In 1890 the renowned writer and London resident, Thomas Carlisle, wrote in 'The Witching Weed'. "Nobody comes whose talk is half as good to me as silence. I fly out of the way of everybody, and would much rather smoke a pipe of wholesome tobacco than talk to any one in London just now. Nay, their talk is often rather an offence to me, and I murmur to myself: Why open one's lips for such a purpose?"
One hundred years on, the talk about smokers may be equally offensive but to keep one's lips closed may not be the most appropriate response, for flying out of the way of everybody and indulging in "wholesome tobacco" may shortly cease to be an option.
Plans are afoot, as that well-known literary smoker of London, Sherlock Holmes, might have muttered, to stamp out the weed once and for all. The new government intends to prohibit tobacco advertising and sports sponsorship, and to consider other means of reducing the number of smokers in Britain. If all this comes to pass Britain's 15 million smokers - a third of the adult population - may well have to acquire Sherlockian detective skills to find out the latest information on tobacco products and where in the country they are welcome to smoke.
That smokers will stop smoking, and non-smokers never start, if they do not see advertisements for tobacco products, is the gist of the argument to justify an advertising ban. There are many products that are not advertised but are bought, and the increase in the use of illegal drugs has occurred despite the lack of advertising and the risk of punishment for indulging. In Norway, where the population was stopped from seeing tobacco advertisements in the 1970s, female and youth smoking is now on the increase.
But, continue the would-be banners, if you do see advertisements you will buy the product. Despite the existence of tobacco advertising in the UK around 70% of adults do not smoke. Among the under-16s 80% do not smoke, 10% are said to be regular smokers (defined as at least one cigarette a week) and 10% are said to be occasional smokers (no definition is supplied by official sources)*.
The decline in smoking over the past two decades indicates that advertisements have not increased, or maintained, the tobacco market, but what they have done is precipitate changes in the market share of various brands and encouraged the development of products which address the concerns of the medical profession.
Advertising is, first and foremost, a means of communication between producers and consumers, a spur to competition between producers, and an incentive to innovate and develop new products. If the means of communication is removed how do you inform your customers about your product, any changes made to it, or any new versions developed? And if you cannot communicate with your customers, why bother to make any changes to a product they already know about anyway? A ban on tobacco advertising would consolidate the market shares of existing brands as no new competitors could enter the market.
The incentive to proceed with developing lower tar or nicotine content cigarettes, improvements in filters, or the new `smokeless cigarette' - said to produce 90% less tobacco smoke than conventional types - would be severely reduced or even abandoned. The 15 million adults in Britain who smoke would only ever have the opportunity to buy those brands already available.
Finally, those wishing to promulgate the anti-smoking message would immediately lose their free advertising in the form of warnings that are required by law on all tobacco advertisements. The information available to smokers through sports sponsorship is already severely limited, amounting to little more than the brand logo. Information about the actual product (e.g. tar or nicotine content) is negligible. While smokers would not suffer to any great extent if sports sponsorship were banned, the consumers who go to those events, and the participants and organisers of them, would. Unless alternative sources of funding could be located the millions who attend would either have to dip their hands deeper into their own pockets to pay the increased entrance fee or see the events disappear altogether.
The real winners of an advertising and sports sponsorship ban would be the tobacco companies, for competition between them would cease, there would be no risk of new competitors entering the market, and there would be little point in expending resources on product research and development because consumers could not be informed of any changes. The money saved could be returned to the consumer through price reductions, or would go to shareholders.
While tobacco tax revenues may remain relatively stable, the Government could find itself having to find the lost tax revenues, and pick up the tab for benefit payments to those who lose their jobs across the range of non-tobacco companies who could lose business as a result of the bans.
The possibility that Britain could be saddled with American-style legislation prohibiting smoking in `public places' has also been raised by the new Government. A `public place' has now come to mean any place to which the public may have access regardless of who owns that property. Thus a pub or restaurant, although privately owned, is now considered a `public place'.
Legislation forcing the introduction of no-smoking areas or even a prohibition on smoking in `public places' could have dire consequences for London's hundreds of pubs and restaurants. It is estimated that 27% of London's adult population smokes. As Britain has one of the lowest smoking rates in Europe, it would ì be safe to assume that an even higher percentage of overseas visitors to the UK are smokers, and the majority of those visitors come to London. Surveys of licensees have consistently shown that between 60-70% of their customers are smokers, and that for the majority introducing separate smoking and no-smoking areas is not a feasible option unless, of course, the costs were passed onto the consumer.
No business would willingly introduce a measure that could deter such a large proportion of its trade. The introduction of no-smoking areas is occurring naturally as a result of the decline in smoking, but forcing the pace of change through legislation could have dire consequences for the leisure industry, as has happened in America.
Markets, if allowed to operate freely, will adjust to meet the needs of their consumers in order to maximise profits. It is the person who runs the business who will be in the best position to decide what policy most suits its clientele. It is doubtful whether any form of legislation could take these circumstances into account and avoid causing economic catastrophe for those businesses affected. While to emulate Thomas Carlisle might be a noble aspiration, to succeed would result only in a nation of "passive smokers".

* Figures obtained from 'Social Trends', Office for National Statistics.