Proponents like Richard Daynard, a professor of law at Northeastern University, emphasize that the regulations are narrowly tailored. Adults will still receive information on price, quality, comparative product features and any other information to help them make an informed decision on tobacco products. Daynard and others also emphasize the reasonableness of the proposed tobacco marketing rules by highlighting the failed three decade-long attempt by health authorities to curb youth smoking. Opponents of the regulation respond with their strongest arguments. Citing 44 Liquormart, they argue the government must pursue less restrictive alternatives to speech regulations before imposing marketing restrictions.
Opponents also contend that the regulations are far too broad.
There is no way to establish with certainty how a court would rule on these various disputes. It is clear, however, that the arguments for marketing regulations become weaker the more removed they become from the purpose of protecting children. Thus while a federal court has upheld a Baltimore ordinance banning tobacco billboards in residential areas, an ad ban in adult magazines would face a stronger constitutional challenge. As the Supreme Court stiffens its application of the Central Hudson test, the differential treatment of political and commercial speech is beginning to narrow. The Court appears increasingly willing to grant safeguards to commercial speech that are similar to the strong protections for political speech.