“Officials Focus on E-Cigarette
Ads Aimed at Youths,” says the headline over a
New York Times story about a gathering of state
attorneys general in Park City, Utah. Which ads are those, and how
old are these “youths”? The article never really answers either
question, and you can tell from the lead that reporter Eric Lipton
prefers to keep things vague:
State attorneys general must investigate, and consider taking
legal action against, e-cigarette companies that appear to be using
some of the same advertising tactics that once drew young adults
into smoking, a Kentucky deputy attorney general told his law
enforcement colleagues gathered here for a retreat to discuss
emerging legal issues in states nationwide.
Since when is selling e-cigarettes (or conventional cigarettes)
to adults, let alone telling them about the product, grounds for
“legal action”? Lipton implies that states have the authority to
censor or punish speech that offends them.
They don’t, even when the rationale is shielding minors from
messages about adult products. They certainly do not have that
power when the avowed goal is protecting adults from information
that might lead them to buy products that certain state officials
do not like.
Lipton reports that “one question debated at the gathering this
week has been whether state attorneys general should try to force
e-cigarette companies to comply with the same standards imposed on
tobacco companies.” Those standards, which include a ban on outdoor
advertising, are part of the 1998 “master
settlement agreement” that resolved state-sponsored litigation
against the leading cigarette manufacturers. Since e-cigarette
companies not only were not part of that litigation but did not
exist when the lawsuits were settled, how can they possibly be
compelled to follow the terms of that agreement?
Later in the article Lipton does mention “children,” by which he
presumably means people younger than 18, which most states and the
Food and Drug Administration have set as the minimum purchase age
for e-cigarettes. What is the evidence that e-cigarette ads are
“aimed at” children, as the headline asserts? Lipton mentions
“e-cigarettes with flavors like Cherry
Crush and Peach Schnapps, which are sold by the
e-cigarette company Blu and may be particularly appealing to
children.” They also may be particularly appealing to adults. In
fact,
they are.
What else is there to the case that e-cigarette companies are
luring children into nicotine habits? Not much:
[Sean Riley, Kentucky’s chief deputy attorney general,] and
Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free
Kids, both ran through a series of recent e-cigarette
advertisements that echo techniques once used by tobacco companies,
like cartoon characters that are using e-cigarettes, or
advertisements that feature celebrities like Courtney
Love and Robert Pattinson.The e-cigarette industry has also started advertising
at sporting events where tobacco ads are banned. The
problems are particularly acute, the officials said, with less
traditional forms of advertising, like on YouTube and other social
media sites.
You may be thinking that you have not noticed a whole lot of ads
with cartoon characters using e-cigarettes. So what is Myers
talking about? He is talking about “Bob,” a short-lived
comic-book-style character featured on Blu’s website (which, for
what it’s worth, is officially restricted to “adults 18 years or
older”). To Myers, Bob
looks a lot like Joe Camel. Personally, I don’t see it. In any
event, Blu killed off Bob, anticipating precisely this sort of
inane complaint, based on the demonstrably false premise that
cartoons (like fruit flavors!) appeal only to children.
Similarly, Robert
Pattinson, who became a celebrity by playing a dreamy vampire
in the Twilight movies, may indeed have a special place in
the hearts of tween girls, but presumably his appeal is wider than
that. And Courtney Love? Are you kidding me? Does anyone under 18
even know who she is? Myers likewise
argues that Steven Dorff and
Jenny
McCarthy, whom you may or may not remember from their heydays
two decades ago, are particularly appealing to young people these
days. He also maintains that advertising featuring “rugged men” or
sexy women is clearly intended for kids.
Myers is on firmer ground in suggesting that teenagers have been
known to attend sporting events and use social media. But you know
who else likes those things? Adults.
Critics such as Myers and Riley are implicitly arguing that
e-cigarette ads should be limited to techniques that repel
teenagers and, just to be extra safe, should never appear in
settings where they might be seen by anyone younger than 18.
Whether or not that position strikes you as reasonable, any attempt
to enforce it by law would be clearly unconstitutional, so all this
talk about “taking legal action” and imposing “standards” is
nothing more than busybody bluster.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1ocv90j
via IFTTT