Tobacco Documents Online

Counter-Advertisina For Friendly Witness Given all the money spent by the tobacco industry on advertising, isn't there some argument to be made for the balancing effect of a government funded counter-advertising effort to convince people to stop smoking? First, we shouldn't ignore the millions of dollars in advertising time spent on anti tobacco messages. A great deal of that is free advertising in the form of public service announcements -- and that's something the tobacco industry certainly doesn't get. In addition, each and every cigarette ad contains a Surgeon General's warning. Students are also getting the anti-smoking message in the classroom. A 1988 National School Boards Association survey of 2,000 of the more than 15,000 public school districts found that 75% have anti-smoking educational programs at the elementary level, 81% at the middle school level, and 78% at the high school level. Research shows that the anti-tobacco advertising has had an effect; awareness levels of anti-tobacco arguments are nearly universal in this country, and the number of people who smoke has decreased dramatically. So to spend even more money, in a time of tight budgets, on further efforts to

counter tobacco industry advertising that has virtually no effect on overall consumption anyway seems foolish. Granted, some people still smoke. But they do so out of choice, not because they haven't heard the anti-tobacco line. No increase in counter-advertising is going to change that.