ALTHOUGH both the broadcast and print media can still carry adverts for political parties of all persuasions, there are a few things we can’t advertise anymore.

Alongside adult services, unapproved medical products, and junk food, we no longer advertise cigarette smoking.

But once upon a time, we did.

And here’s the proof.

We’re not sure if the staff at the Chronicle during that period were all enthusiastic chain smokers with huge concerns in major tobacco companies and an evangelist’s zeal to get everyone else on the puff! But it’s highly doubtful.

Advertising cigarettes is now illegal, and one day tobacco products will be as well.

Will free and open elections go the same way? Let’s hope not, but if it could happen “there,” it could happen anywhere.

Until the day democracy dies, people have choices to make, and political parties have manifestos to write, distribute, promote, and advertise.

Newspaper advertising is a simple business transaction. There’s no politics involved. It’s how capitalism works. And if you think you don’t benefit from living in a capitalist country, try having a hissy fit about a political party in a communist one and see how that works out.

Needless to say, the Reform Party wraparound that came with the Chronicle this week was treated by some on social media as proof that the paper was using underhanded tricks straight out of the Joseph Goebbels playbook.

One lady was so triggered after seeing the offending article for sale in her local supermarket, she took it upon herself to scoop up all the Chronicles in plain view and hide them behind other newspapers.

She then bragged about the act on Facebook. Not only was the act questionable, it was also illegal.

The Shoplifting/Theft Act 1968 states that the “dishonest appropriation” of goods doesn’t just include taking items from the store, but also includes the moving or hiding of items with the intent of depriving the owner of the sale.

If you think your personal sensibilities take precedence over the rule of law, it’s an issue.

Needless to say, the drive to censor was praised by others on social media who obviously thought hiding newspapers was neither intolerant nor suspect.

One cried, “Disgusting bias. Shame on you, Chronicle! Shockingly bad journalism at the best of times.”

Newsflash! It’s an ad, not journalism.

As if to prove the rank prejudices of the British class system are never too far away from politics, another wrote, “I love that nearly all the other papers have gone but that sh**te is still there! Mind you it is Waitrose outside an Aldi it might be a different story.”

As usual on social media, the same mob who preach “be kind” one minute were sharpening their knives the next as soon as they sensed a little bloodsport in the air.

We were accused of “selling our morals and integrity,” branded “scum” and dismissed as “racist bigots” by those who presumably believe in hope not hate.

In a splendid example of never allowing the facts to get in the way of a good story, Nation Cymru wrote a story on the whole affair but managed to get one crucial fact wrong: The Abergavenny Chronicle is not “Newsquest-owned.”

Nor, as one Facebooker snarled, are we “Owned by a group called Tyndall who have about 200 local papers with a mission to promote the right wing.”

If you play hard and fast with such facts, what else do you get wrong?

One of the key definitions of fascism is the forced suppression of any opposition.

Today, it might be hiding newspapers in Waitrose, but what next?

When you strive to silence something you don’t agree with and deny any dissenting voice a platform to air their thought and opinions, then you run the risk of following in the path forged by some pretty grim historical precedents.

Additionally, an advertisement is neither an endorsement nor an opinion, and it is certainly not journalism in any form. It’s simply a business transaction that is an integral part of running a free and democratic press.

Would you scribble out someone’s vote at the ballot box and replace it with your own?