I wouldn't support cigarette ads. But I also wouldn't support a law that forces tobbaco companies to remove nicotine from their cigarettes.

I would support a law that enforces a "This product may cause addiction in some users" warning on social media sites with infinite scroll.

I don't smoke but you have to admit that the McLaren F1 car in Marlboro livery was pretty cool.

Conversely it isn't very cool seeing the person who grew up as a McLaren fan dying prematurely due to being influenced to start a deadly habit from a young age. And I say this as someone who enjoys smoking.

What is the cost-benefit analysis that led you to that conclusion? I ask as someone who enjoys smoking but struggles to see any good argument for the return of tobacco advertising.

No cost-benefit analysis, I have a philosophical aversion to controlling speech.

Interesting. I guess I don’t see corporations as people, and thus I don’t see this as a violation of free speech.

Hm, even if a corporation wasn’t simply a group of people, it seems like cig ads are banned even if it’s a single person wanting to air one.

Would you allow advertising class A drugs? TV adverts on kids channels for heroin?

Your position is absurd, I’m sorry.