Archive for Sunday, December 25, 2011

Several U.S. states weigh in on cigarette label lawsuit

December 25, 2011


— Several states and U.S. territories are weighing in on a lawsuit over proposed graphic cigarette warning labels that include a sewn-up corpse of a smoker and a picture of diseased lungs, saying the federal government should be allowed to require the labels for the “lethal and addictive” products.

The 24 attorneys general filed a friend of the court brief on Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington in support of the Food and Drug Administration’s challenge of a lower court ruling in the case.

Last month, a U.S. District Court judge granted a request by some of the nation’s largest tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co., to block the labels while deciding whether the labels violate their free speech rights. The judge ruled it is likely the cigarette makers would succeed in a lawsuit to block the requirement that the labels be placed on cigarette packs next year.

Representatives for R.J. Reynolds declined to comment. Officials with Lorillard did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Saturday.

The tobacco companies have questioned the constitutionality of the labels, saying the warnings don’t simply convey facts to inform people’s decision whether to smoke but instead force the cigarette makers to display government anti-smoking advocacy more prominently than their own branding. They also say that changing cigarette packaging will cost millions of dollars.

Meanwhile, the FDA has said that the public interest in conveying the dangers of smoking outweighs the companies’ free speech rights.

In the filing Friday, the attorneys general said that the First Amendment does not prevent the government from requiring that “lethal and addictive products carry warning labels that effectively inform consumers of the risks those products entail.”

“Over forty years’ experience with small, obscurely placed text-only warning labels on cigarette packs has demonstrated that they simply do not work,” they wrote. “The warning labels reflect the unique magnitude of the problem they address, the deadly and addictive nature of the product, and the unparalleled threat this product and its marketing pose to America’s youth.”

The brief was filed by attorneys general from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, the Virgin Islands, Washington and West Virginia.


Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 2 months ago

It would make a lot more sense to require the tobacco companies to pay for all of the health care costs that their products cause.

Or at least, make them pay for the Medicare and Medicaid payments that the government has to pay out every year for tobacco related diseases.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

If we could ever get a single-payer healthcare system, one of the sources for funding it could be taxes on products that create demand in the healthcare system-- tobacco, alcohol and maybe even refined sugar products could be at the top of the list. These taxes should replace the "sin" taxes that are currently levied against these products, although regular sales taxes could remain.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

Thanks so much for yet another edition of reductio ad absurdum.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 2 months ago

To heck with labels, make it a requirement that in order to buy a pack of ciggies, you have to turn in 40 butts. Every six months make the toll higher by 20.

JackMcKee 6 years, 2 months ago

New contest. lebertarians vs fascists in an all battle to the bottom of the political sewer.

JackMcKee 6 years, 2 months ago

Heck toss in the anarchists too I'm not sure the libertarians stand a chance against the fascists without help.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.