Canada Ban on Tobacco Ads Struck Down : Smoking: Supreme Court says law violated firms’ freedom of expression. Industry to confer with government before taking action.

The Canadian Supreme Court struck down a national ban on tobacco advertising Thursday on the grounds it violated tobacco companies’ freedom of expression--a rare victory for a beleaguered industry whose U.S. activities have drawn fire from President Clinton.

The 1988 law imposing the ban, the centerpiece of the Canadian government’s anti-smoking effort, prohibits virtually all direct advertising and requires manufacturers to print bluntly worded warnings in large type on cigarette packaging.

The court, in a 5-4 decision announced in Ottawa, called the ban too broad to be permitted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is similar to the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Legal analysts said the decision appears to leave room for narrower restrictions on advertising and they predicted that the government will craft new regulations.

Canadian Health Minister Diane Marleau declined to comment in detail when questioned in Parliament on Thursday, saying she needed time to study the decision.

Robert Parker, spokesman for the Canadian Tobacco Council, said industry officials will confer with the government before resuming advertising. “I expect they will try to re-craft the law in consultation with us,” he told reporters in Ottawa.

David Sweanor, attorney for the Ottawa-based Non-Smokers’ Rights Assn., renewed a call for the Canadian government to classify tobacco as addictive and bring it under control of food and drug laws in a step similar to one proposed by the Clinton Administration.

Sweanor said in a telephone interview that the court’s decision will not inhibit such a move in Canada. He added that while he does not expect cigarette companies to “start putting up massive lifestyle ads next to schools tomorrow,” eventually competitive pressures will lead to the resumption of large-scale advertising unless the government enacts new restrictions within the parameters set by the court.

He noted, for example, that the court’s objection to warnings on cigarette packages--which include such unvarnished statements as “Smoking can kill you”--appeared to stem from their lack of attribution. A similar warning citing scientific studies would probably meet the court’s criteria, Sweanor said.

In the United States, such health warnings on tobacco packages have long been attributed to the U.S. surgeon general.

Recently, the Clinton Administration has proposed that tobacco, because of its nicotine content, be considered an addictive substance, subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.

Clinton has also called for new rules to curb teen-age smoking, including requiring proof of age for purchase, sharply limiting advertising, banning cigarette vending machines and eliminating distribution of free cigarettes. Such a ban, while extensive--even including such items as baseball caps with cigarette logos--would not be as comprehensive as the invalidated Canadian law.

Canada’s anti-smoking legislation centered on advertising restrictions, health warnings and high taxes, and was once held up by international health authorities as a world model.

It has, however, gradually eroded.

Federal and provincial officials enacted a massive tax cut on cigarettes in 1994 in an effort to undercut the market for tobacco smuggled into Ontario and Quebec from New York.