I think the government is making an excuse. The u.s government may control a lot, But it should of been the states choice too. Its not in the constitution, so there for he could have it. Only because it don't say anything about the national government could make choices for that. I agree with the kid...
I think that the tobacco should have the power to advertise because that's how they are going to make money. If they don't make money then they wont be open and people wont be able to go to the store to buy tobacco products.
I think that its the the national and state. The national because they have the right to make the laws about advertising tobacco. Also, the state because they have the right to add on to the laws also.
i think they should have the right to advertise their product. because if they don't no one will no what the product is so the wont buy it and that's bad for the store.and yes i think they should put on the box what it can do to you and stuff like that and put it a little bigger so people will read it.
I think that the company has the right to advertise the product. they can do it in certain places like on channels little kids don't watch. they have the right to put the advertisement on every store they sell in.
In this case, the states should have the power of to decide how they advertise their tobacco and cigarette advertisements. The states should put in the risks of smoking it, but it is their choice in this matter. The freedom of speech and press should allow them to put what they want.
I think that national and state should both be able to decide this because if a states wants more laws about tabacoo they should be able to. the constitution didn't say any thing about having it.
I think the state should have the power to regulate advertisement. It's true that the tobacco companies won't be able to make as much money, but advertising laws hit all sorts of products. Also, the "freedom of speech" argument is fairly invalid, because it has nothing to do with what's put on the advertisement. The warning was part of the national law, and that's not what's being disputed.
I think tobacco should be aloud to be advertised but not on billboards over baseball fields and parks. The thing on the advertisements have to be above 5 feet is baloney half the time kids are looking up anyway.
I think that tobacco companies should have the right to advertise their products. It might be a little pressure to buy the product (example: looking 'cool') but thats what all advertisements do. I doubt that if a 3rd grader sees the advertisement, they are going to go buy it. And if they did, the parents should confiscate it. It's common sense. I agree that warning signs of what can happen to you if you use the product should be put on the container, but anyone who uses it should be educated on any side effects. I don't think the state should have this power.
I think that state governments should have the ability to control advertising in there state. It`s something in there state they don`t like so they should be able to control it.
I think that the National Government should have the power to control the tobacco advertising because if the companies trade with other states then it would be hard to follow all the states different rules. If one law is established then it would be easier to follow it. But the state of Massachusetts has a point in asking the companies to watch were and how they post their advertisements.
I think that people should be able to advertise with more color and details because stores try to make money and anyways if they do its not like children can just go in there and buy cigarrets, they cant. The law might be violating the 1st amendment.
Without a doubt the state has the power to decide where the tabaco companies can put their ads. Its ridiculous to think that the tabaco companies would think that the federal government has the power to decide where to put advertisements inside the states! on the other hand i dont think that the states have the power to say what can or cannot go on the advertisements.
I THINK THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE THE POWER TO CONTROL ADVERTISING SO THE KIDS WILL NOT GET A HOLD OF IT AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO STOP SELLING THIS PRODUCE
Well, the constitution says that there is a "freedom of speech". However, It isn't threatening you freedom of speech if they are saying that they don't want you to advertise your product in the stores within their state borders. I think it's up to the individual store. Maybe it's up to the public. I think the state should win IF they made it clear they just didn't want them advertised. But if they limited what each poster or flier said, then I agree that it's limiting freedom of either press or speech.
I agree with Massachusetts, Because the advertisements are persuading the kids too smoke, and make them think its cool. So they should have them places where your old enough to smoke. So Massachusetts should win, and tell them to move there signs!
I think that the tobacco should have the power.. Because that's how they make money, they keep there business going by putting thing's out like that. Butt.. i also see why Massachusetts don't like it because it does catch children attention and smoking does make people sick!
The commerce clause is a good enough reason for the tobacco companies to win the case because it would affect their sales. Though I personally believe that Massachusetts should win.
I think Massachusetts is right.because if people advertise smoking on school ground or at a park, then more than likely the kids will start smoking and might die.
I think Massachusetts is right because they are basically wanting kids to smoke and they are basically saying that it's cool to smoke so i think Massachusetts should win.
The Cigarette company has to make money so they do have to have advertisements. I agree with the state though that they shouldn't be aloud to have them near school or other popular kid zones. But in the constitution you have freedom of press.
in my opinion the state should be able to make laws about advertising. they have the right because it has to do with public health and the children in schools. however, only some of the new laws Mass. wanted to enforce were legit. others were going to far.
I agree with state,because it s advertisement are persuading kids smoke.They should but the advertisement in places were only adults go.They should also make there ads a little more un cartoonish
I think Massachusetts should win this case. They did take it to a little bit of an extreme, but they were right by saying kids shouldn't see tobacco adds. To keep kids safe and away from tobacco and drugs, the advertising should not be shown to them.
I think that the Government does not have the power to tell a company how they can and can't advertise. Like it says, it violates their first amendment right to free commercial speech.
i think that each state should have the right to make theyr own tabacco advertising laws. states are differnt. they sgould have theyr own opinions for each state because they are all differnent.
I thimk the national government should hav the right to control the tobacco advertisment because it is pressuring kids to want to smoke and the tobbacco advertisment does have a right to say the are violating the 1st amendment.
I think the government is making an excuse. The u.s government may control a lot, But it should of been the states choice too. Its not in the constitution, so there for he could have it. Only because it don't say anything about the national government could make choices for that. I agree with the kid...
ReplyDeleteI think that the tobacco should have the power to advertise because that's how they are going to make money. If they don't make money then they wont be open and people wont be able to go to the store to buy tobacco products.
ReplyDeleteI think that its the the national and state. The national because they have the right to make the laws about advertising tobacco. Also, the state because they have the right to add on to the laws also.
