Government and Media Research Paper

Lucas Silberman
April 5, 2017
Government and Media
Tobacco Advertising in the United States
I. Abstract
This research paper examines tobacco/e-cigarette advertising regulation. The paper
centers around the argument of whether or not censoring tobacco content on advertisements
violates First Amendment rights. Specifically, the paper will focus on the law such as past cases
and recent legislation that restricts tobacco companies from promoting their product to the
public. This paper breaks down the history and questions surrounding the ban of tobacco
advertisements. In addition, this paper looks at tobacco advertising in terms of commercial
speech, specifically how past cases have handled whether the warnings on labels are considered
false advertising. Commercial speech is protected from unwarranted government regulation, but
there could still be limitations from what can be actually put in the advertisement. I will
investigate the fine line between infringing them on their commercial speech. This paper will
also give incite on different terminology in cigarettes, such as if “light” or “mild” cigarettes are
falsely advertised based on health effects. At the end of my research, I will analyze the media
effects tobacco advertising has taken on certain target audience such as adolescents and women.
II. Research Question/Thesis Statement
Do the FDA’s regulations violate the free speech rights of tobacco manufacturers under the
First Amendment?
III. Methodology

To discover primary sources regarding regulations on tobacco advertising, the researcher first
had to identify key organizations that are involved with tobacco regulation. Finding out which
organizations are relevant to the topic would help guide his research. First, he looked specifically
at health organizations such as the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug and
Administration, and governmental websites such as BeTobaccoFree.gov. On each individual
website, the researcher narrowed down his search by looking up key search terms such as,
“tobacco advertising”, “tobacco regulation”, and “tobacco laws.” From there, he narrowed his
research even further by looking up key dates between 2000-2015 and 1965-1999. While the
information was overbearing because of the parameters of dates, he used one of his secondary
sources to cross-examine which court cases were most relevant.
Based on these parameters, he discovered several tobacco Acts that have passed throughout
the past 50 years. Within certain Acts, they refer to multiple Supreme Court cases that have been
the reason for the implementation of the Acts. In addition, he narrowed down his research by
looking up keywords such as, “tobacco advertising”, “tobacco packaging”, “tobacco labelling”,
and “tobacco restrictions.” He particularly found that using the Cornell Law Database had the
best information regarding cases such as “Cippollone v. Liggett”, Altria v. Good”, and “United
States v. Philip Morris.” Finding key, relevant primary sources allowed the researcher to learn
how intertwined tobacco legislation has progressed from the 1960’s to the 2000’s.
Lastly, he used Google as the last medium for information, in order to, to find more relevant
information on his primary sources. These secondary sources provided more content to the
researcher, and was able to supplement relevant information from obsolete and useless content.
IV. Research

In 1604, King James IV knew right away the impacts of tobacco on human health. He claims
in his book “A Counterblaste to Tobacco”, tobacco use leads to “custome lothsome to the eye,
hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking
fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.”(1)
Tobacco has been a staple crop for much of America’s history, and the value of tobacco in
Europe and the Colonies made it an essential trade asset. The roles people took in the tobacco
industry shifted as well such as jobs in the labor force, American lifestyles, and political
uncertainty. Overtime, consumption of tobacco has changed as well. People have smoked
tobacco in pipes, cigarette form, and now smokeless tobacco products are becoming popular in
the 21st century. In 2010, the top six tobacco companies earned approximately $35.1 billion,
which out profited top mega companies such as Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and McDonalds
combined. (2) According to the World Lung Foundation, tobacco-related deaths “have nearly
tripled in the past decade, and tobacco is responsible for more than 15% of all male deaths and
7% of female deaths.” (3) In order to prohibit these rising fatalities, the U.S Government have
passed certain codes to regulate what tobacco companies can put in their advertisements,
packaging, and labeling. All of these fall under the U.S Code – Chapter 36. Under the U.S Code
– Chapter 36, it sets up the framework surrounding regulation on tobacco labeling and
advertisements. Within U.S code – Chapter 36, there are multiple sections that define cigarettes,
what Congressional policies are for labeling, and restrictions for unlawful advertisements on
different mediums. (4) One of the main points is that it is illegal for anyone in the U.S to sell or
manufacture cigarettes without having a warning that explains how smoking can cause lung
cancer, heart disease, emphysema, pregnancy complications (5). Another key point is that it is

