The cigarette manufacturers from advertising on media should not be banned because it is a violation of their first amendment right to freedom of speech and our liberties; the cigarette advertising regulation law was not effective on cigarette demands.
Key words: effect of cigarette advertising ban, tobacco advertising ban, freedom of speech One fifth of death is caused by smoking but include our president Barack Obama, 43 million adults smoke cigarette and the rate is increasing gradually.The People of the States of California sued Reynolds Tobacco Company for advertise targeting teenagers in 1998 and estimately there are 125 similar suits across the country. Since 1970 the tobacco advertising has been banned from television and radio in United States by the law. Recently, at least 12 news paper bans cigarette advertisement as well. Advocating the cigarette advertisements towards minors and anti-smoking education should be on going.
However, suppression of tobacco commercial is discrimination between other product commercial.The commercial speech and other speech are all same and should be free under the First Amendment if United States Constitution. Today one third of American adults are obese and American documentary film, Super Size Me alerted the serious problem of fast food company McDonald's hamburger. If government regulated McDonald’s commercial because of obesity, it will be a embarrassment because consuming of McDonald's hamburger is depends on consumer. Tobacco has a same character as a McDonald’s hamburger the legal good provided by the company.Banning commercial of tobacco cannot be a solution to reduce the health problem from smoking tobacco.
The cigarette companies should be freed from media such as television commercial or radio. Since 1988, the cigarette package has the warning message to give public the harmful effects of smoking. The cigarette companies cannot be sponsored sports, shows, television programs and so on and they cannot display their logo on clothes or hats. Anti-smoking campaign and education is very active in today society as well.When tobacco companies are sponsoring anti-smoking group American Legacy Foundation and takes some responsibility of medical cost of related with smoking by the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, taking away the freedom of speech from tobacco company is not fair. With all these efforts, now consumption of tobacco is depend on market.
The public has a right to choose their consumption. People have a moral rights to control their health, so the law should not regulate people from activities that harm their own body. Smoking should not be distinguished with having other health risks.There are many of studies examine the relationship between tobacco consumption and advertising expense. For example, Duffy (1996) presented "advertising restrictions (including bans) have had little or no effect upon aggregate consumption of cigarettes.
Also, Handbook of Health Economics had article says, “Wilcox and Vacker(1992) found in an analysis of data between 1961 and 1990, that advertising expenditures and cigarette consumption were not significantly related”. Most proper regulation is a cigarette package warning message and requirements of labeling that I mentioned before. Exclude the ban of cigarette advertising, label that inform consumer the negative effects of what they buy, leaves the choice of purchase to people not to the government or law. The United States should not ban the tobacco advertising.It excessively infract the right of free speech towards the tobacco companies and since the right of smoking and the decisions are made by consumers.
Due to decision makers (consumers), he studies shows that regulations and cigarette consumption is coefficient. I agree with anti-smoking movement that smoking should be eliminated in the future. However, that should be obtained by education. Through education our children should learn the smoking health effects. Let’s not the law regulation of cigarette advertising regulate our liberties, our right.
