developed world- accounting for almost 20% of all deaths (infact.org 2001).

It is believed that cigarettes kill nearly 500,000 people in the United States each year more than heroin, cocaine, all other illicit drugs, auto crashes, homicides, and suicides combined; if current smoking patterns continue, nearly one-tenth of the world’s population will be wiped out by tobacco-related diseases, including over 200 million of today’s children and teenagers, two-thirds of them in the third world.

Tobacco use has also been found to cause about 90% of lung cancer deaths, 30% of all cancers, 20-25% of coronary heart diseases and stroke deaths, and more than 80% of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; nicotine, the tobacco drug, is as addictive as heroin and cocaine.

Not long ago in a Gallup poll of American adults, more than half strongly advocated for a ban on tobacco advertising even as over three-quarters believed tobacco advertising that appeals to children should be outlawed. Misleading data generated by the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), the tobacco industry-sponsored body is also seen as an effective tool in the hands of America’s powerful tobacco lobby group to justify their legitimate stay in business.

In the 1980s the U.S. Trade Representative had assisted in opening up the hitherto tightly-regulated markets of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand to American tobacco; the Representative actually referred to these countries’ anti-tobacco health measures as unfair trade barriers. Sometime ago I conducted a Library Research on the Regulation of Advertising and found J. Neelankavil’s study of 14 Asian countries interesting; he had looked at these countries’ imposed restrictions on advertising as at 1986.

Neelankavil’s study showed that in Japan, advertising of tobacco products on TV and radio was banned from 6.30p.m to 8.30p.m, restricted on outdoor and banned in children’s and women’s newspapers and magazines. In South Korea tobacco advertising was totally banned, while in Taiwan imported brands of tobacco were prohibited on TV and radio; tobacco was not allowed in English language newspapers, except for imported brands. Cinema and Outdoor also prohibited imported brands of tobacco; meanwhile there was government monopoly on tobacco in Thailand and it was not advertised on TV.

Since the entry of American companies, smoking rates among young people in each of these countries have soared. Japan, Korea, and Taiwan were all forced to repeal restrictions on cigarette advertising under the U.S. trade threats; in Japan cigarette ads rose from 40th to second place in total TV air time in one year following the entry of American companies. Two-thirds of the ads were for U.S. brands while on an average day, 60 ads for U.S. cigarettes appear on Jap TV many of them during programmes watched by teenagers.

Taiwan also embraced cigarette advertising courtesy of foreign tobacco companies like Phillip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, etc.; the combined advertising budgets of three U.S. tobacco firms in South Korea in 1988 were enough to put the American cigarette on top of the list of the country’s most heavily advertised products; advertising and promotional expenditures for the Korean tobacco monopoly rose by 641% between 1987 and 1990 (R. Scherer 2000).

In Japan, Taiwan, and Korea, the total consumption of cigarettes increased from 410 billion in 1986 to 455 billion in 1989. In Asia total cigarette consumption rose by three percent in 1989 and experts predict that by 2011 it would have increased by 20%. Meanwhile young people in particular are picking up the smoking habit.

Ban or restriction on tobacco advertising is now a global issue. In Nigeria Decree 20, i.e. Tobacco Smoking (Control) Decree 1990 restricted advertising of tobacco through mass media unless such ads carried a bold health warning; the law also prohibited tobacco advertisements and promotions at sports events, etc. (M. Babatunde 2002).

On March 26, 2002, Nigeria’s House of Representatives did pass the Tobacco Smoking (Control) Amendment Bill 2002 which, in its clause 3, prohibited tobacco advertising on outdoor, electronic and print media. Before then the European Union had attempted to ban cigarette advertising in all the member countries beginning 2002 but the European Court of Justice overruled the directive.

What happened in Ukraine a couple of years ago reminds me of emotions generated as a result of the decision of the Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON) to ban tobacco advertising or promotion on TV, home videos and outdoor hoardings, including pitch panel display of tobacco products with effect from January 01, 2002 (though it was extended by another 365 days as a result of appeals by various stakeholders).

The Ukrainian national parliament, the Supreme Rada, unexpectedly approved an amendment to the country’s advertising law that included a prohibition on all forms of direct advertising of alcohol and tobacco products; two-thirds of parliament had approved the amendment. Rada succeeded in banning tobacco advertising from the print media, outdoor posters and electronic media even though tobacco and alcohol advertisements accounted for 20% of the country’s advertising revenues. Before the ban tobacco marketers had made use of the print media and outdoor posters.

In Ukraine Rada took the populist approach in view of the then-upcoming elections and succeeded in puzzling the rest of the Ukrainian advertising community, e.g. an account director with a major advertising agency was quoted as saying they simply did not know what to say to their clients especially vis-à-vis the fact that the country’s President rarely interfered in the process of adopting new laws. More so 310 of 450 parliamentarians had approved the amendment (S. Rybak 2001).

Though APCON restricted the advertising/promotion of tobacco products to inside covers and run-of-press inside pages and in black and white in print media, and referred stakeholders to Section 4.3.19 of its Code of Advertising as it affects radio, it is encouraging that the British American Tobacco Nigeria, e.g. has voluntarily withdrawn from brand advertising in all media.