Advertising Cigarettes should be banned

I am going to begin by clarifying the topic of this debate. You state that smoking advertisements should be banned, but already in society many forms of advertising already are. For example, cigarette companies are unable to use commercials or the school library additions of a few major magazines, including Times and Sports Illustrated. Therefore I am assuming that you are taking the position that all forms of advertising should be banned. With this said, i will begin by addressing your arguments. You only give one reason as to why you feel advertising should be banned, and half of it is based on assumption. You state that: government still allows the manufacturing of which when in fact it`s really detrimental to the body. If the government does not want the people to smoke, to prevent lung cancer or what have they, then they should start diminishing advertising Cigarettes in television and radios and print ads basically you are saying that smoking is bad for health therefore government should ban advertisements. first: by your rational, the government would have the privilege to ban the advertisements of everything it thinks harmful to people. This is a total negation to the freedom of speech in our first amendment. In our society, every person, or business has the right to express their ideas, and make their products known, this is an important part to a capitalistic society. second: This rationale creates a host of other problems. Just about everything can be considered unhealthy if over used, or used improperly. A major example is the fast food industry, which is closely linked with the second highest behavior cause of death: obesity/dietary pattern. Yet year after year MacDonald's spends about two billion dollars on advertising, and this is not even limited. MacDonald's routinely focuses advertisements on children through commercials and toys. The 3rd highest behavioral cause of death is alcohol, followed closely by microbial agents. Does this mean alcohol and travel advertisements to areas with a high microbial rate ought to be banned as well? of course not, this is why your rational fails third: Just because you may not want other people to smoke, does not give you, or the government to regulate it. All advertisements have a warning already on them. So your pursuit of banning further advertisements does not serve to spread awareness of the dangers of smoking, rather only illustrates your prejudice. Forth: this relates to your assumption that if advertisements are banned, the number of people smoking would decrease. what basis do you have for this argument? Advertisements for Crystal Meth are illegal, as is the drug itself, yet each year more people use it. And also, what action should the government take against people who offer cigarettes? word of mouth is one of the most successful means of advertisements. Fifth: This is just something i noticed when i was looking at you info. You are both a libertarian, and a supporter of drug legalization. how can you be a supporter of less government control, legalized drugs, and government bans on smoking ads? so in summary your argument fails because 1: it violates the first amendment 2: it would allow government to ban all unhealthy ads 3: personal prejudice does not allow someone to control another persons business 4:you have not provided the link between the ban and low smoking rates 5: your personal beliefs are not as important as the other arguments but i think they do require an explanation haha and this is defiantly not part of the debate, but did you know the Nazi's banned smoking? are you a Nazi Orville?