24 replies to this topic 1 votes

[+Mephistopheles]

US court blocks graphic cigarette warnings

The US government cannot force tobacco firms to put large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages, an appeals court in Washington has ruled.

It said the government's plan undermined free speech in America.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had wanted to put nine pictures of dead and diseased smokers to convey the dangers of cigarettes.

But tobacco firms had argued that the images went beyond factual information and into anti-smoking advocacy.

The ruling comes as a number of other countries have ordered similar pictures to be placed on all cigarette packets.

Australia has gone a step further, banning even tobacco company logos from the cartons.

'Significant vindication'

The US Court of Appeals affirmed an earlier lower court ruling in a 2-1 decision.

It said the case raised "novel questions about the scope of the government's authority to force the manufacturer of a product to go beyond making purely factual and accurate commercial disclosures and undermine its own economic interest".

The court said that in this case it was "by making every single pack of cigarettes in the country a mini billboard for the government's anti-smoking message".

It added that the FDA "has not provided a shred of evidence" that the images would directly advance its policy aimed at reducing the number of smokers in America.

The verdict was welcomed by tobacco companies, with Lorrilard Tobacco's describing it as "a significant vindication of First Amendment principles".

The FDA has so far made no public comment on whether it intends to appeal against the ruling in the US Supreme Court.

Source: BBC News

[theyarecomingforyou]

It's interesting that the tobacco industry uses "free speech" to appeal these warnings even though they're used in numerous other countries. By playing the 'US constitution' trump card it's easy to get the public on their side, despite the fact this is clearly a commercial agenda that flies in the face of public safety. It seems strange that commercial activities could fall under "free speech" even though regulatory bodies obviously already impede such freedom. Once again money corrupts everything.

[DKAngel]

and just in australia we have now banned their fancy packaging, its all going to be in 1 generic box with warnings

[Rohdekill]

I for one side on the tobacco companies for this one. Regardless of your personal feelings towards tobacco use, it IS A LEGAL PRODUCT. If you're going to tax the hell out of and plaster a product with a photo of the potential long term use effect, then sodas should be $6 a 16 oz bottle and have a fat diabetic kid plastered on every label. Same goes for all fast food items, alcohol, etc.

At some point the insanity needs to stop. Either make the product illegal or treat EVERY potentially harmful product the same. But to tax one product to a point where it is commercially unobtainable and plaster images on it, yet leave the others minimally taxed without images, has got to be illegal.

[Yakuzing]

As a smoker I can just say straight up: these images would not make any difference anyway! We have them in Denmark and intelligent people look at them and see photos that have nothing to do with tobacco smoking. Probably half of them are entirely unrelated. What is the point in this? Scare dumb people? Just completely nonsense. If someone want to fight the tobacco industry they should try to make it illegal to smoke in public, near children and so on. Anything else is not going to have an impact as long as tobacco is a legal product

[SiCKX]

Good news, God bless USA.

[ahhell]

Lobbyists are the best thing to ever happen to the US.
There's your problem right there.

[Hum]

As overpopulated as the world is, I guess smoking helps to control the pest population.

[Reverend Spam]

You know, people don't need warnings printed on the box, or scary pictures... We all know how bad it is for us, from the moment we inhale that first drag of that first cigarette. We feel the burn in our throats, our lungs, our stomach turns upside down and we feel like we want to throw up... Even decades ago when "we didn't know" how bad it was for us.... We knew. We just didn't want to admit it because we liked the feeling the most easily obtainable drug in history gave us. People have been doing stupid things to themselves for millennia. It's just what we do. If you think scary pictures on the side of a cigarette box is going to stop us.... The US Govt is dumber than even *I* thought.... And I already think they're utterly clueless.

[ILikeTobacco]

Rohdekill, on 25 August 2012 - 13:09, said:

If you're going to tax the hell out of and plaster a product with a photo of the potential long term use effect, then sodas should be $6 a 16 oz bottle and have a fat diabetic kid plastered on every label.

Except that soda doesn't cause diabetes. Nice try there. http://www.diabetes....diabetes-myths/

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

Just shows you large companies in the US can now do whatever they want as long as they buy out enough judges or politicians. RIP America.

[+ShMaunder]

Do these graphics really do much anyway. Like alcohol, they are sold in every shop and supermarket - limiting their availability to a few licensed shops might help people give up / not start / slow down.

Somebody I knew that smoked said limiting the availability of cigs would make him give up - it was too easy walking into the shop 2 mins away and buying a pack. The graphics on the packaging didn't bother him.

Limiting the availability may start a black market, but that can't be helped.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Reverend Spam, on 25 August 2012 - 17:35, said:

You know, people don't need warnings printed on the box, or scary pictures... We all know how bad it is for us, from the moment we inhale that first drag of that first cigarette.

And we all know to wear hard hats on construction sites but there are still warnings anyway; we all know that microwave meals are going to be hot once you've cooked them but there are still warnings on the box; we all know not to smoke when refuelling a vehicle but there are still warnings everywhere. Education is a constant process that involves repeated reinforcement. The tobacco industry isn't appealing such imagery because it has no impact - just the opposite.

[-Razorfold]

Rohdekill, on 25 August 2012 - 13:09, said:

I for one side on the tobacco companies for this one. Regardless of your personal feelings towards tobacco use, it IS A LEGAL PRODUCT. If you're going to tax the hell out of and plaster a product with a photo of the potential long term use effect, then sodas should be $6 a 16 oz bottle and have a fat diabetic kid plastered on every label. Same goes for all fast food items, alcohol, etc.

At some point the insanity needs to stop. Either make the product illegal or treat EVERY potentially harmful product the same. But to tax one product to a point where it is commercially unobtainable and plaster images on it, yet leave the others minimally taxed without images, has got to be illegal.

Well cigarettes are addicting due to the nicotine. Soda, on the other hand, really isn't. Not to mention drinking soda around kids / other people doesn't harm them in any way, smoking around them can / does.

I will agree though that graphic warnings don't really do much, since people don't start smoking because they think its good for them, they start for a lot of other reasons. Banning it from public places, malls, restaurants etc (as some countries already have done) works a lot better than just pictures on the cases.

[Growled]

Rohdekill, on 25 August 2012 - 13:09, said:

I for one side on the tobacco companies for this one. Regardless of your personal feelings towards tobacco use, it IS A LEGAL PRODUCT. If you're going to tax the hell out of and plaster a product with a photo of the potential long term use effect, then sodas should be $6 a 16 oz bottle and have a fat diabetic kid plastered on every label. Same goes for all fast food items, alcohol, etc.

Excellent point and I agree.