Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site aero.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!zeus
From: zeus@aero.ARPA (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.legal
Subject: Re: AMA anti-smoking drive
Message-ID: <159@aero.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 18-Dec-85 17:05:09 EST
Article-I.D.: aero.159
Posted: Wed Dec 18 17:05:09 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 05:35:45 EST
References: <291@ur-tut.UUCP> <295@ur-tut.UUCP> <748@unc.unc.UUCP>
Reply-To: zeus@aero.UUCP (Dave Suess)
Distribution: net
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 16
Keywords: let 'em ALL advertise
Xref: watmath net.med:3006 net.legal:2648
Summary: cig ads were "voluntarily" pulled, remember?

In article <748@unc.unc.UUCP> rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) writes:
>rights.  In support for this, note that TV cigarette ads were
>banned.  Why not just make it all tobacco ads?

The way I remembered it, the tobacco companies "voluntarily" withdrew all TV
advertising, in return for the gov't and cancer societies pulling back their
anti-smoking ads.  Legislation (or was it just FCC regs?) followed some time 
after that, when it was fairly moot.  Perhaps the AMA could use some $$ to run
ads next to every cig ad, or the insurance co's could promise to replace any
lost advertising revenues.  Let 'em ALL advertise: even the Fed gov't!  Then,
no arguments on restricting 1st amend. rights, no lost bucks, just more info
(and from more sources, not just the Tobac Inst.)!
Someone please correct me if I err, but that's the way I remember it: the 
tobacco companies voluntarily withdrew TV advertising after sales were hurt
badly by the anti-smoking ads.
					Dave Suess, zeus@aerospace.arpa or @aero.UUCP