Court strikes down graphic warnings for cigarettes

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,201
27,690
898
Seattle
#1
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that cigarette companies do not need to comply with new federal rules requiring their products to show graphic warning images, such as of a man exhaling smoke through a hole in his throat.

The 2-1 decision by a court in Washington, D.C., contradicts a ruling in a similar case by another court in March, setting up the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the dispute.

The court's majority found the label requirement from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration violated corporate speech requirements.

"This case raises 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 -- in this case, by making 'every single pack of cigarettes in the country mini billboard' for the government's anti-smoking message," wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The FDA "has not provided a shred of evidence" showing that the graphic labels would reduce smoking, Brown added.

Five cigarette companies, including Lorillard Inc and Reynolds American Inc, challenged the rules.

(Reporting by David Ingram; Editing by John Wallace and Lisa Von Ahn)
http://news.yahoo.com/u-appeals-cou...ic-warnings-cigarettes-143115059--sector.html
 

Yesterdays Hero

She's better than you, Smirkalicious.
Jan 25, 2007
16,625
4,000
571
Canada. Land of the Fat.
#4
More people up here are smokers than at any time I've seen. 3/4 the labels are warnings with some awful shit on it. Smokers don't give two shits. Glad it was struck down.

When you see smokers going at it in front of their kids, and the kids are waving off said smoke, a warning of a woman smoking in front of her kids on the pack, won't deter anyone.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,661
8,836
693
Loveland, CO
#5
Can we have the court strike down those horribly depressing Sarah McLaughlin abused pet commercials? I'd rather watch 100 tracheotomy operations than one more hurt doggy.
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,565
927
753
With a stranger
#6
Can we have the court strike down those horribly depressing Sarah McLaughlin abused pet commercials? I'd rather watch 100 tracheotomy operations than one more hurt doggy.

Why not combine the 2 and add a warning to the end of the ads saying that this is what cigarettes make you do to your pets? Then at the end they could show a kitten with emphysema.
 
Dec 8, 2004
49,475
21,296
693
Maine
#7
Well at least is not what they are doing in Australia where smokes are $20 a pack...

Australia Mulls Further Restrictions on Cigarette Sales

SYDNEY — Local lawmakers in Australia have proposed studying a ban on the sale of tobacco products to people born after the year 2000, a week after the country’s highest court signed off on some of the world’s toughest cigarette packaging laws.

The upper house of parliament in the Australian state of Tasmania unanimously passed a motion to explore a ban on the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after the year 2000, a parliament spokesman said Wednesday, effectively opening another front in the legal tug-of-war between the government and Big Tobacco.

The non-binding vote, which passed late Tuesday, expresses the body’s strong support for such a ban if it were to be proposed in formal legislation. The measure came less than a week after Australia’s High Court rejected a challenge by multinational tobacco companies seeking to block harsh new cigarette labelling laws, which are set to take effect here in December.

Under that so-called “plain packaging” legislation, brand logos will be banned from cigarette packages and replaced instead with graphic images including mouth ulcers, cancerous lungs and gangrenous limbs. The move has captured the attention of industry lobbyists and health care advocates, who had been closely scrutinizing the legal battle for its potential global ramifications.

It was unclear whether last week’s he court’s decision directly inspired the tobacco ban proposal, which was put forth by Tasmanian State MP Ivan Dean, an independent, but it appears to be an attempt to build on the momentum and widespread international attention garnered by the case.

Mr. Dean, formerly a police officer and small town mayor, argued that banning people born after 2000 from ever being able to legally buy cigarettes was the most effective way to continue to drive down smoking rates in a country that already has some of the highest taxes in the world on tobacco products.

“This would mean that we would have a generation of people not exposed to tobacco products,” Mr. Dean said, according to a report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Tasmania, a remote and rugged island south of the Australian mainland that was once home to one of the most feared penal colonies in the British Empire, has the highest smoking rates in the country, according to the non-profit organization Cancer Council Tasmania. One in four young Tasmanians smokes, compared with one in five in the rest of the country.

State government officials were quick to signal their willingness to explore the proposal. Tasmanian Health Minister Michelle O’Byrne said that a smoking ban was worthy of serious consideration, although she admitted that it would be difficult to unilaterally enact such a policy in only one of Australia’s five states.

“I think an arbitrary ban on smoking would be very difficult to police, particularly an island state,” she told the A.B.C. “However, saying that those people who sell cigarettes legally cannot sell cigarettes to a certain age is appropriate. We do it now.”

Others, however, are far more skeptical of the idea. The health spokesman for the opposition Tasmanian Liberal Party, Jeremy Rockliff, was quoted by The Sydney Morning Herald as having mocked the idea as an example of draconian government overreach.

“What’s next,” he asked. “50 lashes for people who break the rules?“
Link
 

Sunsetspawn

Registered User
Dec 5, 2005
2,955
410
328
#9
Can we have the court strike down those horribly depressing Sarah McLaughlin abused pet commercials? I'd rather watch 100 tracheotomy operations than one more hurt doggy.
A-motherfucking-men
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
19,043
5,841
848
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#10
Does anyone else see a blatant contradiction here?

. . . force the manufacturer of a product to . . . undermine its own economic interest -- in this case, by making 'every single pack of cigarettes in the country mini billboard' for the government's anti-smoking message,"

. . .

The FDA "has not provided a shred of evidence" showing that the graphic labels would reduce smoking,
If they agree that the pictures would undermine the companies' economic interests (i.e. keep people from buying cigarettes), how can they say there's no evidence it would reduce smoking?
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,541
13,853
608
Idaho
#11
Without depressing Sarah McLaughlin, there would be no Patrice bit.

"Hi. I'm white lady..."

"There's a kitten, with a pencil in his eye..."