Sir, - I refer to the full page advertisement (June 10th) by Philip Morris Europe SA in The Irish Times.
The advertisement attempts to debunk the idea that second hand tobacco smoke might constitute a meaningful health risk for those affected by it. Their argument is grounded in a comparison with a 1984 study which apparently showed that eating pepper frequently has a health risk attached to it. Who knows? Philip Morris may be right.
The advertisement is, however, peppered with (for non smokers) annoying references to the health issue when the real aggravation, for which no scientific research is needed, is the fact that cigarettes, burning or extinguished are smelly, polluting and dirty. Philip Morris are good enough to acknowledge in one half sentence in very large advertisement that some people find second hand tobacco smoke unappealing and unpleasant." Not only are Philip Morris pretty good when it comes to researching obscure scientific research, they are also masters of understatement.
Generally speaking, I find that when I am eating out near someone who is suicidally sprinkling pepper on his or her meal I do not end up with the smell of ground peppercorns ruining my food, playing havoc with the taste of the wine, bringing tears to my eyes, sticking to my hair, yellowing ceilings and walls, and increasing the cost of my dry cleaning bills as the smell of cigarette smoke, first or second hand, is pretty difficult to remove.
The advertisement concludes with a statement that simply puts salt in the wound. It says, "Nor is there any sound justification for a campaign against second hand tobacco smoke".
This is the start of my unjustified campaign. I suspect that it is going to be a hard grind. I suppose there is no chance that this sounding off could be spread over a full page? Yours, etc.,
Avoca Road,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.