Restrictions on tobacco marketing in the US should be repealed.

The main reason for the restrictions introduced on tobacco marketing is concern over the welfare of youth in America. [1] It is reasoned that if we stamp out the ways in which tobacco companies can reach out to youthful individuals, then we may stamp out tobacco products as a whole. My position is very simple, however:- Put warning labels on tobacco products, which we already do. - Allow for anti-tobacco campaigns to reach out to schools and youth in order to inform them about the risks and dangers of tobacco products, which we already do. 1st Amendment Rights There is no reason to attack the first amendment rights of commercial businesses when it comes to the tobacco industry. The first amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Now, it is important to note that I take no issue with the self-imposed restrictions that tobacco companies face. For those who are not sure of what I am talking about, let’s examine the Master Settlement Agreement: "The culmination of the states' efforts resulted in a 1998 settlement agreement involving more than 46 states and the six largest tobacco companies -- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco, Philip Morris Companies Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Commonwealth Tobacco and Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. Under this settlement, called the Master Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to settle nearly all litigation between the parties. In agreeing to the settlement, the tobacco companies placed many restrictions on the marketing and advertising of tobacco products. Some of these self-imposed advertising restrictions include: - Tobacco companies cannot use cartoon characters, such as 'Joe Camel,' to advertise their products. - Tobacco companies cannot target youth in the advertising, promotion or marketing of tobacco products. - Tobacco companies cannot sponsor concerts or other events with significant youth audiences, including team sporting events, such as football games. - Tobacco brand names cannot be advertised at stadiums and arenas." [2] These self-imposed restrictions are just that, self-imposed. Since tobacco companies have agreed to these restrictions, I have no issue with them being enforced. However, the problem is when the federal and/or state government wants to expand these restrictions in any way possible. This becomes an even larger problem when we examine the hypocrisy being used. Alcohol, for example, can be advertised during the SuperBowl despite the negative impact it has on youth in America. [3] Whereas tobacco products cannot be advertised during the SuperBowl because it may have a negative impact on youth in America. Alcohol producers can print t-shirts and hats with their logo on them, but tobacco companies cannot. Alcohol producers can have radio advertisements with music, sounds of parties, and positive dialog while tobacco companies cannot. But we should not stop at alcohol. This double standard exists with tobacco and fast foods, as another example. But my argument would not be complete without touching on the issue of commercial speech. Commercial speech was defined in Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products (1983):1) Is the material meant to be an advertisement?2) Does the material reference a particular product? 3) Is there is an economic motivation for disseminating the material?The issue becomes whether or not commercial speech should be protected in the same way that “noncommercial” speech is protected. There is no real consensus when it comes to this issue, so I look forward to it being discussed. [4] Anti-Free MarketInvestopedia defines a free market as the following:"When most people discuss the 'free market,' they mean an economy with unobstructed competition and only private transactions between buyers and sellers. However, a more inclusive definition should include any voluntary economic activity so long as it is not controlled by coercive central authorities.” [5] Quite obviously, the restrictions on tobacco marketing contradict "an economy with unobstructed competition" and "voluntary economic activity." The United States operates loosely on a free market economy with some exceptions. However, the tobacco industry has been discriminated against when it comes to anti-free market restrictions, which I highlighted briefly already. Sources[1] "On World No Tobacco Day, 31 May, WHO [World Health Organization] is calling for countries to ban all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship to help reduce the number of tobacco users. Tobacco use kills nearly 6 million people every year."http://www.who.int...[2] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...[3] https://www.toosmarttostart.samhsa.gov...[4] "I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that 'commercial' speech is of 'lower value' than 'noncommercial' speech." (Justice Clarence Thomas; 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996))“the Supreme Court plucked the commercial speech doctrine out of thin air." (Federal judge Alex Kozinski; "Who's Afraid of Commercial Speech?". Virginia Law Review. 50.)[5] http://www.investopedia.com...