illegal to advertise cigarettes and e-cigarettes on any electronic medium, unless it is approved by
the Federal Communications Commission (6).
In 1970, President Richard Nixon passed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, which
created a stronger label on tobacco product packaging (7). The Act aims to transparently deal
with “cigarette labeling and advertising with respect to any relationship between smoking and
health.” (8) In addition, the Act focuses on the comparison to the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act of 1965. Specifically, they changed the label from saying "Caution: Cigarette
Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health" to “Warning: The Surgeon General Has
Determined that Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health." (9) The warning label will be
in “a conspicuous place on every cigarette package and shall appear in legible type in contract by
typography, layout, or color with other printed material on the package.” (10) The required
change also came with a ban on tobacco advertising on television and radio mediums. Lastly, it
stripped States from regulating or prohibiting cigarette advertising or promotion for health-
related reasons (11). If tobacco companies refuse to enforce these specific labeling requirements,
then under State Law they can impose a ban on the tobacco product until it mandates there
required actions.
In addition, the Supreme Court case between Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp of 1983,
Youngs wanted to send direct mailings, such as pamphlets and information cards, in order to
advertise their contraceptives (12). However, the Federal Law prohibited them from sending
information about contraceptives because they feared the wrong audience, like children, would
be negatively affected from the information (13). Youngs sued the postal service because they
believed it was unconstitutional to infringe on their first amendment rights to free speech. The
U.S Supreme Court believed that these advertisements fell under commercial speech, which has

less protection than political speech (14). Youngs won the case, however, because all they
wanted to do was educate people on birth control. The case established a better way to determine
regulation on commercial speech. First, it cannot promote illegal acts, or be false or misleading
to the general public. (15) Second, you can regulate speech if there is substantial government
interest in protecting information from certain demographics. (16) In tobacco advertising
regulation, these rights don’t apply because tobacco companies purposefully left out health
consequences on the actual labeling and packaging
On November 4, 1986, the Federal Trade Commission issued its rules setting out the
provisions for the size, color, and typeface of tobacco warning labels. Within the Comprehensive
Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will
establish education programs to inform people about any dangers to their health from using
smokeless tobacco products (17). In addition, the Secretary will ask States for, “help in the
development of educational programs, assistance in the distribution of programs throughout the
state, and establish 18 as the minimum age for the purchase of smokeless tobacco products.” (18)
In order to increase awareness, the act also requires conversations between the Secretary of
Health and the Secretary of Education. From the help of the Secretary of Education, the
government can provide programs, educational classes, and public service announcements
explaining the dangers of smokeless tobacco (19). Under the Act, any smokeless tobacco must
have a clear warning on their label, such as “WARNING: THIS PRODUCT MAY CAUSE
MOUTH CANCER” or “WARNING: THIS PRODUCT IS NOTA SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO
CIGARETTES” (20). Lastly, after February 27, 1986 it’s “unlawful to advertise smokeless
tobacco on any medium of electronic communications subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal
Communications Commission” (21). Under the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health

