Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxk.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxk!rs55611
From: rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.legal
Subject: Re: AMA anti-smoking drive
Message-ID: <1042@ihuxk.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 12:45:01 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxk.1042
Posted: Thu Dec 19 12:45:01 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 06:18:06 EST
References: <291@ur-tut.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.med:3011 net.legal:2655

Although I'm definitely not a big ACLU supporter, I'd like to see tham
(oops, them) take a stand against the banning of cigarette ads.

Now, if newspapers and magazines wanted to cut out cigarette ads, that
would be OK, but they don't want to do this (at least the majority don't),
for obvious business reasons.  I really don't think there can be any legal
justification for preventing tobacco companies and newspaper/magazine
owners from agreeing to run the ads.  The idea that ads are somehow different
from other forms of speech (that they're trying to mold opinion, rather than
inform) does not offer any practical solutions, as the same argument can be
made against other forms of speech, such as editorials, political campaigns,
etc., that everyone agrees should be protected as free speech.

In my view, if people are looking for legal solutions to smoking, they should
first turn to the federal subsidization of tobacco prices.  This is a classic
example of a program that should have been killed long ago, but survives
due to the influence-peddling of several powerful Congress-people and
Senators.

Bob Schleicher
ihuxk!rs55611