The Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act was passed in 1970, and because of it tobacco companies have not been able to advertise on radio or television since 1971. On the surface level, it makes sense that tobacco companies shouldn’t be able to advertise — their product is unhealthy, and it kills people. Plain and simple, it’s bad for you, but you know what else is? Alcohol, soda and fast food.
Alcohol advertising does have certain rules it has to follow. It cannot actually show people drinking the product in the ad, it cannot advertise to minors, and it cannot promote over consumption. It would make a lot of sense to apply stipulations like that to tobacco advertising, too, like don’t advertise to children, because they aren’t old enough to know the harmful side effects of smoking.
Corporate Personhood is the idea that corporations should be treated like people. This may sound kind of odd (because it is), but it’s actually more common than you might think. There have been recent cases of the Supreme Court voting on this. The Supreme Court recently voted that corporations can spend as much money as they want on political campaigns, and that corporations don’t have to provide health benefits to their employees who go against their religious beliefs.
Their newfound right to spend money on campaigns falls under their right of freedom of speech, and the health benefits issue obviously stems from freedom of religion. The 14th Amendment guarantees that citizens’ rights shouldn’t be infringed upon. If the Supreme Court believes in Corporate Personhood, then corporations should be protected under their 14th Amendment rights, and they should be able to use their freedom of speech and religion as they see fit, as long as it doesn’t impede on someone else’s rights.
If corporations have freedom of speech, wouldn’t it make sense they be allowed to advertise at least on a federal level? If a certain state doesn’t want them to, then that should be its choice, but not the federal government’s. A state by state basis is the proper way to control advertising, just as it is with the legal age to use the product. Utah’s tobacco consumption law requires you to be 19 years old to purchase tobacco, but that age varies from state to state. Letting a state choose its own laws makes the most sense. This is even the way that marijuana advertisement works. What is legal to advertise in Colorado may not be legal to advertise in Oklahoma.
Tobacco is a legal product. Everyone over the minimum age of consumption in their respective state has the choice to smoke or not. It’s not an illegal substance people need to hide and lie about. If it is legal to use, then it should be legal on a federal level to advertise. If someone wants to pay the expensive price of tobacco to slowly kill themselves, then they should have the right to do exactly that. It’s not the federal government’s business what people of a proper age want to put in their bodies. They should let people make their own decisions.
Anon • Aug 5, 2018 at 4:45 pm
Wish they would also ban anti-smoking ads. As someone who quit after 20 years, a few years ago, everytime I see one of those, I get the urge for a smoke. Also wish they’d ban drug ads. Not only are they annoying, but doctors are gonna know better than some laymen which meds are best for the condition.
anonymous • Jun 23, 2017 at 8:59 pm
Just persecution of Tobacco companies, and smokers.
MP • Jun 23, 2017 at 7:18 pm
You can’t scream “fire” in a movie theater unless there is a fire.
You shouldn’t be able to advertise addicting poison.
k kasamon • Jun 23, 2017 at 6:18 pm
Federal rules mandate that regardless of ability to pay or insurance, if a person presents to an ER, they must be provided appropriate emergency care. Smoking contributes to millions of cases of peripheral artery disease and coronary artery disease, and cerebral infarcts, and this is costing taxpayers like me millions because smokers make the, bad choice that you say they have the right to make. Well, since I do not seem to have the choice to not pay the bill for their choices, I say, let’s prevent the spread of the scourge of smoking by curtailing advertising.
Dave • Jun 23, 2017 at 5:43 pm
There is no safe usage rate for tobacco. It is addictive. People become addicted as children and then do irreparable damage until the can shake the habit. The same arguments to a lesser extent can be made about soft drink and junk food, but it is a question as to where to draw the line. This article suggests there should be no line for any legal product. Advertising coke in pre school ? Burger King sponsored classrooms in disadvantaged areas ? In a Free society we have the right to make bad choices but there is no sensible reason advertising promoting bad choices should be permitted over public infrastructure. Or anywhere. That is not freedom, it is just stupidity to pander to greed. Free speech protects ideas and opinions, not commercial activity.
snarky • Jun 23, 2017 at 5:06 pm
You forget that freedom of religion also incorporates freedom FROM religion. You can’t make others suffer because of your beliefs. You also should not be able to profit from the misery of others. Something that conservatives have forgotten.