Education Act, clear communication between smokeless tobacco and the States establishes a
foundational regulation on the information provided on health implications from using smokeless
tobacco products.
A relevant court case that focused on some of the previously explained regulations was the
Cipollone v. Liggett case of 1992. The focus was around the Defendant’s inability to properly
warn people about the dangers of smoking cigarettes. The Plaintiff accused the Defendant for
being the reason for his mother’s death, who was a long-term cigarette smoker for over forty
years (22). The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff chose to smoke its product, which means she
accepted all of the health consequences associated with the product. At the time, the current
warning label in place for cigarettes was “Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to
Your Health." (23) However, tobacco companies failed to show that smoking is linked to cancer
or other lung diseases. Thus, the court ordered the tobacco companies to release documents of
confidential information regarding the health hazards of smoking. The Supreme Court ruled that
“federally mandated warning do not bar smokers from suing manufacturers under state personal-
injury laws, and cannot be based on claims that cigarette advertising failed to warn smokers of
smoking dangers.” (24) However, they also ruled against the Defendant that “individuals may
press claims alleging that the tobacco companies made fraudulent or inaccurate statements in
their advertising or that the companies conspired to mislead people about the health hazards of
smoking.” (25) The Cipollone v. Liggett case became the preemption of state tort claims by the
Federal Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act (FCLAA). (26) The biggest impact of the
FCLAA was new requirements on warning labels such as SURGEONS GENERAL WARNING:
“Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy,
Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health, Smoking By Pregnant

Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight, and lastly
Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.” (27) This case was a turning point on how
cigarette manufacturers expose information to the public.
In a similar case in 2008 in Maine called Altria Group Inc. v. Good, the Plaintiff accused a
cigarette company of falsely “conveying the message that their “light” cigarettes deliver less tar
and nicotine to consumers than regular brands despite [the] petitioners’ knowledge that the
message was untrue.” (28) In essence, the Plaintiff claims that “Light cigarettes are in fact more
harmful because the increased ventilation that results from their unique design features produces
smoke that is more mutagenic per milligram of tar than the smoke of regular cigarettes.” (29)
The Supreme Court held the case and claims that the FLCCA did not “expressly pre-empt all
claims related to smoking and health under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act.” (30) In
conclusion, the Court adopted a test that “expressly pre-empts any state law claim that imposes
an obligation…because of the effect of smoking upon health." (31) In conclusion, they referred
to the Cipollone case in terms of the language cigarette manufacturers use in packaging tobacco
products.
On November 1998, Attorney Generals of the United State and the five largest tobacco
companies met to discuss the concerns associated with the advertising, marketing and production
of tobacco products. The result of the meeting was a new act called the Master Settlement
Agreement, which set standards for the sale and marketing of cigarettes by participating cigarette
companies (32). The Master Settlement Agreement was the largest litigation settlement in U.S
history. The reason for litigation was due to “the manufacturers, raising defenses such as
contributory negligence and the individual responsibility of smokers” which prevailed in most of
the lawsuits. (33) Under the Master Settlement Agreement, it prohibits tobacco companies from:

directly or indirectly targeting youth, and cartoons, transit advertising, most forms of outdoor
advertising, including billboards, product placement in media, branded merchandise, free product
samples (34). In addition, the Agreement also prohibits negative information about tobacco
products such as, “lobbying against particular kinds of tobacco control, agreements to suppress
health related research, and material misinterpretations about health consequences from using
tobacco.” (35) All of the States involved receive “annual payments in perpetuity to the Settling
States to compensate them for taxpayer money spent for health-care costs connected to tobacco-
related illness.” (36) This was in response to over 800 cigarette claims over the span of forty
years. Tobacco manufacturers are now responsible for millions of dollars in payments back to
the States who lost money.
In 1999, the United States Department of Justice sued major tobacco companies for
“fraudulent and unlawful conduct and reimbursement of tobacco-related medical expenses.” (37)
In the United States v. Phillip Morris case, the Plaintiff believed tobacco companies for over fifty
years have participated in a conspiracy to “(1) mislead the public about the risks of smoking, (2)
mislead the public about the danger of secondhand smoke; (3) misrepresent the addictiveness of
nicotine, (4) manipulate the nicotine delivery of cigarettes, (5) deceptively market cigarettes
characterized as “light” or “low tar,” while knowing that those cigarettes were at least as
hazardous as full flavored cigarettes, (6) target the youth market; and (7) not produce safer
cigarettes.” (38) Then, in August of 2006, Judge Kessler created a 1,683-page opinion holding
tobacco companies liable for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO). (39) Under RICO, tobacco companies cannot “cover up the health risks associated with
smoking and for marketing their products to children.” (40) In the opinion, there was “substantial
evidence” that concludes the Defendants engaged in a “50-year old scheme” to lie to the public

