The March issues of Glamour, Cosmopolitan and other women's magazines carry a four page glossy advertisement for a new feminine "fashion collection with a streetwise attitude." The clothes embody the look that any young, carefree, fun-loving woman would just die for: a black biker jacket with coordinated vest, tie, bracelet, v-neck tee, belt bag, backpack and sun glasses. Oh, and we can't forget, a matching cigarette lighter.

Most incredible of all, the advertisement tells us that these clothes — Virginia Slims Wear — are free! Free, that is with proof of purchase of Virginia Slims cigarettes.

In order to get the fashion ensemble, the "streetwise" young lady must purchase just under 980 packages of Virginia Slims and submit proofs of purchases to the manufacturer, Philip Morris, by August 31. That averages just over five packs of cigarettes per day for the next six months.

To average five packs a day, the purchaser would have to smoke about one cigarette every 8 minutes during waking hours. Or, as my teenage daughter facetiously suggested, you could buy the cigarettes and warehouse them for future use. However, warehousing gets complicated since it would be necessary to cut up the packages to remove the UPC codes.

The fact that Philip Morris gets away with this type of outrageously deceptive advertising is just another example of the privileged status the industry enjoys. What, for example, do you think the reaction would be if a liquor company had a similar redemption offer where the buyer, to receive a "free gift," was obligated to purchase five fifths of bourbon each day for six months? Or if an aspirin, or other over-the-counter drug manufacturer , encouraged the purchase of, say, 200 tablets a day?

Cigarettes, unlike aspirin, alcohol or any other consumer product, are inherently hazardous to health, at even moderate levels of exposure (over 4 cigarettes a day). Yet cigarette manufacturers are permitted to literally get away with murder with brazen ads such as this one.

What explains the carefree aggressiveness of the tobacco industry, the brazen chutzpah with which they advertise and promote their product?

The answer is simple: The current legal immunity cigarette companies now enjoy has successfully insulated them from being held liable for the damage done by their product. The U. S. Congress granted them this immunity in 1965 when it mandated a federal warning label on cigarettes, thus pre-empting lawsuits by cigarette victims who claim they were insufficiently warned of the dangers of smoking, or that the advertising was misleading. The fear of litigation is a powerful force which keeps other advertisers honest and candid. These restraints do not apply to cigarette companies.

This latest macabre attempt by the merchants of death to lure young women into smoking — a one pack a day habit increases the risk of lung cancer 10-fold so you can imagine the effects of five packs — by associating this deadly habit with fashion should wake all of us out of our stupor. The U.S. Congress should strip cigarette companies of their privileged status and make them walk on the same legal turf as the rest of corporate America. One logical way to do this would be to revoke the federal cigarette labeling act and leave the manufacturers vulnerable to lawsuits for irresponsible advertising such as this.

(From Priorities, Vol 5, No.2)