Tobacco Documents Online

Helping you breathe a Iinle easier ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION "Cigaretteadvertising encourages youth to smokeand should be banned." Does Tobacco Advertising Target Young People to Start Smoking? Journal of the American Medical Association, December 11, 1991. AN THE PROBLEM Cigarettes and other tobacco prod- ucts are among the most heavily marketed products in America. From 1975 to 1988, cigarette advertising and promotion expen- ditures increased more than sixfold, from $500 million to $3.27 billion. Advertisingg and promotion activities include both tradi- tional advertising, such as billboard and magazine ads, and promotional activities like sports and artistic sponsorship. In recent years, the balance of spending has shifted from traditional advertising toward promo- tion. The major public health concern sur- rounding cigarette advertising and promo- tion is that it-encourages children to smoke. In part, this conclusion flows from the nature of tobacco advertising and promotion itself. Advertisements focus on themes which ap- peal to youth, such as thinness, popularity, glamour, sex appeal, and athletic prowess. Some ad campaigns, such as Camel's Joe Camel, have even begun the practice of ... . ,.. _ using cartoon characters to sell cigarettes. Sponsorship promotion often centers on cul- tural or athletic events, such as monstertruck racing, with huge audiences among children. © pe`y'!9d "'per Recentresearch evidence clearlylinks tobacco advertising and promotion with childhood tobacco addiction. One study concluded that "teenagers buy the most heavily promoted cigarettes, and 80% of all children consider advertising influentual in encouraging tham to smoke." Three articles in the December 11, 1991 issue of the Jour- nal of the American Medical Association came to the following conclusions: 1) Old Joe, the cartoon camel which promotes Camel cigarettes, has the same level of recognition among six year olds as Mickey hvlouse;. 2) Children have higher recognition rates for. the Old Joe advertising campaign than do adults; and 3) Camel's share of the under 18 mar- ket has increased from.5% to 33 % since the campaign was introduced in 1988. OPTIONS There are a number of things that communities can do to counter tobacco in- 2023668648 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J• Berkeley, California 94702'• (510) 841-3032 / FAX (5110) 841-7702

dustry advertising and promotion. Options range from relatively simple policies such as eliminating tobacco ads from city property and public transportation, to those which challenge the limits of federal preemption, such as banning tobacco billboards. Public Transportation Many communities have pas sed reso- lutions or taken other actions to eliminate tobacco advertisements on public transpor- tation. These policies may either be imple- mented by ordinance or by administrative policy. In San Francisco, the Board of the BayAreaRapidTransit(BART) system voted in 1988 to eliminate tobacco advertising on the BART system. In 1991, San Francisco's Public Utilities Commission did the same for buses and trollies in the MUNI system. Pub- lic transportation ad bans have also been adopted in Amherst and Boston, Massachu- setts, Denver, Colorado, Seattle, Washing- ton, San Diego, California, and Portiand, Oregon. It is well established that cities may set their own policy regarding standards for acceptable advertising. The primary poten- tial legal concern is First Amendment free speech protections. That issue was resolved by the United S tates S upreme Court in 1986 in the Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v Tourism Company of Puerto Rico case. In Posadas, the court concluded that the adver- tising of legal products or activities, such as cigarettes andgambling, which could legally be banned outright, may be limited or banned. Public Property It has also become increasingly com- mon for cities to eliminate tobacco advertis- ing on municipal property. This includes transit depots, such as train stations, as well as auditoriums and sports facilities. Like similar bans on public transportation, there has been no successful challenge to such policies. Tobacco Billboards Legal Concerns Tobacco advertising is a form of com- mercial speech, afforded limited free speech protection under the FirstAmendment of the Constitution. In a 1986 case, Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, the United States Supreme Court clearly established that legislators may ban or limit tobacco advertising. The court concluded that with products like tobacco, which because of their danger could be banned altogether, legislators may take less restrictive means to regulate the product such as limiting advertising. In other words, legislators need not outlaw tobacco before they may outlaw tobacco advertising. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act includes a preemption clause which limits state and local regulation of tobacco advertising. The clause reads, in.. part: "No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to advertising and promotion of any cigarettes the pack ages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." (15 USC 1334) Because of federal preemption, state and local governments may not adopt laws banning tobacco advertising and'promotion. However, there are some indications that certain regulations are permissible. The State of Utah bans all tobacco billboards, and'the law has been in effect for years 2 Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, 1992

without legal challenge. Limited Tobacco Billboard Ordinances Some legal scholars have suggested that tobacco billboards could be eliminated in the vicinity of schools and other facilities which attract children. The rationale for such a law is that it furthers the state's goal of protecting children, and thus is not cov- ered by the "based on smoking and health" provision of the federal preemption clause. As yet, no such law has been adopted or tested legally. 3- Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, 1992