The Right Message

Here is the link to the previously mentioned presentation: The Right Message. Why not, Why, and How.  I was encouraged reading in the new 2014 Best Practices for Tobacco Control the emphasis on Mass Reach health Communication.  The tobacco industry is pretty clear in their goal of selling a profitable product.  Public health on the other hand has been divided in its efforts and less than honest about actually saying what it should be doing is making that product unprofitable.  This is one reason I tend to try and recognize tobacco free space as not merely the clean indoor air but also the parking lot free of signage or the counter top free of product.  It is not merely that tobacco is a health risk.  The tobacco industry is a health risk.

Anyway, here is the link to the video again.

FDA Litigation Begins

The first lawsuit challenging the limited authority of the FDA to regulate tobacco advertising was filed in U.S. District Court in Kentucky today. Their complaint is that restrictions on advertising are an infringement of First Amendment rights.

This intriguing distinction in the U.S. that places advertisements under speech doctrines rather than trade is fairly recent. In 1980 the court established the Central Hudson test for “commercial speech” that disallows First Amendment protection only if the advertisement is false or misleading or the government has a substantial, reasonable, interest in regulation. But it wasn’t until 2001 that Lorrilard vs. Reilly struck down Massachusetts restrictions on tobacco advertising saying the state did not prove that these restrictions would reduce underage smoking.

Today’s suit claims,that marketing aspects of the law, "severely restrict the few remaining channels we have to communicate with adult tobacco consumers."

My concern is not that tobacco companies will be allowed to communicate with adult tobacco consumers but that reinforcing the “adults only” cachet will enhance longstanding marketing strategies for attracting youth. The tobacco companies can’t lose.

The success or failure of this litigation will no doubt take years. In fact, this aspect of the new law is not scheduled to take effect for three years anyway. But already we are learning of the troubling nature of institutionalizing contemporary tobacco use under the auspices of the Food and Drug Administration. Note that Philip Morris, a leading collaborator on the bill, is letting the competitors initiate this litigation.

Tobacco industry camouflaged marketing

This was a pretty good summary of what needs to be discussed, so copy and paste, right?

“Who could have seen it coming?!  That's sarcastic of course.  Dr. Ginzel forwarded this NY Times article with the admonition that supporters are getting their due.  

http://tinyurl.com/mvctnl

The synopsis is that first amendment challenges to advertising restrictions are expected.  And here's the rub.  Speech restrictions are allowed only when the government has a specific reasonable interest at stake. "In the case of the new tobacco law, Congress specifically defined the government interest as a reduction in youth smoking."  'Adults only' language is peppered throughout the bill yet that is exactly what the tobacco industry wants us to believe; that tobacco use is appropriate and acceptable at some level.  This is the same argument that fills our clean air laws with exemptions for venues that restrict youth.  Neither instance is correct.  Tobacco is never safe.  This was the opinion of the Supreme Court a decade ago that sent congress on a quest to limit the FDA's authority enough to oversee tobacco here.  But by specifying the interest of reducing youth smoking it slipped right in line with the industry's best marketing tool for youth, adults only.”

And the point now is that if the courts get around to simple black and white signage with the exception of adults only situations how then will the industry market?  

One of the most heinous marketing devices the industry uses now are the ostensible anti- smoking campaigns that not only are ineffective but have been shown to increase youth initiation.

 

    “Furthermore, youth- and parent-focused anti-tobacco advertising campaigns sponsored by the tobacco industry have been shown to actually increase youth tobacco use. Youth exposed to these ads are more likely to report greater intention to smoke in the future and more positive feelings toward the tobacco industry than those who were not exposed.”  p. 32 Health Communication Interventions        - 2007 CDC Best Practices

This is the sort of sophisticated marketing the industry already camouflages.

The tobacco industry would market the perspective that tobacco use is a behavior for adults only.  This emphasizes and includes the inference that only a mature choice would elect to use their product, and couches that in all manner of rhetoric about rights, etc. Never mind nicotine and addiction or that 90% are addicted before the age of consent.

Minors only signs are another fine example of camouflaged marketing. The courts have held that the FCLAA  allowed states to regulate advertising at tobacco retailers only to the extent with which it informed the population about laws regarding minor sales.  This led to the profusion of industry sponsored signage, We Card etc.  

There’s an awful lot to discuss here.  And for the sincere tobacco free advocate much to  anticipate given the new FDA legislation.