Why the hell is this newspaper wasting column inches printing totally biased, bigotted and shortsighted responses to questions designed purely to elicit such responses? Dockrell knows absolutely nothing and only seeks to impose his stupid, biased and illogical opinions on everyone else.

I will provide the correct answers to the questions asked of him.

"What else can be done to stop young people seeing smoking as cool?"

Nothing needs to be done. Youngsters are far more likely to see something as cool if it becomes forbidden fruit. In any case, there is nothing "un-cool" about smoking so whay should we lie to our youngsters?

"What do you think of media portrayals of smoking in general?

No problem with that whatsoever. If a film is being made that is set in environment where people smoke, then then it is right and proper that smoking should be depicted.

"Do we need to introduce legislation to stop magazines and newspapers publishing pictures of celebrities smoking cigarettes?"

No. Of course not. If someone smokes, they smoke. Why lie and pretend they do not?

"Why is smoking seen as glamorous when it is a filthy habit that can kill?"

It is not a filthy habit and it can only kill when done to excess. This is all over-reaction from those who know nothing but want to make a name for themselves.

"Isn't reclassifying films that portray smoking just another form of censorship?"

It is precisely that and we should not even be contemplating it. There is far too much censorship in our country---for the stupidest of reasons.

In addition, all this rubbish about not being able to call cigarettes "mild" or "light" is absolute, complete and utter nonsense.

As someone who smokes full strength cigarettes, how the hell am I supposed to distinguish between the differnent strenghts of un-familiar brands if the weak ones don't say "mild" or "light"? Maybe the proper strength ones should say "normal"?