Smoking challenge stubbed out

Smoking challenge stubbed out

2012-08-07 18:32

Johannesburg - The Constitutional Court has turned down a legal challenge against a ban on smoking advertisements, the National Council Against Smoking (NCAS) said on Tuesday.

The court declined a request by British American Tobacco SA (Batsa) to hear an appeal of a judgment upholding the ban by the Supreme Court of Appeal in June of this year, NCAS said in a statement.

"After examining the cigarette company's application for leave to appeal the judgment it 'concluded that the application should be dismissed with costs, as there are no prospects of success'," the council said.

It had joined the court case between Batsa and the government with a "friend of the court" brief.

NCAS executive director Yusuf Saloojee said he welcomed the Constitutional Court decision and argued that it confirmed that the country's tobacco laws were fair and based on science.

"The freedom of teenagers to grow up healthily is more important than the freedom of the tobacco companies to advertise a deadly addiction," Saloojee said.

The NCAS said the recent court case stemmed from a challenge that began in 2009 to a ban on using social media and one-on-one advertising for tobacco companies.

It said Batsa had wanted the courts to find the extension of the advertising ban to social media and one-on-one to be unconstitutional.

Saloojee argued that challenges to laws to curtail smoking were an "on-going struggle" with court challenges from tobacco companies.

"Yet, on the only occasion that the courts have actually tested the tobacco law it has been (found) to be reasonable and justifiable," Saloojee said.

*Follow Fin24 on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.


  • merkwaardig.obskuur - 2012-08-07 19:01


  • des.cider - 2012-08-07 19:07

    Good! (Cough, cough)

  • mfundo.magwaza.77 - 2012-08-07 19:14

    Those who prefer to pollute their lungs are free to do so...They just have to keep in mind and respect that there are some of us who prefer to inhale fresh air..

      Hugh - 2012-08-08 08:11

      I find it amazing that those who demand rights always impinge and ignore the right of another to do as he wishes. If you do not like people smoking move away. That what I do if people smoke cigars.

      wayne.hibbert1 - 2012-08-08 09:00

      Then please use your feet to get places, this applies then to cars as well.

      tamryn.stevens.31 - 2012-08-08 13:04

      Any idea how many other pollutants you breathe in on a daily basis? Trust me, a bit cigarette smoke is the least of your worries.

  • adam.botha.526 - 2012-08-07 19:22


      frank.vankaapstad - 2012-08-08 09:14

      @xenswim1 Your logic seems rather flawed and self-serving. You expect people that don't like smoking to move away from smokers. It's like saying if one person in a block of flats plays loud music and annoys his 20 neighbours, they should all move away to find silence. Ever heard of the word "consideration" before?

      Werewabbit - 2012-08-08 10:26

      Xemswim1 what about the rights of people who have never smoked to remain away from the poison? you are imposing your bad habbits on people? I agree with Adam, we should be working towards a ban on Tobacco sales. in the mean while they should ban tobacco sales in bars, clubs, pubs and any other public space. we should also work towards banning smoking in the company of minors, especially in the car.

  • brendon.nel.7 - 2012-08-07 19:24

    Should we not ban drinking advertising as well? Just as dangerous if not more so than smoking. Before anyone starts throwing their toys's out the cot. I don't do either.

      cedric.hedgcock - 2012-08-08 08:38

      Yup - never heard of someone having a puff too many and beating their family, or killing someone while driving under the influence of smoke. Don't like smoking either, and can't see why I should move away from someone who can't kick the habit (I've yet to meet an adult - I use the term lightly here!! - smoker who doesn't want to give up, yet is quite happy exhailing death to those around him/her).

  • Hermann - 2012-08-07 19:41

    Fantastic, all they must do now is to ban fornication then we will be rape, HIV, Syphilis, gonerea and herpes free. Amazing country we live in.

  • Hermann - 2012-08-07 19:46

    Ooops forgot to add in my previous comment what are they going to about the dangerous air polution we suffer daily in indirect form by inhaling emission gasses from internal combustion engines? The answer is simple - bugger all because transport is their comfort.

      carolyn.dewrance - 2012-08-07 20:54

      you forgot HIV free as well Herman, what about the emission of gas from the Caltex refinery down the road from us and all the others around the country, the exhausts of motor vehicles, fridges, veld fires, Oh I could go on and on, so much unhealthy gas in the atmosphere that is causing Cancer and other problems.

  • archangel.zerachiel - 2012-08-07 19:47

    GREAT!! Finally a sensible decision from one of your South African Courts. Now if only they would restore victims freedom to own firearms.

