I didn't know a lot about the regulations surrounding the manufacturing and sale of tobacco products before reading Anderson Chang's piece, but after becoming more educated on them it reminded me of a story I saw regarding Australia's (and more recently, the U.K.'s) marketing regulations their government has enacted on cigarette packaging. When it comes to debating the extent to which free speech rights are extended to advertisers, I believe it's worth looking to other countries to understand the significant effect they're capable of having.
On December 1st, 2012, Australia imposed a comprehensive set of regulations on the sale of cigarettes in attempt to curtail the number of smokers within the country. These regulations forced tobacco companies to adhere to a specific set of rules when manufacturing cigarette packages, which included a mandated color (Pantone 448 C opaque couché - dubbed "the world's ugliest color"), graphic images paired with various messages that covered more than 60% of the pack, uniform fonts, and several other details. An interesting takeaway from this new policy is the effect it had on consumers who were looking to purchase cigarettes - a study from the University of Sydney revealed daily tobacco use among people aged 14 and older fell well below the global average in direct correlation with the enacted advertising regulations.
Although it's obvious no study will ever be able to determine the exact amount of people whose smoking habits were curtailed by this legislation, there appears to be strong evidence to suggest that an increase in targeted policy prescriptions designed to restrict access to tobacco correlates positively with a fall in their sales. With this established, it's important to have a conversation about the degree to which it's legal to regulate advertised speech as well as the merits of doing so. As Chang pointed out in the conclusion of his piece, "Based on the Supreme Court's vague and sometimes inconsistent precedent, neither the D.C. nor the Sixth Circuit seems to be completely correct in their frameworks... it is time that the Supreme Court clear up once and for all the position that commercial speech occupies among other First Amendment protections."
It's my personal opinion that the free speech rights of advertisers cannot be equated with those of private citizens. I think this is even more true when the use of the products being advertised results in negative externalities - in this case, secondhand smoke from cigarettes. Advertisers must be held accountable in the way they market their products, especially when these products have adverse health effects on people who aren't actively consuming them.
Sources:
Chang, Anderson. “The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Graphic Warning Labels, and the Future of Compelled Commercial Speech.” The University of Minnesota Law Library, 16 Aug. 2017.
Chapman, Simon. “Plain Tobacco Packaging in Australia: 26 Months On.” BMJ, vol. 91, no. 1073, Mar. 2015, pmj.bmj.com/content/91/1073/119.
Maynard, Olivia. “Plain Cigarette Packaging Has Arrived, but Will It Reduce Smoking?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 20 May 2016, www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2016/may/20/plain-standardised-cigarette-packaging-has-arrived-but-will-it-reduce-smoking.
On December 1st, 2012, Australia imposed a comprehensive set of regulations on the sale of cigarettes in attempt to curtail the number of smokers within the country. These regulations forced tobacco companies to adhere to a specific set of rules when manufacturing cigarette packages, which included a mandated color (Pantone 448 C opaque couché - dubbed "the world's ugliest color"), graphic images paired with various messages that covered more than 60% of the pack, uniform fonts, and several other details. An interesting takeaway from this new policy is the effect it had on consumers who were looking to purchase cigarettes - a study from the University of Sydney revealed daily tobacco use among people aged 14 and older fell well below the global average in direct correlation with the enacted advertising regulations.
Although it's obvious no study will ever be able to determine the exact amount of people whose smoking habits were curtailed by this legislation, there appears to be strong evidence to suggest that an increase in targeted policy prescriptions designed to restrict access to tobacco correlates positively with a fall in their sales. With this established, it's important to have a conversation about the degree to which it's legal to regulate advertised speech as well as the merits of doing so. As Chang pointed out in the conclusion of his piece, "Based on the Supreme Court's vague and sometimes inconsistent precedent, neither the D.C. nor the Sixth Circuit seems to be completely correct in their frameworks... it is time that the Supreme Court clear up once and for all the position that commercial speech occupies among other First Amendment protections."
It's my personal opinion that the free speech rights of advertisers cannot be equated with those of private citizens. I think this is even more true when the use of the products being advertised results in negative externalities - in this case, secondhand smoke from cigarettes. Advertisers must be held accountable in the way they market their products, especially when these products have adverse health effects on people who aren't actively consuming them.
Sources:
Chang, Anderson. “The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Graphic Warning Labels, and the Future of Compelled Commercial Speech.” The University of Minnesota Law Library, 16 Aug. 2017.
Chapman, Simon. “Plain Tobacco Packaging in Australia: 26 Months On.” BMJ, vol. 91, no. 1073, Mar. 2015, pmj.bmj.com/content/91/1073/119.
Maynard, Olivia. “Plain Cigarette Packaging Has Arrived, but Will It Reduce Smoking?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 20 May 2016, www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2016/may/20/plain-standardised-cigarette-packaging-has-arrived-but-will-it-reduce-smoking.
Comments
Post a Comment