Download Free Freedom Of Expression The Case Against Tobacco Advertising Bans Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Freedom Of Expression The Case Against Tobacco Advertising Bans and write the review.

Philip Morris Magazine launched an Essay Competition in September, 1986, in order to raise public awareness regarding proposals before Congress to ban all tobacco advertising and promotion. Each entrant was challenged to write an essay that focused on censorship, defended the First Amendment's application to American business and specifically questioned the ramifications of a tobacco advertising ban.
Tobacco use kills more people than any other addiction and we know that addiction starts in childhood and youth. We all agree that youths should not smoke, but how can this be accomplished? What prevention messages will they find compelling? What effect does tobacco advertisingâ€"more than $10 million worth every dayâ€"have on youths? Can we responsibly and effectively restrict their access to tobacco products? These questions and more are addressed in Growing Up Tobacco Free, prepared by the Institute of Medicine to help everyone understand the troubling issues surrounding youths and tobacco use. Growing Up Tobacco Free provides a readable explanation of nicotine's effects and the process of addiction, and documents the search for an effective approach to preventing the use of cigarettes, chewing and spitting tobacco, and snuff by children and youths. It covers the results of recent initiatives to limit young people's access to tobacco and discusses approaches to controls or bans on tobacco sales, price sensitivity among adolescents, and arguments for and against taxation as a prevention strategy for tobacco use. The controversial area of tobacco advertising is thoroughly examined. With clear guidelines for public action, everyone can benefit by reading and acting on the messages in this comprehensive and compelling book.
This report considers whether the provisions of the FDA's final rule restricting the advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products violates the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The purpose of the advertising regulations "is to decrease young people's use of tobacco products by ensuring that the restrictions on access are not undermined by the product appeal that advertising for these products creates for young people." Most of the restrictions on tobacco advertising were scheduled to take effect August 28, 1997. However, on April 25, 1997, a federal district court ruled that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act did not authorize the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising (though the court ruled that the FDA did have the authority otherwise to regulate tobacco products). The court ordered that the FDA shall not implement the regulations, pending further orders by the court. The final rule restricts tobacco advertising in several ways. First, it bans, "outdoor advertising for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, including billboards, posters, or placards . . . within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of any public playground . . . elementary school or secondary school." Second, it permits other outdoor advertising, and advertising in newspapers, magazines, and periodicals, but only in "black text on a white background." Third, it limits labeling and advertising in audio format "to words only with no music or sound effects," and in video format "to static black and white text only on a white background." Fourth, it requires all advertisements for tobacco products to contain the words "A Nicotine-Delivery Device for Persons 18 or Older." Fifth, it prohibits the sale of "any item (other than cigarettes or smokeless tobacco) or service, which bears the brand name . . . , logo," etc., identical or similar to any brand of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. Sixth, it prohibits offering any gift or item (other than cigarettes or smokeless tobacco) to any person purchasing cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. Seventh, it prohibits sponsoring "any athletic, musical, artistic or other social or cultural event, or any entry or team in any event, in the brand name . . . , logo," etc., identical or similar to any brand of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. As a type of commercial speech, tobacco advertising is entitled to some, but not full, First Amendment protection. Assuming that the advertising is not misleading, a governmental restriction will be constitutional only if it directly advances a substantial governmental interest by a means that represents a reasonable "fit" with the government's ends and is not substantially more restrictive of speech than is necessary. In the case of the FDA's restrictions on tobacco advertising, a court would almost certainly find the governmental interest in preventing minors from smoking to constitute a substantial governmental interest. Whether a court would find that the restrictions directly advance that interest by a means that represents a reasonable fit with the government's ends will depend upon the evidence that the FDA presents to the court. A court could uphold some of the restrictions and strike down others, in whole or in part.
Data suggest that exposure to secondhand smoke can result in heart disease in nonsmoking adults. Recently, progress has been made in reducing involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke through legislation banning smoking in workplaces, restaurants, and other public places. The effect of legislation to ban smoking and its effects on the cardiovascular health of nonsmoking adults, however, remains a question. Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects reviews available scientific literature to assess the relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute coronary events. The authors, experts in secondhand smoke exposure and toxicology, clinical cardiology, epidemiology, and statistics, find that there is about a 25 to 30 percent increase in the risk of coronary heart disease from exposure to secondhand smoke. Their findings agree with the 2006 Surgeon General's Report conclusion that there are increased risks of coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality among men and women exposed to secondhand smoke. However, the authors note that the evidence for determining the magnitude of the relationship between chronic secondhand smoke exposure and coronary heart disease is not very strong. Public health professionals will rely upon Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects for its survey of critical epidemiological studies on the effects of smoking bans and evidence of links between secondhand smoke exposure and cardiovascular events, as well as its findings and recommendations.
"The continued success in global tobacco control is detailed in this year’s WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2013. The fourth in the series, this year’s report presents the status of the MPOWER measures, with country-specific data updated and aggregated through 2012. In addition, the report provides a special focus on legislation to ban tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) in WHO Member States and an in-depth analyses of TAPS bans were performed, allowing for a more detailed understanding of progress and future challenges in this area."--Website summary.