(This resource corresponds to Module 2.)

An Illustration: Officials Pass Ordinances Restricting Outdoor Tobacco and Alcohol Advertising¹

A stroll through almost any inner-city neighborhood demonstrates what researchers know to be true: Alcohol and tobacco billboards saturate many communities, particularly urban and less affluent communities that lack the zoning regulations or neighborhood mobilization to keep such billboards out. On one of these walks, it would be hard to miss the images of attractive people, often people of color, portrayed as sexy, wealthy, and happy. You might also notice amusing, friendly characters, such as the Budweiser Frogs or, until recently, Joe Camel.

It is impossible to shield children from these images. Unlike television or radio, billboards cannot be turned off. And, unlike print ads, they cannot be restricted to adult-targeted magazines. In fact, many activists charge that alcohol and tobacco billboards deliberately target children by using cartoon characters and talking animals. One study in an urban Latino community found that children passed as many as 60 alcohol advertisements on their way to school every day.²

Baltimore, one of the first communities to implement local ordinances against outdoor advertising of alcohol and tobacco, became the target of a lawsuit by Anheuser-Busch, the world’s largest brewer. A company spokesperson warned that the brewer would "vigorously defend our right to advertise to adult consumers throughout the nation and in all media." Anheuser-Busch’s lawyers argued that alcohol is a legal product, and therefore its advertising should not be treated differently from any other form of advertising. The court disagreed, basing its decision on a precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980, allowing regulations to restrict commercial speech under certain conditions. The ruling in Anheuser-Busch v. Schmoke found that the ordinance was legal for several reasons, including the following:

• Baltimore’s goal of protecting the welfare and temperance of children was in the government’s interest.
  
  
• The ban was limited to areas in the city where children were likely to be present.
  
  
• The regulations did not limit the company’s ability to advertise in other venues.
  
  
• Billboards are an appropriate target for regulation because of their intrusiveness in a community.
  
  
• Children deserve special protections from aggressive marketing practices.

Anheuser-Busch appealed the decision in Anheuser-Busch v. Schmoke, but the decision was upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The brewer then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. It is likely that the Supreme Court will eventually hear a case on the rights of commercial speech with respect to products that are illegal for children. For now, however, two lower courts have stood in favor of Baltimore, and other cities are following its lead.

References

1. Abramson, H. (1997). Showdown on Main Street. The Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems Newsletter, 12; Abramson, H. (1997). Can they ban these boards? The Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems Newsletter, 12; and Mosher, J. and Jernigan, D. (1998). Overcoming the barriers: Implementing environmental approaches to prevent alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drug problems (draft, unpublished paper). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.



2. Gregory, D. (1997). Triumph over billboards. San Rafael, CA: Marin Institute.