about tobacco product health consequences. (41) In addition, the Supreme Court unanimously
held Judge Kessler’s decision in 2009 when the tobacco companies filed to the U.S Court of
Appeals. (42) Lastly, the Court decided that the First Amendment “does not protect fraudulent
statements” and concluded that the tobacco companies “knew of their falsity at the time and
made the statements with the intent to deceive. Thus, [the Supreme Court] are not dealing with
accidental falsehoods, or sincere attempts to persuade.” (43) This court case sums up most of the
efforts the government has done in order to restrict falsely advertised tobacco products. Other
Acts after the Master Settlement Agreement was settled aim to prevent tobacco advertising
through education to the general public.
On June 16, 2003, The World Health Organization met to discuss tobacco control around the
world. The WHO Framework Control on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) set the framework on
how to reduce tobacco use. One method includes price and tax measure on tobacco, and another
measure looks at non-price ways to reduce the use of tobacco products. (44) Some non-price
methods include: protection from exposure, content in the tobacco product, packaging and
labeling of tobacco products, and cigarette promotion and sponsorship (45). The World Health
Organization requires all 168 countries to agree on a treaty to ban tobacco advertisements unless
the country’s constitution forbid it prior to the ban. (46) The main goal surrounding this ban is to
protect current and future generations from the health consequences from the exposure of
tobacco. Specifically, WHO wants the framework to be structured around the national, regional,
and international levels for each country (47). By forcing countries to end tobacco
advertisements, tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke will go down and the effects on the
environment and different cultures could create huge benefits for everyone. Within these
objectives, education to its target audiences are very important because early recognition will

detract people from tobacco products. Under the WHO FCTC, they implemented the MPOWER
package, which are policies that could prevent people from using tobacco products (48). The
MPOWER elements include: M- Monitor tobacco use, P – protect people from tobacco smoke, O
– offer help to quit tobacco use, W- warn about dangers of tobacco, E – enforce bans on tobacco
advertising, R – raise taxes on tobacco (49). Through WHO FCTC, specifically through
MPOWER packaging, regulations on tobacco were discussed by each country, and are now
monitored based on each country’s own regulation policies.
Under the Obama administration, they passed the Family Smoking and Prevention of
Tobacco Control Act of 2010, which gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to
regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products. Under the act, specific
regulations gave the FDA authority to take action on tobacco companies to protect public health.
The Act bans “sales to minors, vending machine sales except in adult facilities, the sale of
packages of fewer than 20 cigarettes, tobacco-brand sponsorships of sports and entertainment
events or other social or cultural events, and free giveaways of sample cigarettes and brand-name
non-tobacco promotional items.” (50) In addition, the Act effects smokeless tobacco product
warning labels. Specifically, it requires smokeless tobacco companies to include one of the
following warning labels, “WARNING: this product can cause mouth cancer, WARNING: this
product can cause gum disease and tooth loss, WARNING: this product is not a safe alternative
to cigarettes, or WARNING: smokeless tobacco is addictive.” (51) On the packaging, the
warning labels must cover at least 30% of each side (52). The Act aims to “increase awareness of
the health risks associated with smokeless tobacco use and improve the public health.” (53) Also,
it mandates that “modified risk” claims must be backed up by scientific evidence (54).
Companies that make claims such as “light, mild, or low” must fill out a “Modified Risk

