Several subsidiary matters, in relation to the meaning
of the phrase used in s.100(5A), were argued on behalf of the
appellants. First, it was said to be a requirement of the
sub-section that cigarettes, cigarette tobacco or the practice of
smoking be expressly referred to in the advertisement. Thus, it
was said, material which included a reference to the name of a
brand of cigarettes but which made no use of the word "cigarette"
and which contained no picture of a cigarette could not, as a
matter of law, constitute an advertisement for cigarettes. We
are unable to agree. It is, no doubt, true that the more
explicit the reference to cigarettes the more readily it may be
concluded, by the fact finding body, that the material
constitutes an advertisement for cigarettes. But methods of human
communication are aimost infinitely various, and often extremely
subtle. A word, a picture, or a fragment of music may be capable
of conveying a message, through association of ideas, to an
informed audience. For example, an advertising jingle may have
become so well known to the people of a particular place, or