Court Upholds Ban on
Cigarette Ads

By Richard Carelli
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court, in an apparent
victory for President Clinton's proposed crackdown on
tobacco advertising, today left intact Baltimore's bans on
billboard ads for cigarettes and alcoholic beverages.

The justices, without comment, turned away arguments that
the city's twin bans on such ads violate freespeech rights.

A federal judge in North Carolina left that constitutional
question unanswered last week when he ruled that existing
federal law doesn't allow the Food and Drug Administration to
restrict cigarette advertising and promotion.

But the judge also handed tobacco companies a big setback in
ruling that the FDA can regulate tobacco as a drug.

President Clinton said that part of the judge's ruling on
advertising and promoting would be appealed.

The president has proposed forbidding cigarette brand
advertising at sports events, on Tshirts and billboards within
1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds, and in magazines likely
to be read by teenagers.

Opponents of the proposal contend it runs afoul of a
constitutionality test created by a 1980 Supreme Court ruling.
In it, the court said commercial speech that is truthful and not
misleading may be limited only if government has a substantial
interest, the limitation directly advances that interest and is no
more extensive than necessary.

The Baltimore dispute dates back to a pair of 1994
ordinances that forced the removal of cigarette and alcoholic
beverage ads from most city billboards.

The ordinances were aimed at reducing illegal underage
drinking and smoking.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the bans last
year, but was ordered by the Supreme Court to restudy its
rulings in light of the justices' decision last May giving
advertisers significantly greater protection from government
regulation.

The trend of rulings by the nation's highest court in recent
years is to give commercial speech enhanced protections from
government regulation.

But after reconsidering each of Baltimore's bans, the 4th
Circuit court again upheld both in August.

The appeals court said the bans withstood the scrutiny
required under the Supreme Court's 1980 ruling, and that the
May ruling did not apply to the billboard dispute.

The lower court added that measures to protect children
deserve ``special solicitude'' by courts.

``Baltimore's interest is to protect children who are not yet
independently able to assess the value of the message
presented,'' the appeals court said. ``This decision thus
conforms to the Supreme Court's repeated recognition that
children deserve special solicitude in the First Amendment
balance.''

The amendment guarantees freedom of speech.

The alcoholicbeverage ad ban was challenged by
AnheuserBusch, brewer of such popular beers as Budweiser
and Michelob, and Penn Advertising of Baltimore, a
billboardleasing company.

Penn Advertising challenged the city's cigarette ad ban.

Alcoholic beverages still can be advertised in Baltimore on
city buses, taxicabs, delivery trucks and stores licensed to sell
such drinks. The city's ban also did not affect television, radio,
newspaper and magazine advertisements.

The city's cigaretteadvertising ban also permits ads on buses
and taxis, stores licensed to sell cigarettes and at professional
sports stadiums.

The cases are AnheuserBusch vs. Schmoke, 961428, and
PennAdvertising vs. Schmoke, 961429.

A9 Copyright 1997 The Associated Press