Table of Contents
In 1997, the City Council of Chicago passed an ordinance to restrict the advertising of cigarettes and alcohol (Martin & Washburn, 1997). The intention was to curb the use and risks associated with the use of the two substances. This was particularly targeted towards minority communities, where advertising is higher. It appears from the language summarizing the policy that the City Council was attempting to limit exposing young people to these products.
This policy is apparently rooted in good intention, but the exceptions included in the policy make it less effective and jeopardize the intent of the policy. The way in which the policy only somewhat restricts billboard advertisements for legal, high-risk substances sets precedence in policy that is both deceiving in its meaning and best, partial in its effectiveness.
Statute
The Council passed the ordinance in 1997, claiming to ban the advertisement of cigarettes and alcohol in all publicly visible spaces; it was passed with only one Council Member objecting (Martin & Washburn 1997). However, certain exceptions were made that widened the advertising loopholes through which advertisements could still appear.
127 our experts are availableright now
For example, the statute banned cigarette and liquor ads on billboards and walls of buildings except in non-residential areas such as along expressways, in manufacturing districts, on Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) vehicles, and in certain public venues including major sports venues such as Comiskey Park and Soldier Field (Martin & Washburn, 1997).
Apparently, sound policy language includes making large exceptions for heavily visited venues such as sports stadiums. At the same time, the ordinance includes language that implicitly permits the exact advertising that the policy purportedly offsets attempts to limit the exposure to these advertisements by permitting signage adjacent to highways and on CTA vehicles.
Facts
When the City Council made this policy, it allowed for certain carveouts. The carveouts delegitimize the policy by allowing for the politicking of public space by the advertisers in question. First, any business that holds a license to sell alcohol and cigarettes can continue to advertise using signs in their establishments. Vehicles that transport these items can also advertise. Special events, locations adjacent to highways, commercial and manufacturing terminals, and certain sports venues owned by the City and State are also able to continue advertising cigarettes and alcohol, despite the downstream impact that these places permit, i.e. the exact impacts the ordinance is intended to curb.
One exception in the ordinance that appears to have a direct contradiction to what the policy is trying to accomplish is allowing advertising on any sign on a CTA vehicle. This piece should not be exempted from scrutiny. Of all the carve-outs, this one brings the advertising directly into the Chicago neighborhoods where many youth and minority populations live (Anderson, 2016). If the point of this policy is to limit the exposure of cigarettes and alcohol to at-risk youth and communities, then advertising on CTA vehicles should not be a place to advertise. Many students and minorities take public transportation to and from school and work: Americans who are lower-income, Black or Hispanic, immigrants, or under 50 are especially likely to use public transportation on a regular basis (Anderson, 2016). Youth pass by busses as they walk along the streets in their neighborhood.
When considering other, related health concerns, the government does not restrict the advertising of products that lead to a medical or public health issue. For example, obesity is an epidemic that minority communities and youth also struggle with, but advertisements for unhealthy food and beverages that contribute to that epidemic are not being regulated. Legal restrictions are already in place around who can purchase alcohol and cigarettes and what warnings must be given. If the government’s responsibility is to inform its citizens of the risks, then the carveouts in this policy undercut that information and compromise the moral high ground that public leaders may otherwise hold around controlled substances. While citizens do have the right to decide how they want to respond to advertisements, the tools for constructing a well-informed decision are in the purview of civic leaders.
Analysis
In a stricter iteration, this policy could verge on the infringement of free speech insofar as it would dictate the allowability of language and images in public spaces; however, it would do so in the demonstrated interest of protecting the most vulnerable populations including youth and minorities. More alcohol and cigarette billboards appear in underserved communities than in those that may be better socioeconomically equipped to resist or recover from substance use disorders (Martin & Washburn, 1997). One can argue that other harmful substances that are not as heavily regulated should also have restrictions on advertising: e.g., businesses that use ultraviolet rays to create a false tan are known to cause skin cancer, and under this policy logic, those also should not be advertised.
