How Long Will the New Tobacco Ad Restrictions Last?

It seem likely that the advertising restrictions included in the tobacco regulation bill approved by the Senate yesterday (and previously approved by the House) will be overturned on First Amendment grounds. The restrictions, which are the same as the rules the Food and Drug Administration unsuccessfullly tried to impose in 1996 without statutory authority, include bans on tobacco-brand sponsorship of sporting or entertainment events, on outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of a school or playground, and on the use of color or pictures in outdoor ads, indoor ads (except those in adult-only businesses), and print ads carried by publications with significant underage readerships. These restrictions are much more sweeping than state limits on tobacco advertising that the Supreme Court overturned in 2001. That case involved Massachusetts regulations that banned tobacco billboards within 1,000 feet of a school or playground and required merchants to place point-of-sale advertising at least five feet above the floor. The Court concluded that both provisions failed the constitutional test for restrictions on commercial speech that it set forth in its 1980 Central Hudson decision. The test says such restrictions must directly advance a substantial government interest through means that are no more extensive than necessary (which in practice has amounted to requiring a "reasonable fit" between ends and means). Although the Court agreed that discouraging underage smoking is a substantial government interest, it concluded that the billboard and sign restrictions were unjustifiably broad.

If so, it's hard to see how the more onerous restrictions in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act can meet the Central Hudson test. The Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, which collaborated on the new law with Philip Morris (a company that, as the market leader, stands to benefit from the anti-competitive effects of the ad limits), counterintuitively argues that heaping on more restrictions will help the law pass muster: "The fact that the FDA restrictions are more comprehensive than those considered in Massachusetts strengthens the argument that it meets the First Amendment standard because it fully considers the marketing problems being addressed and considers the ability of manufacturers to communicate with consumers."

That seems like wishful thinking. Five justices agreed that the Massachusetts billboard restrictions were unconstitutional. (The majority included Clarence Thomas, who also wrote a concurrence in which he reiterated his longstanding view that "when the government seeks to restrict truthful speech in order to suppress the ideas it conveys, strict scrutiny is appropriate, whether or not the speech in question may be characterized as 'commercial.'") The four other justices also were skeptical that the regulation satisfied the Central Hudson test, but they said the case (which came to the Court as an appeal of a summary judgment) should be remanded for a trial to consider the question. The two justices who have joined the Court since 2001—John Roberts and Samuel Alito—do not seem more receptive to restrictions on commercial speech than the justices they replaced (William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor, respectively).

A decade ago in Reason, I examined the empirical case for restricting advertising to reduce underage smoking.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Scarcity||

    These are my favorite bills - they keep Congress all busy and proud for a while, then they get struck down. If only we could fill entire sessions of Congress with bills like these.

    On the other hand, I thought that's what was happening with McCain-Feingold.

  • Wicks Cherrycoke||

    On another aspect of the Tobacco Bill, the ban on references to "light" or "low tar" because they will supposedly mislead us dumb consumers to inhale more frequently and deeply, or think the cigs are "safer."

    I seem to recall that the Supreme Court struck down, on free speech grounds, a federal law that prohibited brewers from listing the alcohol content on beer labels, on the ground that (1) it would cause people to seek out beers with higher alcohol content to get the effects faster, and (2) it would "mislead" us dumb consumers into thinking we could drink more of the low-alcohol stuff. Wouldn't the same logic apply here?

  • Cosmo Warrior||

    "when the government seeks to restrict truthful speech in order to suppress the ideas it conveys, strict scrutiny is appropriate, whether or not the speech in question may be characterized as 'commercial.'"

    He thought sodomy laws were constitutional. Thus he is the worst SCOTUS justice ever. Case closed, don't try to convince me otherwise.

  • zoltan||

    I seem to recall that the Supreme Court struck down, on free speech grounds, a federal law that prohibited brewers from listing the alcohol content on beer labels, on the ground that (1) it would cause people to seek out beers with higher alcohol content to get the effects faster, and (2) it would "mislead" us dumb consumers into thinking we could drink more of the low-alcohol stuff. Wouldn't the same logic apply here?


    That's crazy, but I still can't see the alcohol content on beer cans or bottles in Texas.

  • zoltan||

    He thought sodomy laws were constitutional. Thus he is the worst SCOTUS justice ever. Case closed, don't try to convince me otherwise.


    Nowhere near worse, just suffering from unthinkable cognitive dissonance. I wonder what he'd rule on War on Drugs-related cases (he voted correctly on Gonzales v. Raich if I remember it).

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    I wonder what would happen if I had a Smoke Camels bumper sticker on my car when I went to pick up my kids from school.

  • squarooticus||

    How is discouraging underage smoking a "substantial government interest"? For that matter, why should that even be the criteria for reasonableness of a policy?

  • ||

    As Newsy.com mentions, this new legislation is going to hurt the credibility of the FDA. How can they justify that cigarettes are safe?
    http://www.newsy.com/videos/new_sheriff_in_town

  • Frank Church ||

    Advertising is a form of propaganda so we should always regulate how far we can use it or at least inform Americans that is is propaganda.

    Eddie Bernays says hi.

  • SteveM||

    The review was true. The new smoking regulations are part of a bill that make tobacco products part of the realm of the Food and Drug Administration. Personal loan companies and payday lenders haven't been called yet by the tobacco companies for some fast cash, as they new smoking laws aren't predicted to put a huge dent in their business, even if it's known that President Obama smokes, or at least used to. Many people would give instant cash loans to get even more new smoking regulations that would outlaw the habit altogether.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement