response to chapter 7

Response to Sophie Chapter 7
I agree cigarette advertising has gone the way of the dodo. And to be honest I am not a smoker and really did not notice this particular product being sucked into the void of anti-commercialism until I read the passage in our text book about the cigarette ban being (at first) put into effect to curb advertising around schools and other public places in which children congregate.
In response to Sophie’s question on whether or not this ban would hold up to the 4th part of the commercial speech test I really don’t believe it does especially when you hold it up against the lifted ban on casino advertisements in states where gambling was legal. (The reasoning for the ban was to curb potential addiction to gambling.)
It seems to me that as long as an activity is legal (from what the case studies suggest) the advertising of the activity should not be restricted. It is up to each individual after proper warning to make up their own minds as to if they want to engage in such an activity.
So in light of the non-existent cigarette ads I believe that the 4th part of the test is violated especially when you hold the dangers of drinking up to those of smoking. Many more people die of alcohol related issues than die from cigarettes. Perhaps this form of advertising is allowed to continue because the states have a vested interest in continuing the unabated advertisement of liquor, which comes in the form of, DUI fines, alcohol treatment programs, ignition interlock systems, etc.
Also the lack of advertising hasn’t seemed to slow down the rate of teen smoking the only thing that has done that is due in large part to anti-smoking campaigns that have been primarily geared towards parents and exigency for them to stop smoking. (Especially, since most teens who smoke primarily get the cigarettes from parents or relatives who smoke.)