Tobacco Documents Online

However, I am prepared to assume, for the purpose of advancing the argument, that all cigarette advertising is aimed at confirmed! smokers. (Much of it does read that way. Benson & Hedges addresses "People who like to smoke." Carlton: "If youi smoke, please try Carlton."), And opponents of an, advertising ban have two powerful arguments. One is that it is imprudent to allow government to ban the dissemination of true information in order to modify mass behavior, even when the modification is obviously desirable. The second argument is that is some countries where cigarette advertising was banned~, cigarette consumption increased. And the sharpest drop in consumption (17 percent in a decade) occurred! in a country saturated with cigarette advertising,-- the United States. That fact could have something, to do with this fact: all a ban would certainly accomplish is an end to repeated exposure of smokers to the government-mandated health warning in all cigarette advertisements, and; to "low tar" claims that communicate the fact that smoking involves tar and tar is not good~. To understand one reason, for banning cigarette advertising, consider this fact about two forms of controversial advertising. All advertisements for condoms and cigarettes communicate at least the message that the use of those products is socially acceptable for all consumers. But cigarette use should not be presented as acceptable. However, a ban on cigarette advertising may be unimportant. Consider the way attitudes regarding condoms and cigarettes are moving rapidly in opposite directions. Condoms are decreasingly, and cigarettes are increasingly, controversial p oducts. Clearly, factors other than advertising are much, more powerful than adver- tising in shaping attitudes. Cigarette advertising today is remarkably impotent against the rising tide of sentiment that smoking is d6cliasse and dumb. To be sure, some of the virtuous intolerance of smoking derives from epidemiological studies demonstrating that cigarette s^;oke is a toxic air pollutant injurious to nonsmokers exposed to it. But even more important is the fact that smokers are socially and professionally jeopardized because smokers are unpleasant to be around and can reasonably be considered impervious to important evidence. A ban on cigarette advertising seems increasingly unimportant, given the attitudinal change running counter to the tobacco N industry's advertising efforts. Which brings me to Alexis~ Brinkley, a willowy 17-year-old withithe will of Bismarck. ~ Her fatherDavid:, the broadcaster, grew u~p, in N'orthCarolina,c.a tobacco, state where smoking may have seemed' a civic duty. OneZ, day a few years ago, Alexis announced she would not enter a roomO" N ~ -S

where her father was smoking. Like any father confronted with an ultimatum from a d'aughter, David'w d'rew himself up to his full hei~ght and ... capitulated. Smoking, which, causes 350,000 premature death~s annually, is not a private transaction between a: smoker and his lungs. Through insurance companies and government subsidization of health care, we have socialized the cost of smoking, so society has a stake in decreasing it. But Alexis" way is the safest, quickest way -- and the way we are proceeding -- to make smoking,what it should be: a stigmatized activity. Copyright 198'7 The Washington Post All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.