You'll note that, while 'there are many restrictions,' there is no outright federal ban on tobacco advertising--were it possible, why not do it?
I also wonder if there's more to tobacco advertising then meets the eye: unlike alcohol manufacturers, Big Tobacco doesn't seem interested in challenging current restrictions to selling their product. And if they aren't interested, that says more about Big Tobacco than the First Amendment. But it's hard for me to say as I'm no expert on the tobacco industry.
> You'll note that, while 'there are many restrictions,' there is no outright federal ban on tobacco advertising--were it possible, why not do it?
Not super familiar with specifics around the restrictions because I can't remember the last time I saw a ad for tobacco; meanwhile I have seen 10+ alcohol ads today. I would say the restrictions effectively ban tobacco advertising
I agree with your point; from skimming Wikipedia [1] I would argue that restrictions were gradually imposed through acts of Congress and I would imagine largely uncontested by Big Tobacco because they lacked leverage due to the series of scandals involving them. I think you are right that the major alcohol brands would fight back largely because they don't have their hands behinds their back
I also wonder if there's more to tobacco advertising then meets the eye: unlike alcohol manufacturers, Big Tobacco doesn't seem interested in challenging current restrictions to selling their product. And if they aren't interested, that says more about Big Tobacco than the First Amendment. But it's hard for me to say as I'm no expert on the tobacco industry.