Tobacco Product” application (55). Within the application, companies face challenging questions
like, what scientific studies and analyses should be submitted, and what information should be
collected through post market surveillance and studies. (56) The Act, however, also placed
limitations to the FDA where they cannot “require prescriptions on tobacco products, require
nicotine levels to yield zero, ban face-to-face sales in a particular category of retail outlets, or
ban certain classes of tobacco products.” (57) The Family Smoking and Prevention of Tobacco
Control Act provides stricter penalties against tobacco advertising, in order to reduce tobacco
use.
Lastly, through governmental permission, the BeTobaccoFree.gov website aims to provide
relevant information from the Department of Human Health and Services on tobacco health
effects. According to the website, “around 1,300 people a year die from cigarette use” (58). All
of the facts proposed are aimed to reduce disease, disability, and death related to tobacco use.
There are also laws enforced to make tobacco products less affordable, accessible, and attractive
(59). In order to do this, they enforced laws that don’t allow people to smoke in restaurants and
tax increases on tobacco products (60). They also call for public participation from non-smokers
such as weekly meetings, information sessions, and products to help people quit smoking (61).
All of the facts presented can be found on their website including fact sheets on tobacco, the
organization itself, and infographics (62). BeTobaccoFree.org provides easy and relevant access
to many approaches on how to reduce tobacco use for individuals.
V. Analysis
Tobacco marketers try to convey emotion around smoking cigarettes, instead of the facts
surrounding the impacts from smoking on people’s health. For example, brand mascots such as
Joe Camel provide a simplicity to smoking, and provides a safe figurehead to relate to their

audiences. Specifically, Jodie Bernstein, Director of the Commission’s Bureau of Consumer
Protection, believed that Joe Camel, who is seen as a fluffy, cute animated character, was as
“recognizable to kids as Mickey Mouse. Yet the campaign promotes a product that causes
serious injury, addiction and death. Joe Camel must grow up or go away.” (63) The Joe Camel
campaign quickly ended after ten years, and tobacco companies clearly designed its mascot to
“increase its shrinking market share among young smokers.” (64) Another example of how
tobacco advertisers marketed to kids was through “Willie” the Kool Penguin. Kool cigarettes
began selling a different brand of cigarettes called Menthol, which uses “the chemical compound
menthol to trigger cold-sensitive nerves in the skin; even though no actual drop in temperature
occurs, the menthol provides a “cooling” sensation to smokers.” (65) The penguin mascot only
made sense because they live in cold climates that would relate to Menthol smokers. Willie the
Penguin appeared on magazines, television, and billboards and went through different transitions
in appearance. Willie’s image made smoking cool and fresh, and the memorabilia made him a
collector’s item for everyone (66). In 2000, Kool cigarettes changed its brand image by changing
their slogan to “‘The House of Menthol’ in order to associate Kool cigarettes with house music
and young, ‘cool’ club culture.” (67) Clearly, the Food and Drug Administration took note of
these animated characters, and knew that the tobacco companies were marketing towards a
younger demographic. Kids cannot buy any sort of tobacco product unless they are 18 or older.
But, tobacco companies still tried to promote the benefits of smoking by creating cartoon
characters that adolescents under the age of 18 would recognize. Kids love cartoons, and some
have linked Willie the Penguin to The Penguin in the Batman comic books and movies (68).
Thus, they eliminated these mascots and put more restrictions on how tobacco companies can
market their product.

