Many members of Congress don't think so. That helps explain why they are pressing hard for an ironclad guarantee in the national tobacco settlement that the industry will voluntarily stop virtually all advertising. Of all the concessions made by the tobacco industry last year in its effort to settle 40 damage suits filed by the states, the advertising ban is the only major one that cannot be imposed by Congress. But in their zeal for advertising restraints, lawmakers may be exaggerating the effectiveness that Joe Camel, the Marlboro Man and other tobacco promotions have in hooking young people on cigarettes. Those who study the issue have decidedly mixed views on the role of advertising in luring new smokers.
Some experts believe advertising has almost no effect.
Even those who believe it does are convinced there are other more significant factors than the sultry young lady in the new Camel ads. The tobacco industry, which spends billions of dollars a year on advertising, clearly believes it is worthwhile. But the industry claims the purpose is to woo smokers from one brand to another, not to turn young people into smokers. Certainly kids are aware of advertising for a wide range of adult products, but there's no implication that they are going to use the product. Government studies dispute the industry's contention that advertising does not encourage youths to smoke.