The Herald ran an interesting story on marijuana advertising (March 11). I’m curious to know why there was no mention of the ban on cigarettes advertising that was instituted in 1970. Once the FCC banned ads on TV and radio, mega-dollars poured into sporting events, magazines and newspapers. The ban was extended to any media/venue that was exposed to anyone younger than 18 years old. Hot Rod magazine lost millions in ad revenue, as did other special-interest books. Winston had to pull its sponsorship of the National Hot Rod Association drag racing as well as NASCAR. Penske Racing and an F1 team in Europe removed the Marlboro lettering from their race cars. However, the red-and-white livery was so associated with Marlboro, that the paint scheme also was banned. All of these ad bans were upheld in court.
As a reformed smoker, I’m puzzled as to why it’s OK to smoke pot, yet millions of dollars are spent to discourage cigarette smoking. The next question is: Will the Herald accept pot ads? I suspect that the demographics of the Telegraph make it an obvious choice for pot advertisers.