ReplyDeletei think they should have the right to advertise their product. because if they don't no one will no what the product is so the wont buy it and that's bad for the store.and yes i think they should put on the box what it can do to you and stuff like that and put it a little bigger so people will read it.
ReplyDeleteI think that the company has the right to advertise the product. they can do it in certain places like on channels little kids don't watch. they have the right to put the advertisement on every store they sell in.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, the states should have the power of to decide how they advertise their tobacco and cigarette advertisements. The states should put in the risks of smoking it, but it is their choice in this matter. The freedom of speech and press should allow them to put what they want.
ReplyDeleteI think that national and state should both be able to decide this because if a states wants more laws about tabacoo they should be able to. the constitution didn't say any thing about having it.
ReplyDeleteI think the state should have the power to regulate advertisement. It's true that the tobacco companies won't be able to make as much money, but advertising laws hit all sorts of products. Also, the "freedom of speech" argument is fairly invalid, because it has nothing to do with what's put on the advertisement. The warning was part of the national law, and that's not what's being disputed.
ReplyDeleteI think tobacco should be aloud to be advertised but not on billboards over baseball fields and parks. The thing on the advertisements have to be above 5 feet is baloney half the time kids are looking up anyway.
ReplyDeleteI think that tobacco companies should have the right to advertise their products. It might be a little pressure to buy the product (example: looking 'cool') but thats what all advertisements do. I doubt that if a 3rd grader sees the advertisement, they are going to go buy it. And if they did, the parents should confiscate it. It's common sense. I agree that warning signs of what can happen to you if you use the product should be put on the container, but anyone who uses it should be educated on any side effects. I don't think the state should have this power.
ReplyDeleteI think that state governments should have the ability to control advertising in there state. It`s something in there state they don`t like so they should be able to control it.
ReplyDeleteI think that the National Government should have the power to control the tobacco advertising because if the companies trade with other states then it would be hard to follow all the states different rules. If one law is established then it would be easier to follow it. But the state of Massachusetts has a point in asking the companies to watch were and how they post their advertisements.
ReplyDeleteI think that people should be able to advertise with more color and details because stores try to make money and anyways if they do its not like children can just go in there and buy cigarrets, they cant. The law might be violating the 1st amendment.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt the state has the power to decide where the tabaco companies can put their ads. Its ridiculous to think that the tabaco companies would think that the federal government has the power to decide where to put advertisements inside the states! on the other hand i dont think that the states have the power to say what can or cannot go on the advertisements.
ReplyDeleteI THINK THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE THE POWER TO CONTROL ADVERTISING SO THE KIDS WILL NOT GET A HOLD OF IT AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO STOP SELLING THIS PRODUCE
ReplyDeleteWell, the constitution says that there is a "freedom of speech". However, It isn't threatening you freedom of speech if they are saying that they don't want you to advertise your product in the stores within their state borders. I think it's up to the individual store. Maybe it's up to the public. I think the state should win IF they made it clear they just didn't want them advertised. But if they limited what each poster or flier said, then I agree that it's limiting freedom of either press or speech.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Massachusetts, Because the advertisements are persuading the kids too smoke, and make them think its cool. So they should have them places where your old enough to smoke. So Massachusetts should win, and tell them to move there signs!
ReplyDeleteI think that the tobacco should have the power.. Because that's how they make money, they keep there business going by putting thing's out like that. Butt.. i also see why Massachusetts don't like it because it does catch children attention and smoking does make people sick!
ReplyDeleteState should have the right to control what the tabbaco companies can and cannot put on the advertisements.
ReplyDeleteThe commerce clause is a good enough reason for the tobacco companies to win the case because it would affect their sales. Though I personally believe that Massachusetts should win.
ReplyDeleteI think that the state should be able to choose where they advertise the products.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the states should win!!!<3
I think the tobacco company is right because it is taking away their 1st amendment(freedom of speech).
ReplyDeleteI think that the state should be able to choose where they advertise the products.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the states should win!!!<3
I think Massachusetts is right.because if people advertise smoking on school ground or at a park, then more than likely the kids will start smoking and might die.
ReplyDeleteI think Massachusetts is right because they are basically wanting kids to smoke and they are basically saying that it's cool to smoke so i think Massachusetts should win.
ReplyDeleteThe Cigarette company has to make money so they do have to have advertisements. I agree with the state though that they shouldn't be aloud to have them near school or other popular kid zones. But in the constitution you have freedom of press.
ReplyDeletethe states do have the right to control it. the states are doing something to help the community
ReplyDeleteWell, I think that the companies should show more awareness but they do have the freedom of speach
ReplyDeletein my opinion the state should be able to make laws about advertising. they have the right because it has to do with public health and the children in schools. however, only some of the new laws Mass. wanted to enforce were legit. others were going to far.
ReplyDeleteI agree with state,because it s advertisement are persuading kids smoke.They should but the advertisement in places were only adults go.They should also make there ads a little more un cartoonish
ReplyDeleteI think Massachusetts should win this case. They did take it to a little bit of an extreme, but they were right by saying kids shouldn't see tobacco adds. To keep kids safe and away from tobacco and drugs, the advertising should not be shown to them.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Government does not have the power to tell a company how they can and can't advertise. Like it says, it violates their first amendment right to free commercial speech.
ReplyDeletei think that each state should have the right to make theyr own tabacco advertising laws. states are differnt. they sgould have theyr own opinions for each state because they are all differnent.
ReplyDeleteI thimk the national government should hav the right to control the tobacco advertisment because it is pressuring kids to want to smoke and the tobbacco advertisment does have a right to say the are violating the 1st amendment.
ReplyDelete