Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site magic.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!magic!broder
From: broder@magic.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.med,net.legal
Subject: Re: AMA anti-smoking drive
Message-ID: <181@magic.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 16-Dec-85 19:46:56 EST
Article-I.D.: magic.181
Posted: Mon Dec 16 19:46:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 04:49:47 EST
References: <291@ur-tut.UUCP> <295@ur-tut.UUCP> <748@unc.unc.UUCP>
Reply-To: broder@magic.UUCP (Andrei Broder)
Distribution: net
Organization: DEC Systems Research, Palo Alto
Lines: 35
Xref: watmath net.med:2991 net.legal:2635
Summary: 

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?

Yes, yes, ban them!  Also  liquor ads - clearly, alcohol is bad for
your liver, motorcycle ads, (terrible accident rate), and in fact all
car ads also (pollution, accidents, etc.)  In fact let's ban all
advertising, because all advertising is trying to generate behavior
modification, thus not protected!  Last time I checked, religious
preachers also were trying to modify behavior! Ban'em now! (Do I need
:-)?)

What AMA should do, in my opinion,  is not to push for clearly
unconstitutional legislation, but for higher taxes on cigarettes to
be used for paying for negative publicity.  Such taxes can be
justified by the cost of smoking incurred by the society.  I don't
know whether this is within the scope of net.med, but I would like to
find good estimate of such costs.  Clearly, smokers cost substantially
more in health care costs, but substantially less in social security
and old age benefits.  The distribution of smokers across economical
strata is unequal, which also should be taken into account.  Other
factors are taxes on cigarettes, price supports for tobacco growers,
and higher insurance rates.  

By the way, TV ads for tobacco were never banned - they do not exist
grace to an industry agreement that the justice department had the
good sense not to try to break under anti-trust laws.