Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad for Rizla UK, seen on 6 July 2025, featured an image of a brown, king size rolling paper. Next to the image, text stated, “This is doing nothing”, “Bro, lowkey think AI’s already in charge. You ever had beef with a self-checkout till? The way it moves passive-aggressive when it says ‘unexpected item in bagging area’ is actually wild”, and “I just wanna eat everything in sight.”
A caption stated, “Talk about perfect routine … [eyes emoji]”.
Issue
The complainant, who believed that the ad condoned the use of illegal drugs, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and breached the Code.
Response
Imperial Tobacco Ltd t/a Rizla UK stated that they did not believe that the ad was irresponsible or condoned or encouraged illegal drug use. They believed the complainant’s interpretation of the ad was subjective and unlikely to reflect the average consumer’s understanding of references to drugs.
They believed the ad did not contain any direct or indirect references to illegal drugs, either in its imagery or language. The focus was solely on the Rizla rolling paper product and the routine of rolling. They considered that references to hunger or distracted thoughts were broad human experiences not inherently linked to drug use.
They referred to several previous ASA rulings, which they believed demonstrated that ads which featured explicit references to illegal drugs, or imagery that glamorised or condoned drug use, were considered irresponsible. However, they believed their ad was distinguishable, as it did not include any such references, and its tone was light-hearted rather than provocative. They believed that the absence of explicit drug references or depictions meant the ad was not in breach of the Code.
They said the ad followed a broader social media trend adopted by mainstream brands, which involved presenting stages of product interaction, using surreal, playful and exaggerated humour to engage audiences. They provided examples of similar ads which used the trend.
They explained that the ad was targeted using settings which prevented users under the age of 18 from seeing the ad, even if shared. Additional interest-based restrictions were used to ensure the ad was only shown to adult audiences.
They stated that the ad had since been withdrawn and would not be used again in the UK.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications for rolling papers must not condone or encourage the use of illegal drugs. Except in exceptional circumstances, for example, in the context of an anti-drug message, any reference to illegal drugs would be regarded as condoning their use.
The ad was a paid-for Facebook story which featured an image of a rolling paper alongside text which stated, “This is doing nothing”, “Bro, lowkey think AI’s already in charge. You ever had beef with a self-checkout till? The way it moves passive-aggressive when it says ‘unexpected item in bagging area’ is actually wild” and “I just wanna eat everything in sight”. The text was placed alongside the paper with lines matching each block of text with a section of the rolling paper.
Although the ASA acknowledged that there were no direct references to illegal drugs, we considered that consumers would understand the text, in combination with the layout and in the context of rolling papers, to be a reference to the psychological effects of smoking cannabis. We considered that the phrases, “I just wanna eat everything in sight” and “Bro, lowkey think AI’s already in charge …” reflected effects commonly associated with cannabis use, such as an increased appetite, paranoia and a stream of distracted or irrational thoughts. We further considered that the line, “This is doing nothing” would be understood as a reference to a delayed or weak effect from the use of drugs.
We considered that, by referencing the effects of drugs as a subject of humour and including the caption, “Talk about perfect routine …”, the ad trivialised and condoned the use of illegal drugs.
We acknowledged that the ad had been targeted to an adult audience using Facebook’s targeting and age gating settings. However, because the ad trivialised and condoned the use of illegal drugs, we concluded that it was irresponsible and breached the Code. We welcomed Rizla UK’s assurance that they had removed the ad.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 21.6 (Rolling papers and filters).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Imperial Tobacco Ltd t/a Rizla UK to ensure their ads were prepared responsibly and did not condone the use of illegal drugs by, for example, using claims that trivialised recreational drug use.
