Federal appeals court strikes down FDA tobacco warning label law - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Washington (CNN) -- A government mandate requiring tobacco companies to place graphic images on their products warning of the dangers of smoking was tossed out Friday by a divided federal appeals court, with the majority saying the requirements were a violation of free speech protections. The Food and Drug Administration was ordered to immediately revise its rules. "The First Amendment requires the government not only to state a substantial interest justifying a regulation on commercial speech, but also to show that its regulation directly advances that goal," wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown. "FDA failed to present any data -- much less the substantial evidence required under the federal law -- showing that enacting their proposed graphic warnings will accomplish the agency's stated objective of reducing smoking rates. The rule thus cannot pass muster" under past court precedent. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, passed in 2009, would have required nine written warnings such as "Cigarettes are addictive" and "Tobacco smoke causes harm to children." Also included would have been alternating images of a corpse and smoke-infected lungs. A group of tobacco companies led by R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard had sued, saying the warnings would be cost-prohibitive and would dominate and damage the packaging and promotion of their brands. The legal question was whether the new labeling was purely factual and accurate in nature or was designed to discourage use of the products. A federal judge in March had ruled in favor of the tobacco companies. The 2-1 U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia panel has now affirmed that ruling. Brown and Judge A. Raymond Randolph rejected the FDA's assertion that it had a governmental interest in "effectively communicating health information" regarding the negative effects of cigarettes. "The government's attempt to reformulate its interest as purely informational is unconvincing, as an interest in 'effective' communication is too vague to stand on its own," said Brown, named to the bench by President George W. Bush. "Indeed, the government's chosen buzzwords, which it reiterates through the rulemaking, prompt an obvious question: 'effective' in what sense?" In dissent, Judge Judith Rogers said the rules do not violate commercial speech protections. "The government has an interest of paramount importance in effectively conveying information about the health risks of smoking to adolescent would-be smokers and other consumers," said Rogers, named to the bench by President Clinton. "The tobacco companies' decades of deception regarding these risks, especially the risk of addiction, buttress this interest." Other color images required under the agency rules would have been: a man smoking through a tracheotomy hole in his throat; smoke wafting from a child being kissed by her mother; and a diseased mouth, presumably from oral cancer linked to chewing. There was no immediate reaction to the ruling from the FDA and from the Justice Department, which defended the law in court. The government can now appeal to the Supreme Court for review, which stands a good chance of accepting the case. A separate federal appeals court in Cincinnati in March concluded that the FDA law was constitutional. Such "circuit splits" are often a good indicator the justices would intervene and offer the final constitutional word. Health groups condemned the latest decision. "Today's ruling ignores strong scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of larger, graphic warning labels in communicating the health dangers of tobacco use," said Dr. Robert Block, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. "With 10 million cigarettes sold every minute and almost 3,000 children under the age of 18 starting to smoke each day, this ruling puts children's lives at risk." The word and image warning labels would have covered half of the cigarette packs sold at retail outlets and 20% of cigarette advertising. The warnings were scheduled to appear on cigarette packs beginning next month. The federal law in question would also regulate the amount of nicotine and other substances in tobacco, and limit promotion of the products and related promotional merchandise at public events like sporting contests. The free speech aspect was the only issue in the current case. Several other lawsuits over the labels are pending in federal court, part a two-decade federal and state effort to force tobacco companies to limit their advertising and settle billions of dollars in state and private class-action claims over the health dangers of smoking. The latest case is R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (11-5332). [img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120825011125-cig-labels-story-top.jpgp[/img] [/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/justice/tobacco-warning-label-law/index.html?hpt=hp_t2[/url]

The tobacco industry deserves to be in chains of this sort because of the nature of their product and its deadly properties. The warning labels ought to have stayed. Corporations should not be considered people, and should not be entitled to free speech rights.

Hell they could make their products relatively safe as opposed to what they put in them now. All so that they can get their customers addicted to the substance.

Those warning labels do nothing, they have them here and people are like "hey can you give me the ciggies with the dying baby on them" its all just funny to people

I knew smoking was bad when I started. I knew what it could do, I've seen the pictures. I smoked anyway. I quit because I got sick of coughing. Point being those pictures/labels don't do shit.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;37403567]I knew smoking was bad when I started. I knew what it could do, I've seen the pictures. I smoked anyway. I quit because I got sick of coughing. Point being those pictures don't do shit.[/QUOTE] For a smoker who's years into the habit, it's essentially useless. Other than that they do [b]exactly[/b] what they're supposed to do. I knew of a dozen of high school classmates that quit because they were grossed out every time they grabbed a smoke and the images of cancer and the like scared the shit out of them. They aren't supposed to be some miracle nicotine-dependency cure, they're supposed to be a deterrent to potential smokers.

[QUOTE=Stormcharger;37403514]Those warning labels do nothing, they have them here and people are like "hey can you give me the ciggies with the dying baby on them" its all just funny to people[/QUOTE] Trading cards. Gotta collect them all. [editline]25th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mousy Sloth;37403604]For a smoker who's years into the habit, it's essentially useless. Other than that they do [b]exactly[/b] what they're supposed to do. I knew of dozens of high school classmates that quit because they were grossed out every time they grabbed a smoke and the images of cancer and the like scared the shit out of them. They aren't supposed to be some miracle nicotine-dependency cure, they're supposed to be a deterrent to potential smokers.[/QUOTE] Most of the kids I knew that started smoking didn't care about any warnings. First they tell you that every cigarette takes something like "a day" off your life. Well with the average age into the 70s, that's a long way away for an 18 year old. Plus kids think they're invincible to start with. They don't fear death. They don't think "it can happen to me" with all the dangers.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37403609]Trading cards. Gotta collect them all. [editline]25th August 2012[/editline] Most of the kids I knew that started spelling didn't care about any warnings. First they tell you that every cigarette takes something like "a day" off your life. Well with the average age into the 70s, that's a long way away for an 18 year old.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between telling someone it will take a day off your life, and showing a picture of some dude with 10 pounds of cancerous tumors hanging off his tongue. I know it's effective, because even my mom (25-year-smoker) has told me she tries at all costs to avoid looking at her pack. I have no doubt that shit like this at the very least keeps a few people from starting smoking.

