Free speech to smoke?

[Gob]

Five tobacco companies have sued the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over a new law that would force them to place graphic health warnings on their cigarette packets.




The firms argue the plan violates their constitutional right to free speech, as it requires firms to promote the government's anti-smoking message.

The FDA has not commented on the lawsuit.

The new warnings will be required on cigarette packs from September 2012.

RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, Commonwealth Brands, Liggett Group and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco said they filed their suit against the FDA late on Tuesday in an effort to delay enforcement of the new law.

RJ Reynolds brands include Camel and Winston, while Lorillard brands include Newport and True.

In their 41-page complaint, the five companies say the new labels would illegally force them to make consumers "depressed, discouraged and afraid" to buy their products.

"The government can require warnings which are straightforward and essentially uncontroversial, but they can't require a cigarette pack to serve as a mini-billboard for the government's anti-smoking campaign," Floyd Abrams, a lawyer representing the cigarette makers, said in a statement.

He added that the new labels would violate the companies' free-speech rights under the first amendment to the constitution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14553228

[Scooter]

Perhaps tobacco companies should be given a choice - shut up and print the packages or have nicotine reclassified as a Schedule I drug, which is where it fits based on existing criteria. Then they can watch their profits being taken by the drug cartels.

[Liberty1]

I have a better ideaa, ban cigarettes or shut the hell up. I get so tired of politicians and government profitting from things they continually lecture about, and they profit from cigarettes more than the manufactures do.

[Gob]

Well said Liberty 1.

[dgs49]

It is an interesing case. The Government cannot prevent you from expressing your thoughts, but can they compel you to say something you would rather not say?

I agree with them. The freedom of speech also entails the freedom to refrain from speaking.

The success of anti-smoking campaigns has been a terrible blow to the "Social Security Trust Fund." We now have tens of millions of Americans walking around at 75 y.o. plus, who would or should have died long ago due to smoking-related illnesses.

Has anyone ever stopped smoking because of a warning on a cigarette pack?

Or are we just reacting to better information and the growth of a beneficial social stigma on smokers?

[quaddriver]

better yet, how many started smoking because of that dumb assed camel?

Camels (the real life animal) smell bad and make rude noises - beyond being ugly. If that is all it takes to entice people to smoke, well shit, fire up the gas ovens...

[Gob]

It is an interesing case. The Government cannot prevent you from expressing your thoughts, but can they compel you to say something you would rather not say?

They are not compelling you to say something you would rather not say, quite the contrary. They are requiring you to carry a health warning, just as any dangerous product does. They are labelled so;

[loCAtek]

So, every candy bar should have a picture of fatty tissue on it?

Every coffee cup should have a picture of a heart in cardiac arrest?

Every underarm deodorant should have a picture of brain with Alzheimer's?