BRITISH -%tE1)LC-kL JOURNAL VOLLIME 290 25 MAY 1985 1565 professional foolb2llcr whose sport had received tobacco COMP3nY suggested that the governmcoE "Went overboard" in this respect. sponsorship agreed to p2rIiCip2IC in the "Give kids a chance- Thus not surprisingly, two subsequent community attitude camp2ign. Later he requested that release of the advertisement be surveys have shown a decrease in public support for cigarette Withheld. As 2 fin2l reminder of the powerful association between advertising bans. Legislation attempts against an industry with the tobacco industry and Australian sport, the industry argued that such vast and diverse financial interests in the community invite a if the Bill Was successful, an impending test cricket match between disproportionate volume of c2mpaigriing, whose Consequences Pakistan and Australia would not proceed. may be extensive and partly detrimental. In fact, the only JSut pcrnaPS the most successiul tobacco inclustry ploy w2s me discernible beneficial effect of all the political activity has been a one which counterattacked Che theme of the GovernmenCS media greatly increased 3warcncss of the health cffcc(s of smoking in the campaign "Give kids a chance." At 2 crucial stage of parliamentary general population. debate, an expert from London was brought to Western Australia From the experiences of these attempts at legislation in Western by the tobacco industry. Mr Glen Smith, from an institute called Australia it may be observed chat there must be not only the Children's Research Unit, stated authorit2tiVCIY that the overwhelming public support but also strong pressure applied to advertising of cigarettes was not a factor in causing children to politicians. It appears chat reform such as this is interpreted as smoke. This last minute St21rmcnt to chose confused by the bring radical by rhe very fact that it is innovative. It also appears protracted debate contained a convincing message. that political pragmatism prevails when politic2l le2dership is Media coverage of Mr Smith's statement was comprehensive called for. and effusive, as all media coverage or the prorob4cco issues had Scirritific evidence on the health effects of smoking and the been. throughout the campaign. Positive comments about the effects of advertising on tobacco consumption continues to tobacco inclustry's arguments flooded the local press. Many letters accumulate. Other disciplines are becon-dng concerned in the and press releases from cmincnt physicians and responsible debate, bringing clarity and inEellecrual honesty to the legal, citizens; representing the other side of the debate remained ethical, and civil liberties arguments. Progress in understanding of nublished. One lcrcr~ in support of. the ban on tobacco these issues by antismoking protagonists and the public should :rtising which was published was signed by seventeen pro- help in future c=p2igns. fessors from the f2culry of medicine at the University of Western Overall cigarette consumption has fallen a lirtle in Western Ausa7lia. Support was also provided by a diversiry of communicy Australia, and even the tobacco industry admits chat. it ran DOW groups, including churches, the Pensioners' League, teacher expect a steady decline in sales in the Western world." E2ch of the organisacions, the University of WestcM.Ausumlia's department of scones in David's sting holds pocendal disaster for Goliath. With physiCal education, and some amateur sporrspeople. careful aim, made keener by experience, the chances of success for '!'me parliamentary passage of the Bill was not strzightfor`W2.rd. the health lobby must surely improve. Mcer three readings in the lower house, the Bill passed to the upper house, whence it rcrurned to the lower house with crippling and unacceptable arneadments. Disproportional electoral repr - References se;amrion had hampered what might have be= in otherwise I CUP- S. A D-id d C.U.,h -r mb-d-~iig and .9-gulad- in Aw~Wi8, smooch passage for the Bill. In the , lowe-- house, while metropolitan -W-d.719W=:1IZ7-90- eiccrorztes have larger populations thain councry electorates, there 2 A-r~ Plmnty C. "- 31.Wd)l IVM-'7t*.I377-L is a zmajoricy of Labor politicians and the coristirudon of the hou:se 3 W-id HW~h Onp.L~- En- C-ni- - Swkig C-- L C--dic A. qmd- Tca-l PA-pm Se6n 636. 