Shu Cho - Comment

The reissuance of the 1996 final rule restricting the sale, distribution, and use of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco will only limit advertising near schools, instead of the original issue stating advertisement should not be placed near schools and playgrounds. Considering that cigarette companies spend billions on advertisement, it should be evident that marketing is an investment due to their success rate in attracting new consumers. The new generation of users, are mostly adolescents under the age of 18. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act has fought against the advertisment placements since the nineties and the results are not as successful due to the increase of younger users and it states in Division A-Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act HR 1256-3 section 23 states that "Children are more influenced by tobacco marketing than adults: more than 80 percent of youth smoke three heavily marketed brands, while only 54 percent of adults smoke these same brands." What is considered a child in this document is anyone under 26 years of age. Consumers under the age of 26 are the most heavily targeted population by marketers since they are more susceptible to buying products that symbolize an attractive status, power, or give an impression that the substance will meet their psychological needs. However, there has yet to be scientific evidence of the correlation between advertising and consumer behavior. The US Supreme court terminated the case by Massachusetts against Lorillard for the banning of cigarette marketing within 1000 feet of any school or playground due to concrete ways to achieve the protection of children and adolescents from tobacco. Although the correlation between advertisements and consumer behavior is not tangible to prevent solid restrictions on cigarette companies to not place ads near schools and playgrounds, the revision to limit restrictions only to schools and not playgrounds would be irresponsible as taxpayers.