Evidently, smoking advertisements have primarily been targeting young demographics. A
study was done at the University of Indiana to see if tobacco advertisements increases non-
smoking non-adults’ susceptibility to smoke tobacco products. They surveyed over 3500 non-
smoking adolescents about smoking and the likelihood to want to try to tobacco products based
on the advertisements given (69). Based on the results, tobacco marketing might not necessarily
result in kids becoming active tobacco users (70). However, the study does show that adolescents
are more likely to become cigarette smokers based on advertisements, rather than peer pressure,
family exposure, or pressures from other variables (71). Adolescents face pressure for various
reasons: they’re stressed about school, family, friends, romances, and much more. Children
shouldn’t have to resort to tobacco as an outlet for their problems, and it is in the government’s
best interest to restrict tobacco companies from targeting the youth as much as possible.
Before the regulation on tobacco advertisements became a serious topic, cigarette advertisements
were focused on appealing to people who want to feel independent, sexy, and sophisticated.
Cigarette ads appeared in traditional women’s magazines such as Glamour, Cosmopolitan,
People, and Vogue (72). Cigarette companies saw value in the woman demographic, but failed to
transparently describe the health benefits of smoking tobacco products. They gave off the
impression that smokers are “Alive with pleasure” and smoking is good for you based on the
social influences of the product (73). The Virginia Slims “You’ve Come a Long Way” in the
1960s reveals how tobacco advertisements were clearly marketed at women. The main slogan for
the advertisement was “It’s different now. Now there’s a slim cigarette for women now.” (74)
The advertisement played off the “New Woman” idea that was sweeping the United States. The
clever, but illegal, advertisement convinced, “thousands of teenage girls to take up smoking as a
sexy, free-wheeling and even revolutionary act.” (75) Clearly, women were misinformed by the

tobacco companies of the health benefits of smoking cigarettes. In addition to appealing to
women, advertisers found success in putting billboards in African-American communities, rather
than white communities. The advertisements are appealing because they depict men who look
masculine, hip, mature, strong, and confident (76). They also depicted women who look sexy,
beautiful, relaxed, secure, and independent (77). All of these traits became essential influence to
its target markets. Quickly they were banned by WHO because of its health impacts. Smoking
has serious health consequences, but tobacco companies still promoted a healthy lifestyle from
using the product. The lies needed to be regulated
Lastly, tobacco companies have recently attempted to shift the mindset of smoking cigarettes
by creating different strengths for their products. They wanted to reassure customers that they’re
actively trying to make cigarettes safer. In order to make cigarettes less strong, they reduced the
yield of tar by using different parts of the tobacco plant and integrated filters for its cigarettes.
Mild and light cigarettes make smoking more attractive, while also reducing the health factors
that come with smoking. However, researchers from MIT found that people who smoked low-tar
cigarettes were just as likely to get lung cancer as those who smoked regular tar and medium tar
cigarettes (78). For tobacco advertisers, they don’t market “lows” and “milds” as healthier, but
the perception around these phrases means they are safer (79). Through past cases, it is clear that
the health benefits of “milds” and “lows” are slim to none, which proves tobacco companies
continued to try to alter people’s perception, without being clear about the health benefits.
Through all of my research, it is obvious that the Food and Drug Administration must
continue to monitor and regulate tobacco companies. The inability to properly explain the health
consequences of the product show that they use other marketing tactics to manipulate the minds
of the youth and women. These regulations do not violate the tobacco companies First

Amendment rights because there are past court cases that reveal the wrongdoings of these
companies. While tobacco continues to be a popular item for adults, the government must still
keep an eye out on alternative methods for tobacco advertisers to reach markets that they have no
right to target.
Endnotes
1. James I, King of England. A Counterblaste to Tobacco. Imprinted at London: By R.
B[arker], 1604
2. "New Tobacco Atlas Estimates U.S. $35 Billion Tobacco Industry Profits and Almost 6
Million Annual Deaths." World Lung Foundation. Accessed April 11, 2017.
http://www.worldlungfoundation.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/20439/pid/6858.
3. Ibid.
4. "15 U.S. Code Chapter 36 - CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADVERTISING." LII /
Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-36>. Keywords: Tobacco
Advertising
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. “Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969.” Public Law: 91-222. 91st Congress
(April 1970). http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/222.pdf.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.

12. Bolger v. Youngs Drugs Production Corp., 1983 U.S (24 June 1983)
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. “15 U.S. Code Chapter 70: Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education
(1986).” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/4401.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Thomas Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 1992 U.S (24 June 1992).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1038.ZO.html.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Altria Group Inc. v. Good, 2008 U.S (15 December 2008).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-562.ZO.html
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.

