Person:

Brandt, Allan

Perspectives on tobacco control in American society have shifted markedly. As the view that smoking as a voluntarily assumed health risk has declined, the social and political environment has become more conducive to industry regulation. This transformation can be traced to the mounting evidence of the health risks of secondary smoke; the addictive quality of nicotine; the vulnerability and exploitation of young people; and industry knowledge of the harmful effects of tobacco. Regulation of tobacco advertising and promotions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raises serious concerns about constitutional protection for commercial speech. However, the minimal informational value of tobacco advertising suggests that it should be afforded a low level of constitutional protection. The FDA regulations impose reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions, leave open alternative channels of communication, restrict messages that are harmful to the public health, do not restrict political speech, prevent misleading messages, and help deter the unlawful sale of tobacco products to minors. The regulations meet the traditional criteria for regulating commercial speech, in that the government's asserted interest is strong, the agency's regulations directly advance that interest, and the regulations are no more extensive than necessary. Thus, the judiciary should defend the FDA's historical social and legislative mission to protect the public health.

The effectiveness of a mandatory premarital screening program was examined as a means of curtailing the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the United States. The epidemiology of the HIV, the technical characteristics of tests for antibodies to HIV, and the logistic, economic, and legal implications of such a program were considered. In one year, universal premarital screening in the United States currently would detect fewer than one tenth of 1% of HIV-infected individuals at a cost of substantially more than $100 million. More than 100 infected individuals would be told that they were probably not infected, and there would likely be more than 350 false-positive results. Public education, counseling of individuals, and discretionary testing can be important tools in reducing the spread of HIV infection, but mandatory premarital screening in a population with a low prevalence of infection is a relatively ineffective and inefficient use of resources.