[QUOTE=Mousy Sloth;37403604]For a smoker who's years into the habit, it's essentially useless. Other than that they do [b]exactly[/b] what they're supposed to do. I knew of a dozen of high school classmates that quit because they were grossed out every time they grabbed a smoke and the images of cancer and the like scared the shit out of them. They aren't supposed to be some miracle nicotine-dependency cure, they're supposed to be a deterrent to potential smokers.[/QUOTE] I wasn't years into the habit. I picked up the habit after joining the marines and realizing how much I wanted to smash my head into a wall every day. Once I left the confines of high school and realized how much a lot of the shit they told me doesn't matter I didn't give a damn. It may deter kids that are still freaked out by sex and pot, but not much else.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;37403663] I wasn't years into the habit. I picked up the habit after joining the marines and realizing how much I wanted to smash my head into a wall every day. Once I left the confines of high school and realized how much a lot of the shit they told me doesn't matter I didn't give a damn. It may deter kids that are still freaked out by sex and pot, but not much else. [/QUOTE] Uhh, what? Starting smoking during active military service and starting smoking because it's cool and feels neat are 2 ENTIRELY different things. And I don't know what you mean by the second part of your post. You basically agree with me, then try to dismiss it by insulting the people who may be coerced into avoiding smoking? What?

[QUOTE=Mousy Sloth;37403659]There's a difference between telling someone it will take a day off your life, and showing a picture of some dude with 10 pounds of cancerous tumors hanging off his tongue. I know it's effective, because even my mom (25-year-smoker) has told me she tries at all costs to avoid looking at her pack. I have no doubt that shit like this at the very least keeps a few people from starting smoking.[/QUOTE] It's subjective. Some kids want to be "badass" and smoke, maybe even flashing the pictures around showing how "dangerous" what they're doing is while others will turn away from the pictures completely. For some, the pictures are disturbing enough to fend them off. For others, they couldn't give a rats ass about them. Which group is larger is anyone's say. But either way, I think it's stupid that the government is trying to do this anyway. All you have to do is give a clear warning of "Hey, this might kill you" and that's it. There's no reason to go this extreme. People are responsible for themselves, we don't need to see a picture of a man on fire to know not to touch a hot pot.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37403752]It's subjective. Some kids want to be "badass" and smoke, maybe even flashing the pictures around showing how "dangerous" what they're doing is while others will turn away from the pictures completely. For some, the pictures are disturbing enough to fend them off. For others, they couldn't give a rats ass about them. Which group is larger is anyone's say. But either way, I think it's stupid that the government is trying to do this anyway. All you have to do is give a clear warning of "Hey, this might kill you" and that's it. There's no reason to go this extreme. People are responsible for themselves, we don't need to see a picture of a man on fire to know not to touch a hot pot.[/QUOTE] I feel it's got something to do with a point you made. Teenagers, and most people for that matter, inherently feel invincible, by showing them the terrible effects that happen to many people, it sort of humanizes the situation and makes it feel more relevant. But I'm not sure.

[QUOTE=Mousy Sloth;37403806]I feel it's got something to do with a point you made. Teenagers, and most people for that matter, inherently feel invincible, by showing them the terrible effects that happen to many people, it sort of humanizes the situation and makes it feel more relevant. But I'm not sure.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it's strictly "doesn't work for all" or "does work for all". I just throw my unsupported, unsourced opinion in the "doesn't work for all" as the majority because I know there's those who are already smoking and don't care and kids that think they're invincible.

So how much of cigarettes is actually needed for it to be a cigarette, clearly it needs nicotene, but does it need all the tar and junk? Couldn't someone start up a line of comparatively "healthy" cigarettes? Or am I missing something.

[QUOTE=Rhenae;37404251]So how much of cigarettes is actually needed for it to be a cigarette, clearly it needs nicotene, but does it need all the tar and junk? Couldn't someone start up a line of comparatively "healthy" cigarettes? Or am I missing something.[/QUOTE] I've seen lots of people advertise healthy cigarettes, they just don't get advertised because of I don't know. But even cigarettes without all that junk in them are unhealthy because it's unhealthy to inhale [I]anything[/I] that isn't air into your lungs.

[QUOTE=Harnbrand;37402208]The tobacco industry deserves to be in chains of this sort because of the nature of their product and its deadly properties. The warning labels ought to have stayed. Corporations should not be considered people, and should not be entitled to free speech rights.[/QUOTE] It's not a mystery that these products are harmful though. These labels aren't going to do any good.

I watched "Thank You For Smoking" last night. This is so weird to see the next day.

[QUOTE=Archonos 2;37404947]I watched "Thank You For Smoking" last night. This is so weird to see the next day.[/QUOTE] That's a great movie, not just for smoking but for politics in general. The best line was, "I don't have to prove I'm right, I just have to prove you're wrong."

[QUOTE=Rhenae;37404251]So how much of cigarettes is actually needed for it to be a cigarette, clearly it needs nicotene, but does it need all the tar and junk? Couldn't someone start up a line of comparatively "healthy" cigarettes? Or am I missing something.[/QUOTE] They're called American Spirits but they're still harmful to you since they still contain nicotine which is found naturally in tobacco.

Damn shame.