GA> What's not sane about it? If selling tobacco products is not illegal,
GA> why should advertising be? If I were a cigarette company, I'd be
GA> taking legal action.

BL> You can't take legal action against the law.

RS> Of course you can, thats what the Mabo stuff was all about.

BL> They have already been to the High Court, and lost.

RS> In this particular case I agree they dont stand much chance. Says
RS> nothing tho about how you can indeed at a times have repeated high
RS> court challenges which at times eventually win, mainly when a
RS> particular high court feels like getting a bit adventurous. Thats been
RS> going on for decades with some stuff like excise dutys imposed by states.

BL> Parliament represents the people, and Parliament writes the law with
BL> the people's support.

RS> And at times particular bits they write are found by the high court
RS> to be unconstitutional.

BL> I said that in the second sentence,

And studiously deleted from the quoting where you said

   BL> You can't take legal action against the law.

Cant have it both way Bob. Even when faking.

BL>  trying to dig yourself out, Rod?

No digging required, just putting back the stuff selectively edited out.

BL> Why didn't you just go back and edit your first sentence?

Coz none of my stuff was wrong, even if you managed to say two utterly
contrary things in two separate paras yourself. Pathetic really |-)

And if you want to purport to be saying that once you have taken legal
action and lost, you would be wrong there too, there have been countless
examples of repeated attempts, very visible with interstate trade issues.

BL> Petrol isn't illegal, last I heard.

RS> Petrol sniffing is tho.

BL> Paul was talkng about the `right' of a company to advertise a product
BL> because it was legal, and this was my point. Petrol is legal.

Nope, you ever raving on about the advertising of petrol sniffing. He is
that again.

Notice you energetically edited down that para too. Fake city, here it
is again to shame you.

  BL> In this free land of yours, where companies are free to advertise any
  BL> `legal' product, what is your stand on Shell advertising unleaded for
  BL> petrol-sniffing, aimed at 11-year-olds with special packs including
  BL> the plastic bag and instructions? Petrol isn't illegal, last I heard.

Looks a bit different now doesnt it ?

BL> You are wrong about petrol sniffing too...

Nope.

BL> I know of no law against it.

You may indeed not. Doesnt mean that its not illegal tho.

BL> The law gets a bit strange at times.

True, but again, that doesnt prove that petrol sniffing is legal.

BL> For instance, it is not illegal to smoke marijuana; only to be in
BL> possession, or in possession of implements used for smoking.

Well, you are getting pretty fanciful now. And its illegal to smoke pot
anyway. Even tho the other stuff which doesnt involve smoking it is also
illegal.

BL> If you stand around someone else's marijuana bonfire and sniff the
BL> smoke, then presumably this is not against the law.

Well, thats a bit different. There are quite a few situations where
being involuntarily exposed to it is not illegal. For example you
certainly couldnt be successfully prosecuted for being in a disco where
others are smoking it and you inhaled the air there.

Just as if say someone forcibly injected you with heroin against your
will, say purporting to give you an insulin injection, you are not
committing an illegal act yourself.

BL> It reminds be on that old Chinese story where roast pigs were banned
BL> for eating, and the Chinese were always burning down the pigsty (with
BL> the pig in it).

And there is very little of that sort of thing in the current law, tho
there are some quite bizarre examples of it. They are the extreme
exception tho.

BL> How about Roche advertising Vallium or Prozac aimed at teenagers with
BL> personality problems (the entire teenager population) - complete with
BL> published scientific denials that Vallium is not addictive and is
BL> good for you, and makes your dick grow? Vallium and Prozac aren't
BL> illegal.

RS> They arent available without prescription tho.

BL> Paul and I are only talking about advertising;

Again, more extremely selective quoting, leaving only the last sentence.

With the full quote it doesnt look quite how you claim that paul and you
were discussing it now does it ?

BL> not the product itself. Your comment is irrelevant to the discussion.

Not with the extremely selective quoting reversed. It would indeed be a
problem doing that kind of advertising. And not just because those two
are only available on prescription too.

Even the 'dick grow' bit is actually currently illegal.

BL> Or Dulux advertising spray cans of paint, complete with an ad
BL> campaign of kids laughing and getting roots every time they spray
BL> Geoff's car with meaningless scrawls? Paint isn't illegal.

RS> But incitement to commit a clearly illegal act is.

BL> But in the advertisemtn, Geoff wants them to deface his car.

Its incitement to commit an illegal act.

BL> What's illegal about that?

Well, if you dont understand that its illegal to deface someones car
like that...

BL> What about those car ads that show a car racing on a mountain road?
BL> Obviously illegal...

Nope, you dont know that. There are indeed mountain roads where doing
that is legal.

(Continued to next message)

--- PQWK202