Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mb2c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!mpr
From: mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.legal
Subject: Re: AMA anti-smoking drive
Message-ID: <384@mb2c.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Dec-85 11:14:01 EST
Article-I.D.: mb2c.384
Posted: Tue Dec 17 11:14:01 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 04:30:56 EST
References: <291@ur-tut.UUCP> <295@ur-tut.UUCP> <748@unc.unc.UUCP> <1680@cae780.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Michigan Bell, Southfield, MI
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.med:2989 net.legal:2633

> In article <748@unc.unc.UUCP> rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) writes:
> >While we're on the subject, how about if all cigarette advertisement
> >(and chewing tobacco advertisement!) were simply made illegal?  If
> >people want to smoke, that's their business;  but if the tobacco
> >industry want other people to smoke, that's everyone's business.
> >
> >My contention is that advertising is behavior modification, not
> >statement of views, and therefore is not protected under the bill of
> >rights.  In support for this, note that TV cigarette ads were
> >banned.  Why not just make it all tobacco ads?
> 
It is my understanding that government can place many time, place and
manner restrictions on commercial speech (where it may not be possible
to do the same with political speech).  The basic idea is that commercial
speech is hardier than political speech and can, therefore, withstand
more regulation yet still keep bouncing back.  The current Constitutional
theory has nothing to do with behavior modification.  However, this might
be a novel new approach to litigate a claim.  (Just don't mortgage the
house on this one.)  After all, remember Louis Brandeis and the famous
"Sick Chicken" case.

				      Mark Reina