Just a thought - nearly every major periodical in America is struggling for cash. Some, like Wall Street Journal, are run in the red because their owner doesn't care if they lose money. Some, like the New York Times, don't have that luxury and are panicked.

But what would have happened if we hadn't banned smoking advertising in periodicals. Think about it - tax increases are far more punitive measures while the advertising is a second order punishment whose effect is more to discourage current smokers from trying new brands rather than scaring away potential customers. But just think...might many of those same periodicals still be surviving financially? Periodicals depend on advertising, not subscription dues, for their financial health - thus the wealth of free magazines any savvy consumer can obtain. Did any of these periodicals come out in favor of the advertising ban, thereby sealing their own financial doom?

I would think not. I expect that tobacco companies, just like most companies, would have realized by now that print advertising is a poor investment. But then again, I think most advertising is bad investment. Think about it - which is more likely to get you to try a new item priced at 5 dollars - a 5 million dollar ad campaign? or giving 1 million people coupons to try free stuff. It seems to me that most concept advertising survives only on the hope of defining one's market, on the laziness of retailers, who would rather not cash coupons with the corporation, and on the corporation's ultimate fear that it's product isn't very good, and that the more people who actually try it, the more quickly consumers will realize it's no good. After all, coke with lime in it is still in your local corner store's display case.