32. "The Master Settlement Agreement: An Overview." Tobacco Control Legal Consortium .
Accessed April 13, 2017.
http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-fs-msa-overview-
2015.pdf.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. United States v. Phillip Morris USA, 1999 (1 November 2016).
http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/doj-final-opinion.pdf
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. "WHO FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONTROL." World Health
Organization. 2003. Accessed April 13, 2017.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42811/1/9241591013.pdf.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.

48. "MPower: Six policies to reverse the tobacco epidemic." World Health Organization.
http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/mpower_report_six_policies_2008.pdf.
49. ibid.
50. "Tobacco Control Act ." U.S Food and Drug Administration. July 22, 2009. Accessed
April 13, 2017.
https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/ucm246129.
htm.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid.
56. "Issue Snapshot: Modi ed Risk Tobacco Products (MRTPs)." Food and Drug
Administration. July 2015. Accessed April 13, 2017.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/TobaccoProductReviewEval
uation/UCM455814.pdf.
57. Ibid.
58. "Federal Laws and Policies." BeTobaccoFree.gov. Accessed April 13, 2017.
https://betobaccofree.hhs.gov/laws/.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid.

62. Ibid.
63. Broder, John. "F.T.C. Charges Joe Camel Ad Illegally Takes Aim at Minors." The New
York Times. Accessed May 29, 1997. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/29/us/ftc-
charges-joe-camel-ad-illegally-takes-aim-at-minors.html.
64. Ibid.
65. Beebe, Reed. "WILLIE THE KOOLPENGUIN: THE CIGARETTE MASCOT THAT
MAY (OR MAY NOT) HAVE INSPIRED THE CREATION OF A BATMAN
VILLAIN." Nothing But Comics. July 8, 2014.
https://nothingbutcomics.net/2014/07/08/willie-the-kool-penguin-the-cigarette-mascot-
that-may-or-may-not-have-inspired-the-creation-of-a-batman-villain/.
66. Ibid.
67. Gray, Phineas. "Willie the Penguin: The Story Behind the Iconic Mascot of Kool
Cigarettes." Elistingz. Accessed April 13, 2017.
http://elistingz.com/listing/willie_the_penguin_the_story_behind_the_iconic_mascot_of_
kool_cigarettes.
69. Evans, N. "Influence of tobacco marketing and exposure to smokers on adolescent
susceptibility to smoking." PubMed.gov. Accessed March 6, 2017.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7563188.

70. Ibid.
71. Ibid.
72. "Analyzing Assorted Tobacco Advertisements." Health Literacy. Accessed March 6,
2017. http://healthliteracy.worlded.org/docs/tobacco/Unit2/3analyzing_ads.html.
73. Ibid.
74. Horrigan, Brian. "THE 1968 EXHIBIT: "You've Come a Long Way" campaign launched,
July 22, 1968." The 1986 Exhibit. July 2011. http://the1968exhibit.org/covering-
1968/2011-07/youve-come-long-way-campaign-launched-july-22-1968.
75. Ibid.
76. "Analyzing Assorted Tobacco Advertisements." Health Literacy. Accessed March 6,
77. Ibid.
78. "Light but just as deadly." ABC Health & Wellbeing. October 21, 2004. Accessed March
6, 2017. http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/stories/2004/10/21/1224919.htm.
79. Ibid.
Bibliography
1. "About WHO." World Health Organization. Accessed April 13, 2017.
http://www.who.int/about/en/.
2. * Altria Group Inc. v. Good, 2008 U.S (15 December 2008).
3. "Analyzing Assorted Tobacco Advertisements." Health Literacy . Accessed March 6,

5. * Bolger v. Youngs Drugs Production Corp., 1983 U.S (24 June 1983).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/463/60.
6. Broder, John. "F.T.C. Charges Joe Camel Ad Illegally Takes Aim at Minors." The New
York Times. Accessed May 29, 1997. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/29/us/ftc-
charges-joe-camel-ad-illegally-takes-aim-at-minors.html.
7. "Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc." Oyez.com. Accessed April 13, 2017.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-1038.
8. "Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986." KillTheCan.org.
N.p., 05 Oct. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
9. Evans, N. "Influence of tobacco marketing and exposure to smokers on adolescent
susceptibility to smoking." PubMed.gov. Accessed March 6, 2017.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7563188.
10. * "Federal Laws and Policies." BeTobaccoFree.gov. Accessed April 13, 2017.
https://betobaccofree.hhs.gov/laws/.
11. * "Federal Regulation of Tobacco." Tobacco Control Legal Consortium . August 2007.
http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-fda-summary.pdf.

