Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site aoa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!aoa!carl
From: carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.legal
Subject: Re: AMA anti-smoking drive
Message-ID: <369@aoa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Dec-85 12:58:14 EST
Article-I.D.: aoa.369
Posted: Tue Dec 17 12:58:14 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 02:41:30 EST
References: <291@ur-tut.UUCP>
Reply-To: carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft)
Distribution: net
Organization: Adaptive Optics Assoc., Cambridge, Mass. USA
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.med:3003 net.legal:2644

In article <291@ur-tut.UUCP> john@ur-tut.UUCP (John Gurian) writes:
>I'm sure that people have been reading about the AMA's drive to ban cigarette
>advertising in periodicals.  I have a feeling that they're out to raise
>First amendment rights on one hand must be balanced out against the fact that
>the tobacco companies use the threat of withdrawal of advertising revenues
>to keep periodicals from printing articles linking tobacco with health problems.
>Any ideas/opinions on this?

Hohohohohoho..... And what about N-th amendment rights guaranteeing tobacco
companies/farmers mega-subsidies from the feds so long as Helms is alive?
(0.01 of a :=) ) The tobacco companies say they should be allowed to advertise
anything it's legal to sell. In many states, this hardly fits with limits
on service (MD, JD ) advertising bans, for one example.
One other amusing point: at the AMA convention, guess which contingent of
MD's voted AGAINST these proposed bans? The guys from Carolina of course.


Darwin's Dad ( Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates)
{decvax,linus,ihnp4,ima,wjh12,wanginst}!bbncca!aoa!carl
54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140
617-864-0201x356
"Selmer MarkVI, Otto Link 5*, and VanDoren Java Cut."