You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 275 No. 16, April 24, 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Health Law and Ethics
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Banning Tobacco Billboards

The Case for Municipal Action

Donald W. Garner, JD

JAMA. 1996;275(16):1263-1269.


Abstract

In 1994, Baltimore, Md, became the first city to generally prohibit billboards from displaying alcohol and tobacco advertisements. The owner of most of Baltimore's billboards, Penn Advertising, sued, but the federal district court rejected the billboard company's complaint and ruled that the First Amendment had not been violated and that the federal cigarette labeling acts had not preempted the ability of Baltimore to regulate and prohibit billboard cigarette advertising. In the fall of 1995, the federal district court's judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. This article analyzes the constitutional and preemption issues and concludes that states and municipalities are on firm legal ground when they restrict the location or placement of publicly visible cigarette advertisements without attempting to regulate the advertisement's content or message. States and municipalities command broad authority to protect children and to shield the public from intrusive forms of advertisement that inflict their messages on a captive audience. A billboard ban thus offers local communities a legal avenue to help curb the rising tide of juvenile smoking without raising taxes, creating bureaucracy, or angering smokers.

(JAMA. 1996;275:1263-1269)



Author Affiliations

From the Southern Illinois University School of Law, Carbondale.


Footnotes

Reprints: Donald W. Garner, JD, Southern Illinois University School of Law, Carbondale, IL 62901-6804.

Health Law and Ethics section editors: Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, the Georgetown/ Johns Hopkins University Program on Law and Public Health, Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Md; Helene M. Cole, MD, Contributing Editor, JAMA.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Smoke signs: patterns of tobacco billboard advertising in a metropolitan region
Luke et al.
Tobacco Control 2000;9:16-23.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Ledger of Tobacco Control: Is the Cup Half Empty or Half Full?
Davis
JAMA 1996;275:1281-1284.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1996 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.