12. Gray, Phineas. "Willie the Penguin: The Story Behind the Iconic Mascot of Kool
Cigarettes." Elistingz. Accessed April 13, 2017.
http://elistingz.com/listing/willie_the_penguin_the_story_behind_the_iconic_mascot_of_
kool_cigarettes.
13. Horrigan, Brian. "THE 1968 EXHIBIT: "You've Come a Long Way" campaign launched,
July 22, 1968." The 1986 Exhibit. July 2011. http://the1968exhibit.org/covering-
1968/2011-07/youve-come-long-way-campaign-launched-july-22-1968.
14. "Issue Snapshot: Modi ed Risk Tobacco Products (MRTPs)." Food and Drug
Administration . July 2015. Accessed April 13, 2017.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/TobaccoProductReviewEval
uation/UCM455814.pdf.
15. James I, King of England. A Counterblaste to Tobacco. Imprinted at London: By R.
B[arker], 1604
16. * Leghorn, Joseph, and Vivian Quinn. "Altria Group, Inc. v. Good: Supreme Court
rejects pre-emption in “light” cigarette consumer fraud class action." Nixon Peabody
LLP. Accessed April 13, 2017.
https://www.nixonpeabody.com/en/ideas/articles/2008/12/22/altria-group-inc-v-good-
supreme-court-rejects-pre-emption-in-light-cigarette-consumer-f.
17. "Light but just as deadly." ABC Health & Wellbeing. October 21, 2004. Accessed March
6, 2017. http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/stories/2004/10/21/1224919.htm.
18. * "Master Settlement Agreement." Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School
of Law. Accessed April 13, 2017. http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-
control/tobacco-control-litigation/master-settlement-agreement.

19. * "MPower: Six policies to reverse the tobacco epidemic." World Health Organization.
http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/mpower_report_six_policies_2008.pdf.
20. * "New Tobacco Atlas Estimates U.S. $35 Billion Tobacco Industry Profits and Almost 6
Million Annual Deaths." World Lung Foundation. Accessed April 11, 2017.
http://www.worldlungfoundation.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/20439/pid/6858.
21. * “Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969.” Public Law: 91-222. 91st Congress
(April 1970). http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/222.pdf.
22. * "The Master Settlement Agreement: An Overview." Tobacco Control Legal
Consortium. Accessed April 13, 2017.
http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-fs-msa-overview-
2015.pdf.
23. * Thomas Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 1992 U.S (24 June 1992).
24. * "Tobacco Control Act." U.S Food and Drug Administration. July 22, 2009. Accessed
April 13, 2017.
https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/ucm246129.
htm.
25. "United States v. Philip Morris USA." Tobacco Control Laws . Accessed April 13, 2017.
https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/us-20121127-u.s.-v.-philip-
morris-usa.
26. * United States v. Phillip Morris USA, 1999 (1 November 2016).
http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/doj-final-opinion.pdf

27. * "WHO FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONTROL." World Health
Organization. 2003. Accessed April 13, 2017.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42811/1/9241591013.pdf.
28. * "15 U.S. Code Chapter 36 - CIGARETTE LABELING AND ADVERTISING." LII /
Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-36>. Keywords: Tobacco
Advertising
29. * “15 U.S. Code Chapter 70: Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education
(1986).” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/4401.

Government and Media Research Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Government and Media Research Paper

Similar to Government and Media Research Paper (6)

More from Lucas Silberman

More from Lucas Silberman (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Government and Media Research Paper