      Hugh - 2012-08-08 08:23

      That the point you miss. For every freedom you vote away another will taken away by government. Because governments end up listening to lobby without giving due consideration.

  • jimi.vanderwesthuizen - 2012-08-07 19:54

    Smoke a Zol instead!!!

      Bhang.Ganja - 2012-08-08 09:10

      Do not believe all the old propaganda about Cannabis. Do your own research and think for yourself. Have a look at People who smoke tobacco have a 7 times higher risk to get cancer than non smokers. People who smoke Cannabis AND tobacco have no increased risk for cancer and people who ONLY smoke Cannabis have actually a lower risk for cancer than non smokers since Cannabis CURE cancer.

  • Roberto Deniro - 2012-08-07 21:22

    anyone with a lighter pls?

      gizelledebeer - 2012-08-08 12:03

      *passes lighter*

  • garth.langenhoven - 2012-08-07 23:12

    I fail to see the significance in banning an add. Should we not be concentrating our energies on something a bit more important? For that matter; has anyone ever heard of tobacco being the cause of abuse, theft, rape or road deaths? Yes tobacco is addictive and harmful, yet not as harmful as the myriad other harmful substances easily obtained out there... lets start with alcohol... its far more harmful

      wdvilliers - 2012-08-08 04:56

      I agree with you Garth...I think we should seriously revisit our priorities....

  • beryl.knipe - 2012-08-08 05:14

    "The freedom of teenagers to grow up healthily is more important than the freedom of the ALCOHOL, ALCOHOL, ALCOHOL companies to advertise a deadly addiction," Saloojee said. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. STOP ALCOHOL ADVERTISEMENTS ... making out like it's cool to drink alcohol. STOP IT!

      Hugh - 2012-08-08 08:27

      Why if you took the time as a parent to teach your children they will not drink. Many parents have done this and are successful. It is those who say it is part of growing up that are shirking the parental responsibility.

  • maxwell.melow - 2012-08-08 07:49

    To all of you, i say leave people to do what they want... if they want to smoke, let them, if they want to drink, let them... stop trying to preach to people. Is Mc Donalds not unhealthy? What about Coke? What about the thousands of sweets give your kids... if you would like to ban anything for smoking ban cars... they pollute the environment far more than a cigarette ever can. Hypocrites!!!

      tamryn.stevens.31 - 2012-08-08 13:07

      aye aye well said!

  • Spiral - 2012-08-08 08:15

    \The freedom of teenagers to grow up healthily is more important than the freedom of the tobacco companies to advertise a deadly addiction,\ Saloojee said.\r\n\r\nWell said!

  • gerhard.combrink1 - 2012-08-08 08:22

    So the court agrees people are idiots unable to decide for themselves based on what prominent people or advertising suggests? Interesting, I've heard exactly the opposite verdict from the same court on another advertising issue.

      elsie.vandenbergh - 2012-08-08 10:26

      Gerhard, This is not the only thing that Government wants to ban. I believe one of these days, the bread you buy will be without salt and the taxpayer must pay for the whim. Our Government loves drinking, this will never be banned, we have seen the devastation is has caused especially by government officials who drink and drive. Our Government should really start governing our country, curtail the bad financial management, food cost, white collar corruption of taxpayers money and the high percentage of crime. Nobody want's to live in this country anymore. Our Rights promising a save environment is long gone. Half of the inhabitants of South Africa have a unhealthy stress level which does more harm than smoke or salt or anything else they want to ban. Elsie

  • gizelledebeer - 2012-08-08 12:01

    i find it strange that they wana ban something that takes YEARS to kill.... but they wont something that kills in a split second!!!... Alcohole is a killer to, it kills people, animals and ruins peoples lives, cause server health problems just like smokes and alcohole also DISTROYS families.... SO, if they do eventually ban smoking advertising....they should do the same with alcohole!!!!

  • gizelledebeer - 2012-08-08 12:10

    HAS ANYONE NOTICED: Smoking was banned on TV years ago already... BUT ... alcohole was not... what the hell is all this about? the only advertising of smokes there is, is in shops.... it used to be all over banner and tv and boards ect.... now u dont see it anywhere!! AT ALL!... unless u go into a shop... SO WHAT ADVERTISING IS THERE??? ALCOHOLE on the other hand is EVERYWHERE u turn.. TV, BOARDS, BILLBOARDS, BANNERS ect....

  • errol.wagner - 2012-08-08 13:50


  • pages:
  • 1