It is easy to build a conspiracy theory against the tobacco giants. After all, these companies have, vast sums of money at their disposal, they sell a product which kills and for every dead smoker they have to recruit a new one, the younger the better, just to keep their profit margins stagnant. We suspect that they are not averse to a little smuggling on the side and that they use very clever product placement to get around the advertising bans to encourage young, typically girls, to start smoking.

What is interesting about Ireland introducing a smoking ban in public places (this issue page 172) is that the Irish government and tobacco companies had a falling out around four years ago over their refusal to reveal the full list of chemicals present in their products. This led them to lose political influence. So, when the popular and ambitious Miche‡l Martin, Ireland's minister for health, announced the ban, the tobacco companies found it difficult to champion the libertarian right line about civil liberties and the nanny state. Unlike in the UK, they lacked political leverage.

There is no doubt that the hospitality industry in Ireland was genuinely concerned that jobs would be lost. But in the end there appears to have been very little falling off in trade, if any. So, who was whipping up these fears of an economic meltdown after the ban? You have to ask, who were the companies with the greatest amount to lose?

Early in the Irish campaign the pro-health lobby was able to undermine the ventilation argument and put to bed the idea that tobacco carcinogens respect no-smoking areas in pubs. Two more myths propagated by the pro-smoking lobby and tobacco companies.

And finally, it does not take much imagination to see the hand of the tobacco companies behind ministerial deliberations over whether to devolve this problem down to local authorities in the UK. The anti-smoking argument is now so credible that something will have to be done sooner or later. Poll after poll shows that the majority of us want an end to smoking in public places. The best outcome the tobacco companies can hope for is a tapestry of bans. Then in poorer areas where there are higher concentrations of smokers there will be a strong anti-ban argument based on loss of trade. Publicans will claim that smokers will take their trade to a neighbouring authority where smoking may be allowed. It is in these poorer areas where cigarette profits are highest that tobacco companies least want a ban.

The pro-health lobby in the UK needs to realise that it is fighting a war with big money at stake against an enemy that has to remain in the shadows. In Ireland, all the public health groups joined together and fought openly through the media. The papers, no longer scared of losing lucrative tobacco advertising revenue, were happy to represent their views. We have much to learn from the Irish experience.

Stuart Spear
Editor