Tobacco Documents Online

Opening Statement - H.R. 5041 Advertising and Youth Mr. Chairman, the issue of tobacco advertising has been hotly debated for more than a decade, and the legislation before us today would severely restrict tobacco advertising in the interest of preventing our country's children from smoking. It is as tough an issue as we face with respect to the First Amendment: Do we restrict the information in an effort to achieve an important goal? I believe the answer in this case must be "no." Like yourself, Mr. Chairman, I believe young people should not smoke. As parents and legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that our children do not smoke. As a result, most schools have no-smoking policies; smoking education programs are in place; minimum age laws are on the books; and anti-smoking organizations and campaigns specifically targeted to youth have been developed, such as Kids Against Tobacco (KAT), sponsored by the American Medical Association. These activities are, in large part, the reason both young girls and boys are smoking less than they were 15 years ago. According to government statistics, almost 29 percent of high school seniors smoked daily in 1976. That number has since declined to 18.7 percent. 1

Although the goal of this legislation is a laudable one, it would be fundamentally inappropriate to restrict the advertising and promotion of one type of product so severely that we violate an entire industry's constitutional right of commercial speech...all in an attempt to accelerate an already falling smoking rate. We are talking about legislation that would control the content of every tobacco ad and prohibit the tobacco industry from any promotional activities. This attempt at censorship is just another verse in the "Siren's song" of the anti-smoking movement -- they lure well-meaning, concerned people into accepting advertising restrictions, with tempting arguments about children and big business. But underneath is irreparable damage to our right of free speech...and no evidence it will benefit our children. Advertising restrictions, in whatever form, are nothing more than information control by the government, a practice we certainly denounce in other countries. This "big brother" attitude greatly disturbs me because it establishes a dangerous precedent. We might as well order The Washington Post to confine its editorials to baseball and apple pie. No matter how you dress it up, a restriction on information is abhorrent on the same basis as an outright ban. 2 N O N W ~ M ~ ~ ~ W

Nor do we have any reason to believe that these restrictions would make a dent in youth smoking. For one thing, most children already are aware of the dangers associated with tobacco products. The latest awareness campaign was launched by the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association. Called the "Smoke-Free Class of 2000 Project," this 12-year, school-based, program focuses on children who entered the first grade in 1988 and will graduate in the year 2000. The smoke-free challenge is passed on to a new class each year. first grade Research consistently shows that parents, family and friends have much more of an influence over youth smoking than tobacco advertising. As former Federal Trade Commission Chairman Michael Pertschuk, who now heads an anti-smoking advocacy group, told a Harvard seminar in 1983, "[n]o one really pretends that advertising is a major determinant of smoking in this country or any other." We are all justly concerned that, despite a reduction in the number of kids smoking, some continue to do so. As parents, we do our best to decide what publications, television shows and activities we allow our children to see and do. Even given our best efforts, our kids sometimes make bad decisions. Does that 3

mean we should lock them in the garage until age 18? It would be easier in some ways...but I don't think that's the answer either. The real question before us today is not whether children or any Americans are influenced by tobacco advertising, but whether there is ample reason to injure something as basic and as cherished as freedom of speech so that our children may never see another cigarette ad. If the answer is yes, I shudder to think of the other products advocacy groups will attack next. Will it be soft drinks, skateboards, motorcycles...? Why not pervasive automobile ads, whose seductive approaches might be blamed for the epidemic of car thefts by teenagers? If we pass this legislation, it may not be long before we find out. We are deceiving ourselves if we think tobacco advertising and promotion restrictions will prevent our children from smoking. Packaging this legislation as a youth-oriented measure does not change that fact, nor its implications on free speech. Because studies show that young people continue to smoke in countries where tobacco advertising already has been tightly regulated, the truth is, some kids probably will continue to smoke in the United States no matter how hard we try to prevent 4

it. We cannot ignore that fact, nor can we ignore the fact that restricting information doesn't lead to better decisions. 5