Beer Advertising?

The court in JTI MacDonald suggests that profit driven commercial speech is of low value. What if the government were to ban lifestyle advertising for beer companies?

Section 2b would most likely found to be violated, as a ban on advertising has been consistently held to infringe freedom of expression, even if the speech is profit driven and commercial.

Pressing and Substantial Objective: This would depend on the ability of the government to show a significant injury to the health of Canadians. Consideration should be given to the fact that alcohol can form crippling addictions, present health care costs involving alcohol related diseases, impaired driving,  and others. While not uncontroversial, a case could be made for a pressing, substantial concern.

Rational Connection: This would most likely be made out, given that in advertising cases, the connection between consumption and advertising is evidenced by the fact that companies have been spending large amounts on television and other media advertisements.

Minimal Impairment: A blanket prohibition on advertising was a serious concern in RJR, where JTI validated the distinction between lifestyle advertising and blanket prohibition to a degree sufficient to state that the impairment was minimal. Again, the government is not required to choose the best option, but merely one of a range of reasonable choices.

Proporitonality: Sorry, ran out of time. What do you think?