Federal judge rules newly required tobacco health labels as unconstitutional
77 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON — A U.S. judge sided with tobacco companies on Wednesday, ruling that regulations requiring large graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging and advertising violate free-speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Cigarette makers challenged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's rule requiring companies to label tobacco products with images of rotting teeth, diseased lungs and other images intended to illustrate the dangers of smoking.
"The government has failed to carry both its burden of demonstrating a compelling interest and its burden of demonstrating that the rule is narrowly tailored to achieve a constitutionally permissible form of compelled commercial speech," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said.
While educating the public about the dangers of smoking "might be compelling, an interest in simply advocating that the public not purchase a legal product is not," Leon wrote in a 19-page ruling.
Further, Leon noted that the warning labels were too big to pass constitutional muster and that the government has numerous tools at its disposal to deter smoking such as hiking cigarette taxes or including simple factual information on the labels rather than gruesome images.
Congress in 2009 passed a law ordering the FDA to adopt the label regulation, which requires color warning labels big enough to cover the top 50 percent of a cigarette pack's front and back panels, and the top 20 percent of print advertisements.
Tobacco companies, including Reynolds American Inc's R.J. Reynolds unit, Lorillard Inc, Liggett Group LLC, Commonwealth Brands Inc, which is owned by Britain's Imperial Tobacco Group Plc, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co Inc challenged the rule, arguing that it would force them to engage in anti-smoking advocacy against their own legal products.
"Unfortunately, because Congress did not consider the First Amendment implications of this legislation, it did not concern itself with how the regulations could be narrowly tailored to avoid unintentionally compelling commercial speech," Leon wrote.
The judge last year granted a preliminary injunction blocking the new label requirement from taking effect, a decision that the Obama administration has appealed.
A spokesman for the Justice Department, which represented the FDA in the case, had no comment.
The case is R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co et al v. FDA, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 11-1482. [/quote]
[url=http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46577000/ns/today-today_health/t/tobacco-health-labels-violate-free-speech-judge-rules/#.T0_i6fmwXBk]source[/url]
why can't the government see that smokers just don't give a fuck?
They should just print all boxes with the following message:
"THIS SLOWLY AND PAINFULLY KILLS YOU."
Should get the message across.
They know tobacco produces cancer. They know cancer is horrible. They dont give a shit.
Stop trying to pull this kind of shit and let them do whatever they want with their bodies.
I sort of want a pack of cigarettes with the rotting teeth and lung cancer as a sort of collectible.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34947620]I sort of want a pack of cigarettes with the rotting teeth and lung cancer as a sort of collectible.[/QUOTE]
Come to Australia, we've had them for years.
As in it's a legal requirement.
The labels on the boxes are not targeting those who are already smoking, but those who want to start smoking.
People start and get addicted to smoking during puberty in most of the cases, the messages are aimed at these teens.
[QUOTE=Santz;34947483]They know tobacco produces cancer. They know cancer is horrible. They dont give a shit.
Stop trying to pull this kind of shit and let them do whatever they want with their bodies.[/QUOTE]
Your argument doesn't make sense. Nobody is "[not letting] them do whatever they want with their bodies" when it comes to cigarettes. This law isn't targeting people who already know the effects of long term cigarette smoke, it's targeting people who don't. You can still smoke every damn cigarette you want, and you don't even have to look at the package when you buy it if it bothers you.
As long as there are people who don't understand what the cancers you can get from smoking actually do to you then this seems like a reasonable law.
I know what my Swisher Sweets do to me, but i thoroughly enjoy them and don't really care what it does.
[QUOTE=Mon;34947463]why can't the government see that smokers just don't give a fuck?[/QUOTE]
And yet these health warnings (along with other things), which are extremely graphic in Australia, have been shown to reduce the number of people smoking and the amount of new people taking up smoking.
This is what the packs look like in Australia:
[img]http://images.smh.com.au/2010/04/29/1391420/cigarette-420x0.jpg[/img]
All brands look the same, minus the brand name.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;34948190]And yet these health warnings (along with other things), which are extremely graphic in Australia, have been shown to reduce the number of people smoking and the amount of new people taking up smoking.
