A federal appeals court recently rejected a bid by R.J. Reynolds to halt California ads critical of the tobacco industry. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that this advertising does not restrict freedom of speech for the tobacco industry.
R.J. Reynolds’ contention was rooted in the fact that the ads—which include a significant number of powerful TV spots—are funded by a 1988 voter-approved proposition that imposes a 25-cent-per-pack tax on cigarettes sold in California. R.J. Reynolds claimed that it’s unjust to use public money to create ads that attack and vilify tobacco companies, violating their First Amendment rights.
A judge dismissed the R.J. Reynolds’ lawsuit last year, saying the state may spend tax dollars in this manner. R.J. Reynolds appealed. In a two-to-one ruling on appeal, the lower court verdict was upheld.
A statement from the California attorney general’s office lauded the appellate court ruling as affirming "the legal principle that the government has wide latitude to use tax revenue to speak to the public about policies that have been approved by the voters."
As chronicled in multiple installments of this column over the years, the ads from the California Department of Health Services have scored on two key fronts—often they are creatively inspired, but more importantly there’s evidence that they are working.
In the ’80s, about 25 percent of adults in California smoked. Since the advent of these ads, that percentage has gone down to around 18 percent. Clearly, there are factors besides the ads that have helped to bring this about, but research has shown that the campaign over the years has contributed to altering public perceptions and thus habits. Cited as particularly effective have been ads demonstrating the deadly effects of secondhand smoke.
Furthermore, by casting light on the manipulative practices of tobacco companies, these ads over the years have sent a message that seems to have gotten the attention of California’s youth, ages 12 to 17. In one study from the state’s health department, smoking in this age group decreased from nearly 11 percent to a shade under seven percent. Public health officials regard this improvement as especially important in that many kids start smoking to look cool only to later realize that they are addicted and can’t shake a deadly, lifelong and potentially life-shortening habit.
The progress made in California is also taking place in other states. State health departments in different parts of the country have proven to generally be good clients, empowering ad agencies to bring their creative prowess to bear in order to positively influence youngsters who are being targeted by Big Tobacco. These efforts have also successfully reached adult smokers, helping many of them to at least curtail their tobacco use, and some to quit smoking altogether.
The creative wherewithal of the ads has been reflected in our "The Best Work You May Never See" gallery. Anti-tobacco ads from California, Florida, Massachusetts, Mississippi and Arizona have scored multiple times in our rundown of creatively worthwhile local/regional fare.
And this state success has led to greater reach throughout the country. It was their creative efforts on behalf of the Massachusetts and Florida health departments that earned Arnold Worldwide, Boston, and Crispin Porter+Bogusky, Miami, the American Legacy Foundation account, which has taken the anti-tobacco message nationwide.
The appeals court indeed got it right by protecting public service messages and related educational programs that are invaluable, intelligent pieces of communication—creative work that can help save lives.