0-- VrHO; 1979-.404. ic1em'overal] polidr2l opinion as indicated by the I= general 4 Gy N. OMW X. d~ 0.m& 6- fir -kaq -.1. Zad d. C-: E-i-W Ui- C!eCtiOo. N&CVMrthCJCS3, as 2 result of rbe colonial heritage or Ap- C-. 1920,1~5- 5 A--,U.At-U-s Idwy C-0. SdfjW- i. A-E- 3rd ~d. N- Wesccrn Ausamli;& and die perceived need in the paist to protect the S-h Vg~ 1912.23. pricmar- producers, a gross imbalance emists in the upper house. 6 Fh- D.JYUg- P. '10. dd. -ft f bLb. Th~ oak- d 10 -d I I y- .1d Though Labor politicians in this house represent an electoral (2.p- S. D- dp- d,..Lig -i- dDd-? W.U -d H-LA t932 matioricy, Liberal and National Country Parry calltion politicians hold arcre seats. In. the Legislative kssembly 37 parliamenamans; IV. r- -d iLb ChmW!, -kt bb.-i- 1 7 Zp.4-1.v 19Z3=S%-". representing 63% of the electorate voted for the Bill while 20 t US Srr- C--L 71~ 1-44 US Dc~. I emben representing 3r,16 of the electorate voted against the Bill. Hc.I%% and H~ S~, 1932:15-20. 10 Fb. OA. A- =k- ~~Bjc. D~ Yj~,k NH. A W ~f the I -gislative Council 15 members representing 53% of the P-- i. 12 7-.kLhijd-j--A.VfSA CV~UC-,(--5-A-f electorate voted for d2c Bill and 17 memben representing only -4 H-". V"Maip", IM. 41% of the electorate voted to defeat the Bill. I I 0-166&E- A. BUCA-UP (Bab-rd Udlinne G.Mius Avi- Uh-ltb~ P n - A..Mi- ~ ...d cipmt-d-w-W-y- 11.4 S-;F.%fd 193300:1331~. The fi-ocial motivation of the tobacco industry was evidenced 12 D-A. D~ P. PWh"Cy pmpiv. a ~ -7 W P- h=hL B,.Wf 7 190=-%0-2- by izs crpendicure. A=rtions by Dr Dadour that parba- 13 AmirAlim Ca~j w Samk~g ad Hmlth. 34-im w tit Parfi~ of T-6a jwJ :~a L.1W.i- C-d Sd- C.- - h~ .4 TW- P.O-AJ-i- BX mcamrians* electoral campaigns had been fi=nccd by the tobacco 190. P-h, V-,- A-Ji 1933:4. mdu-:-ry led to his resigrmcion from Elie conservative (Liberal) 14 S,,,- C- T1. d-rtjjg ~ j~ p- ~ -k~ 7)~. A-&. 1"4 Y-b, 3". Is 'r-M.1- M4 J- M-4s. opposition parry. As with the previous legislation 211CMPE, the .1 S~a-z P~ T- Cq- -.kt W- A-I Pp~ f. H,&11A 10 toba= industrj made a subsontizil financial investment in the U-6- Ui" pbk H~Ih D.F- r W~Au k ?.U.19tj. campaign to defc2c Ehc Bill. The corporate relations and p - 17 C-d- V. S *!Ag b- 7A, W-A-JV-. P-h, V-A-A 19SA:AorD 7:3-2. ublic 12 Up- F. TV - f- ag? b -d -W-6- 17-kO 1") N.-b. aff:cirs' manager of A=dl (BAT) asserted that "this very 11:1. sigailicant swing in public opinion was achieved 2t less than half 19 ]Wr,;LD. 1. Lir-11 -,.i- d~fi- b. I-P-7 the cost of the S6m the Wes(crn Ausualian Government is 1933 J- 20:6. IS. s;xmding over rlucc years on its antismoking campaign."" By comparison, the government esdrcutted that it had spent ~300 000 in support of the Bills. (IN 71C future CD 71K)Ugh these two attempts at lc&lation have been unsucc=- fdl, the antismoking lobby has learnt from diis experience. 711c Is dere any evidence dust mouth ukin may be caused by use ofa mkrotuave own government sufrered humiliation over its defeat on this issue, and or by ra6qfood cooked in one? C:) many ofits members have since been rcluctan I to comment. Public I know of no evidence that mouth uIcers may be caused by microwave *~en criticism has been levelled at the amount of money the government of indeed by eating fc,%j cooked in one.-T LE31NEit, prOfc=r of oral invested in its advertising campaign, and the prcmicr has since initnunotor and microbiology, London. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999