Advertising, “Addiction,” And The Denial Of True Choice

Abstract

Many scholars question the constitutional validity of an advertising ban on tobacco products. There is also no question that some people seem to think that such a ban would constitute desirable public policy. However, there are several serious questions concerning both the costs and the benefits to be expected from any such restriction. This chapter attempts to compare the claims made for cigarette advertising bans by anti-smoking enthusiasts with the available economic evidence. A close look at the problem reveals several clear conclusions. First, the impact of advertising on consumers has been shown to be marginal and minor; cigarette advertising seems to have little, if any, effect on cigarette consumption. Second, cigarette advertising has not been shown to have a significant influence on smoking by young people. Third, cigarette advertising is a firm-specific phenomenon, which companies invest in for the purposes of competition, particularly in attempting to draw away existing market share from other companies and for promoting loyalty to their own brands. Fourth, the international evidence on smoking ad bans indicates that they have little, if any, effect on levels of cigarette consumption. Fifth, the U.S. Supreme Court has extended the protection of the First Amendment to “commercial speech” in a series of decisions, and any reversal of this trend would lead to a grave Constitutional crisis; and sixth, there is no meaningful link between advertising and cigarette “addiction.”