This is what the packs look like in Australia:
[img]http://images.smh.com.au/2010/04/29/1391420/cigarette-420x0.jpg[/img]
All brands look the same, minus the brand name.[/QUOTE]
They've already started shipping those? My winny blue packets still look the same here in melb
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26976530/a/wubbu.png[/img]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;34948190]And yet these health warnings (along with other things), which are extremely graphic in Australia, have been shown to reduce the number of people smoking and the amount of new people taking up smoking.
This is what the packs look like in Australia:
(image)
All brands look the same, minus the brand name.[/QUOTE]
It looks like the left tumor is actually an eye looking at the right tumor. I would totally start smoking if cancer made me grow eyes.
How exactly is it unconstitutional exactly? Maybe not the best way of doing things, but certainly doesn't infringe any rights that I recall.
[QUOTE=JamesRaynor;34948388]How exactly is it unconstitutional exactly? Maybe not the best way of doing things, but certainly doesn't infringe any rights that I recall.[/QUOTE]
Because corporations are also protected by the constitution and this is basically forcing them to advertise against their own product, which probably falls under abridging free speech. It's kinda like that law that forces you to disclose that you've previously been convicted for a crime that would put you on the sex offender registry...except that's legal for some reason.
[QUOTE=mr apple;34948322]They've already started shipping those? My winny blue packets still look the same here in melb
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26976530/a/wubbu.png[/img][/QUOTE]
I believe a few brands are challenging the legislation, but they're unlikely to succeed.
It's sad this huge development only gets a small ass section in my morning paper today
God those boxes are disgusting..
[editline]2nd March 2012[/editline]
Especially Australia lol
Smoking isn't nearly as bad as people trump it up to be.
I am still using my Dutch Lucky Strike pack here in australia because I hate those pictures on them here.
There must be a better way to curb smoking, what do Scandinavian countries do?
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;34948874]Here's one that was on the shelves TODAY. We sell these in Nova Scotia.
[t]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EwsA-Gs3NBI/S-WhvdigsVI/AAAAAAAAACg/gQYEIYfU5SM/s1600/cigs.JPG[/t]
then there's this one which is fucking disgusting, so I'll link it instead and say "click it at your own risk".
[url]http://www.who.int/tobacco/healthwarningsdatabase/img/tobacco_large_Malaysia_oral_01_en_medium.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
collect em' all and mail them in for a free shirt!
The Judge's reasoning does not make much sense.
Who's speech is infringed? The cigarette makers can still sell and advertise their stuff, all there is is a sticker saying that the product is unhealthy, which is a proven fact.
It is also not explicitly telling people not to buy them, it is simply stating facts about what is in the box.
[QUOTE=smurfy;34964168]There must be a better way to curb smoking, what do Scandinavian countries do?[/QUOTE]Just the usual text warning labels, at least in Finland. iirc it's the same in Sweden at least.
The UK ones don't affect anyone. It's just common place now.
Just let me smoke in peace mkay? :(
I dont want to see rotting lungs everytime i do so.
Plus i feel bad for the tobacco companies, it should be the people's choice whether they want to smoke or not, not the government's.
And i know they aren't really deciding for us, but they are shoving something into our faces that we know already.
[QUOTE=Santz;34947483]They know tobacco produces cancer. They know cancer is horrible. They dont give a shit.
Stop trying to pull this kind of shit and let them do whatever they want with their bodies.[/QUOTE]
I met a smoker once who didn't think it was harmful.
It was the first (and last) cigarette I ever smoked, and he gave it to me. Then he and his other smoker friend had a small debate over whether it was harmful, thankfully at least she knew (but still smoked).
Then we went and smoked weed
I will never understand smoking, it has virtually no benefits.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;34964474]I met a smoker once who didn't think it was harmful.
It was the first (and last) cigarette I ever smoked, and he gave it to me. Then he and his other smoker friend had a small debate over whether it was harmful, thankfully at least she knew (but still smoked).
Then we went and smoked weed[/QUOTE]
the horror...
[editline]2nd March 2012[/editline]
In all honesty, tobacco is about as dangerous as weed. Which is not very.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;34964522]
In all honesty, tobacco is about as dangerous as weed. Which is not very.[/QUOTE]
It really isn't
Guys I don't think this was meant to encourage people to stop smoking, I think it was meant to discourage people from starting.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.