That being said, businesses, and more importantly, the people who own them, do have the same individual free speech rights as the rest of the population. If there is a compelling cause (I SAID IF) for the government to regulate or limit advertising, then it is incumbent on government to do so fairly and equitably. The purpose of advertising is to entice people to purchase the product advertised. If we are to ban tobacco advertising because it works, then we must likewise ban all other advertising for the same reason.

All of the contemporary advertising that I can recall makes prominent note that it is illegal for minors to purchase, possess, or consume tobacco (and alcohol). With the exception of civil disobedience, people have an obligation to obey the law – that includes minors.

Claiming that the advertising made the product seem so appealing that you were compelled to break the law would not be an allowable defense in any US courtroom. The day the courts deem that to be an acceptable defense, I’m going to go out and rob a bank because all of the advertising for Armani suits, Rolls Royce Limousines, Lear Jets, and Nevada Brothels made those products so appealing that I was compelled to break the law!

Lighting up the Cuban cigar in court, will just be plain old civil disobedience to protest the discriminatory segregation laws against smokers, and government policies regarding Cuba.

good point, i was thinking about that the other day. Although personally, i don’t want to drive past the huge billboards trying to sell me Miller’s Highlife, it should not be made illegal.