ASA Adjudication on Department of Health t/a East & West Midlands Regional Tobacco Group
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found no violation of the country’s advertising code for a campaign by East & West Midlands Tobacco Group about the dangers of buying “dodgy” (i.e., smuggled) cigarettes. The campaign included two posters and a leaflet with a picture of a rat’s tail with the text “Dodgy cigs may contain rodent dropping, bugs and dirt.” The ASA found that any distress caused by the unpleasant imagery in the campaign was outweighed by the risk of using illicit tobacco. As a result, the campaign did not violate the advertising codes related to responsible advertising, decency, or fear and distress.
ASA Adjudication on Department of Health t/a East and West Midlands Regional Tobacco Group, Complaint Ref. 93902 (2009).
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
Regulatory measures may lead to an increase in illegal sales, such as counterfeit products. The industry may also argue that such illicit trade will reduce tobacco tax revenue.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"We understood that the leaflet was inserted into newspapers delivered to targeted postal sectors which had high indexes of routine and manual workers, amongst whom the incidence of smoking was relatively high. We considered that reduced the likelihood of children and non-smokers seeing the graphic imagery. Although the leaflet's imagery was unpleasant, we were of the view that because it was targeted at adult smokers, any distress or disgust caused was less likely to be disproportionate to the risk of the recipient consuming illicit tobacco, and the hard-hitting approach was more likely to be considered justified by the target audience. On this point, we investigated ad (c) under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency) and 9.1 and 9.2 (Fear and distress) but did not find it in breach."
"The ASA welcomed EWMRTG's efforts to place the posters specifically in areas where the number of smokers and illicit tobacco sales were likely to be high, although we considered that would not prevent people outside the target audience seeing the ads. Nevertheless, we considered that although the posters' imagery was likely to be seen as graphic and distasteful, it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence, especially because of the serious message it carried: the danger of illicit tobacco and the need to give up smoking. We considered that some children were initially likely to find the strong images unsettling, but because they merely showed shock and surprise on the faces of the smokers and did not depict the infliction of pain, and showed tasteless but not violent images, children were unlikely to find them distressing. We concluded that the posters were suitable for public display. On this point, we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency) and 9.1 and 9.2 (Fear and distress) but did not find them in breach."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found no violation of the country’s advertising code for a campaign by East & West Midlands Tobacco Group about the dangers of buying “dodgy” (i.e., smuggled) cigarettes. The campaign included two posters and a leaflet with a picture of a rat’s tail with the text “Dodgy cigs may contain rodent dropping, bugs and dirt.” The ASA found that any distress caused by the unpleasant imagery in the campaign was outweighed by the risk of using illicit tobacco. As a result, the campaign did not violate the advertising codes related to responsible advertising, decency, or fear and distress.