Eating low-nutrition food and drinking soda or sugary beverages has been linked to the obesity epidemic (Gendall, 2006). If any person can walk into a store and purchase an unlimited amount of these items with no restrictions, somewhat complicating the issue of restricted advertising overall: under a similar policy to the 1997 ordinance, these items should also be restricted in how they can advertise (Gendall, 2006), posing a unique challenge to the public health interests of the City Council and other civic decision-making bodies.
A study in the BMC Public Health Journal by Smith & Foxcroft on the effects of advertising alcohol concluded the following:
Does this systematic review provide evidence that limiting alcohol advertising will have an impact on alcohol consumption amongst young people? Not directly: as we noted earlier we cannot rule out that the effects demonstrated in these studies is due to residual confounding. Counter-advertising, social marketing techniques or other prevention options such as parenting programmes, price increases and limiting availability may offer more potential to limit alcohol problems in young people (Smith & Foxcroft, 2008 discussion and conclusion).
Furthermore, another study on the economic effects of alcohol and cigarettes by Saffer, in the Journal of Drug Issues, found:
The research suggests that advertising bans lead to media substitution, so that a total ban on all forms of cigarette promotion is needed if bans are to be successful. In the case of alcohol, a total advertising ban would probably be difficult to legislate. The research suggests that the marginal impact of additional counteradvertising is larger than the impact of additional advertising, but more counteradvertising would probably result in more advertising by the industry. (Saffer, 1998, p791).
Both studies found that restricting certain advertisements on both cigarettes and alcohol is not as effective as banning advertising completely, which action would not be legal under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Actively preventative programs can have a stronger impact on limiting the use of both substances than the restriction of advertising. Counter-advertising could also be a successful means to messaging the risks associated with smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. Advertising does bring in revenue to the city and that revenue could be used to fund programs that benefit youth or minority communities focusing on healthy living initiatives, posing another challenge to the purpose and philosophy driving a given policy’s design.
Conclusion
Restricting alcohol and cigarette advertising while allowing caveats on public transportation and sports arenas is not a good policy. If the goal is to limit exposure to the substances for youth, then a better policy would be to restrict the use of advertisements near locations like schools, recreation centers, and religious venues. Also, counter advertising the reasons not to smoke or binge drink could be successful in curbing the appeal of smoking or drinking. Other substances that can cause health issue like obesity, particularly with youth and in underserved communities, are not being regulated in the same manner. Legal restrictions are already in place around who can purchase alcohol and cigarettes and what warnings must be given. If advertising is not flat out false, citizens have the right to decide how they want to respond to it.
Cigarettes and alcohol follow regulations in advertising that aim to limit people from beginning to smoke or drink excessively. The City of Chicago tried to restrict where advertising could be placed. The policy seemed to aim to lessen the harmful effects of excessive drinking, but it missed the intended goal by allowing for a large range of carveouts.
This policy verges on the infringement of free speech, but it does so in the interest of protecting the most vulnerable populations, including youth and minorities. More alcohol and cigarette billboards are in underserved communities.
Cigarettes and alcohol will continue to be advertised both explicitly and implicitly on television and movies in magazines and on the internet. Instead of focusing on restricting advertisements, more focus should be put on counter advertising and preventative programs.
References
- Anderson, M. (2016, April 7) Who Relies on Public Transportation. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/07/who-relies-on-public-transit-in-the-u-s/.
- Gendall, P. (2006). Advertising and obesity: A behavioral perspective. Journal of Health Communication, 11(4), 409-423.
- Martin, A., & Washburn, G. (1997, October 31). Advertising Group Fights Billboard Ban. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com
- Saffer, H. (1998). Economic issues in cigarette and alcohol advertising. Journal of Drug Issues, 28(3), 781-793. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.depaul.edu/10.1177/002204269802800312
- Smith, L. A., & Foxcroft, D. R. (2009). The effect of alcohol advertising, marketing and portrayal on drinking behaviour in young people: systematic review of prospective cohort studies. BMC public health, 9, 51. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-51
