Next week marks the 40th anniversary of the end of televised cigarette commercials. The Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1970 and first enforced on January 2, 1971, required stronger health warnings on cigarette packages and also banned cigarette ads on radio and television. Since then, cities and states have passed laws against smoking in public, the government has stopped handing out packs to military personnel and ads have been modified to lessen their appeal to minors (bye-bye, Joe Camel!). Fewer Americans are smoking than ever – less than 25 percent of those 18 and older, down from more than 40 percent in the mid-1960’s. Can the decrease in smoking over the past four decades be attributed to the ban on advertising? And if so, should the same be done for other products thought to be unhealthy: junk food, soda pop, alcohol? Parents’ groups, concerned about ads aimed at children, have lobbied to retire Ronald McDonald and eliminate toys in Happy Meals – yet those same parents advocate using Disney and Muppet characters to sell fruits, vegetables and other healthy snacks. How does advertising affect our lifestyle choices? Should the government be allowed to regulate the ads we see? And with the viral power of the net to market every new poison, what’s the point of banning television ads?
Guest:
Andrew Rohm, Associate Professor in the Marketing Group at Northeastern University
Greg Beato, Columnist for Reason.com