MAYOR GIULIANI CONSIDERS PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON INTRO. NUMBER 951-A, PROHIBITING OR RESTRICTING TOBACCO ADVERTISEMENTS
The first bill before me for consideration this afternoon is Introductory Number 951-A, which was introduced by City Council Speaker Peter Vallone, Council Members Williams, Robles, Fusco and a number of their colleagues. This legislation would amend the administrative code of the City of New York in relation to prohibiting or restricting the advertisement and promotion of tobacco products in order to decrease the sale of cigarettes to minors.
Intro. 951-A would make it unlawful for any person to place, cause to be placed, to maintain or cause to be maintained, a tobacco product advertisement within 1000 feet, in any direction, of any school, day-care center, youth center or amusement arcade.
This restriction would apply to any outdoor area, including billboards, roofs, sides of buildings, rolling shutters or gates and free-standing signboards. The prohibition would also apply to the interior of buildings or retail establishments for advertisements that are within five feet of any exterior window or any public entrance to a building or retail establishment. However, advertisements would be permitted to be placed on interior windows parallel to the street if the ad is facing inward or on interior walls that are perpendicular to the street.
Under this legislation, a tobacco product manufacturer, distributor, or retailer would only be permitted to place its corporate or other business name on a building or structure that is its principal place of business. Brand names, trademarks or any other logo of a tobacco product would be prohibited.
The distribution of tobacco promotional products to any person under 18 years of age would also be prohibited, and any person offering promotional materials would be required to request photographic identification and age verification. Furthermore, when sponsoring an athletic, musical or other social or cultural event, a tobacco manufacturer, distributor or retailer would be prohibited from displaying any brand name, trademark or logo associated with any tobacco product at the event.
Finally, Intro. 951-A establishes strong civil penalties to ensure compliance with the aforementioned requirements. In addition to monetary fines, any licensed tobacco wholesaler or retailer who violates the proposed provisions law three times within an 18 month period, will have its license to sell tobacco products revoked by the City.
I fully support the intent of this legislation and applaud the sponsors for their laudable efforts. The hazards of tobacco are well known and the tobacco industry's desire to hook minors onto their products is unconscionable. The average child in America begins smoking at the age of 14. An astounding 89 percent of new smokers are under the age of 18.
While the reasons for enacting this legislation are just and necessary, we must ensure that the means chosen comport with the United States Constitution in that they do not regulate commercial speech in a manner that infringes upon the protections afforded such speech by the First Amendment. It is our role to pass meaningful legislation that would protect minors. However, we must do so in a responsible manner - in a way that would ensure that the law could survive legal challenge so that children would continue to be protected. According to legal precedent, we must be able to demonstrate a nexus between the means we have selected and the stated ends for achieving our objective of preventing tobacco sales to minors.
Legislation must balance both the prevailing need to protect our children from the dangers of tobacco and the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech. Moreover, any proposed law must be reasonably and fairly enforceable, and not be too burdensome on businesses.
Concerns that have been expressed with regard to the impact of this legislation are that the 1000-foot restriction from schools, day care centers, playgrounds and other youth related facilities places an effective ban on all tobacco advertising throughout the City. It has been suggested that a smaller restriction, such as 500 feet, may be a more defensible prohibition with regard to the First Amendment.
Moreover, concerns have also been raised in relation to the bill's definitions of day care centers, amusement arcades and youth centers, in that these definitions may be too broad and would make if very difficult, if not impossible, for businesses to locate such facilities and therefore comply with the law. Finally, the 60-day effective date of this legislation has raised concerns with regard to the ability of businesses to have ample notice and time to comply with these complex requirements.
While these concerns may not be determinative of my decision to approve or disapprove this legislation, I would like to reserve final judgment until such time as I have had the chance to hear and consider the public testimony. I have also asked Corporation Counsel to look into and advise me with regard to the constitutionality of this proposed law.
I will now turn to the bill's sponsors, other elected officials, and then to any one else who wishes to be heard, for or against the bill.
Contact Us | FAQs | Privacy Statement | Site Map