although a democracy is based on freedom of expression, most people recognize the need to allow the government to excercise control over such things as false and misleading advertisements or advertisements of illegal products.Is the banning of cigarette advertising on television consistent with these necessities?Explain.

I say no because cigarettes are not illegal but I need at least 3 sentenses to explain it.Am I correct?

The problem is not the advertising an illegal product. The problem is advertising it to people for whom it is ILLEGAL to purchase or have the product, ie, kids. So restricting the advtising to times and places where kids are not influenced/watching is consistent with restricting illegal activity. In a like manner, marijuana is not advertised either, because...

Yes, you are correct.

Banning cigarette advertising on television is consistent with the necessity to exercise control over false and misleading advertisements or advertisements of illegal products. While cigarettes themselves may not be illegal, they pose significant health risks and are heavily regulated by governments due to their harmful effects. Limiting cigarette advertising on television helps to protect vulnerable populations, such as children, from being influenced by these advertisements and potentially engaging in a harmful behavior.

Additionally, there is a need to balance the freedom of expression with public health concerns. Governments have recognized the need to regulate certain types of advertisements to protect the well-being of their citizens. Banning cigarette advertising on television falls within this scope as it helps to deter the promotion of a potentially dangerous and addictive product to a wide audience.

It's important to note that the decision to ban cigarette advertising on television is not a restriction on personal freedoms, but rather a measure to prioritize public health and well-being.