U.S. judge blocks graphic cigarette warnings

[Peter11216]

From the story:

Judge Leon said the images provoked an emotional response rather than just providing factual and noncontroversial information, crossing the line into using company advertising for government advocacy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-fda-tobacco-idUSTRE7A63V120111108

What do you think about the ruling? Nothing about cigar boxes yet. Is this equivalent, worse or better than the Australian measures?

For better or worse, the graphic labels in Canada never stopped me from picking up a pack of Gauloises.

Best,

Pete

[OZCUBAN]

From the story:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-fda-tobacco-idUSTRE7A63V120111108

What do you think about the ruling? Nothing about cigar boxes yet. Is this equivalent, worse or better than the Australian measures?

For better or worse, the graphic labels in Canada never stopped me from picking up a pack of Gauloises.

Best,

Pete

Hi Pete

I would say our laws (OZ) are a lot worse by a long shot not only are cigars off the planet in price but there to few places left to smoke them ?

We have the nanny state of nanny states ?

Cheers OZ

[Phillycyclocross]

So much for being a free country.

[Ginseng]

I agree with the ruling. When the government can designate an industry and its product a hazard, yet not shut it down, but rather continue to extract its share of the profits, this is blood money. It goes against reason to try and force one to be an active advocate against one's own product on the product itself.

Wilkey

[TonyV]

So much for being a free country.

The USA,just ain't what it use to be.

[cottierm]

Well said!

I agree with the ruling. When the government can designate an industry and its product a hazard, yet not shut it down, but rather continue to extract its share of the profits, this is blood money. It goes against reason to try and force one to be an active advocate against one's own product on the product itself.

Wilkey

[cigaraholic]

The good old USA where big money always gets it's way.

God forbid we should have warning stickers on the #1 killer in our country.

[Skitalets]

The good old USA where big money always gets it's way.

God forbid we should have warning stickers on the #1 killer in our country.

You're kidding, right?

People should be allowed to do what they want without the government lecturing them (in the form of graphic photos) at every turn.

Further, cigars will be next if they get their way on this. Do you want these photos covering your cigar boxes like they do in Aus, Mexico, etc.?

[cigaraholic]

No I'm not kidding.

We're talking about cigarettes, that's what the stickers are for.

Do I like the stickers on cigar boxes, no. But I don't buy cigars for the boxes.

People are not allowed to do what they want...................I can't drive 100 mph to work everyday.

I'm all for anything that might get someone to stop or never start smoking cowboy killers.

I only inhale if it's illegal.

[SCgarman]

No I'm not kidding.

We're talking about cigarettes, that's what the stickers are for.

Do I like the stickers on cigar boxes, no. But I don't buy cigars for the boxes.

People are not allowed to do what they want...................I can't drive 100 mph to work everyday.

I'm all for anything that might get someone to stop or never start smoking cowboy killers.

I only inhale if it's illegal.

My argument against your statement is that tobacco products are a LEGAL product. Yes, we all know that cigarettes are a proven killer, but do we REALLY need our government telling us what is good for us and what is bad? I am an educated adult, I do not smoke cigarettes, but what right do I have to condemn someone who does? I smoke cigars, I am fully aware of the risks and accept them, and I don't want ugly pictures all over my ornate cigar boxes. It is a matter of principal. Do you really think the gov't will stop with tobacco? Heck no, next it will be beer and wine, next snack foods, next the steak or lobster you eat etc..Once big brother gets his foot in the doorcrack, the door slams open..we don't need a NANNY to supervise our lives..JMO

[cigaraholic]

Your absolutely right tobacco is a legal product but just because something is legal doesn't mean it shouldn't come with warnings.

It's what the cigarette companies put in their product and don't tell people not to mention creating more and more addictive cigarettes that bothers me.

I believe your a well educated person, sadly I think your in the minority in this country.

A friend of mine stopped smoking after he saw healthy and smokers lungs on TV. Some people need to see it to get it.

I'm no big brother supporter, just the opposite, but if ugly stickers on cigarette packs stop some kids from smoking I have no problem with it. And I do think they're targeting children, not usually the sharpest tools in the shed.

I agree putting them on cigar boxes is stupid.

[Skitalets]

Your absolutely right tobacco is a legal product but just because something is legal doesn't mean it shouldn't come with warnings.

The thing is, the evidence shows these kinds of paternalistic policies don't really work:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228376.500-nudge-policies-are-another-name-for-coercion.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

They're also coercive and take away freedom from companies and consumers.

If you think you can let the anti lobby beat up on cigarette smokers without them also coming after cigar smokers, you're kidding yourself. They want to stamp out all forms of tobacco, no matter what smokers want and no matter what the evidence shows about relative levels of harm between cigars and cigarettes. They hate our hobby and our freedom to engage in it.

[Peter11216]

As I've said before, there is a strong argument that the anti-smoking lobby will not be successful at limiting cigar smoking much more than has already happened. The history of drug prohibition in the US suggests that cigar will remain legal, even if smoking them is curtailed. PM if you want an interesting reference.

As for the statement that graphic labels are "coercive and take away freedom," I don't understand how you can say this, or I don't know what you mean. Clearly, you are no more or less free to buy or sell cigarettes just because of the graphic warning. It may affect buying patterns, but it doesn't limit freedom, at least not in the usual sense of the term. I'm afraid the essay you link to doesn't really say there is evidence such warnings don't work. They were, as far as I can tell, only referring to one study which claimed that differences in rates of organ donation are not best explained by whether an opt in or opt out policy is used. Notice, in fact, the authors seem to be suggesting that such "nudges" do work indeed (otherwise they wouldn't really be a problem, right?). I'm not really sure if I buy their argument/claim that "nudges" are coercive. Ask yourself, if a private store offers a sale, which nudges you to buy stuff from the store, is that really coercive? Maybe, or maybe not, but we are really getting away from what most people mean when the say coercive. Another question you might ask, if the Federal Government gives tax breaks to home owners, like the mortgage interest deduction, is this coercive? It is certainly a big nudge! (By the way, I generally agree with what I think is the main point, top down "libertarian paternalism" is undemocratic.)

My guess is that, in this case, the Cig. Co.s successfully argued that the label did not add any useful information. Evidently, this part of the argument the judge used to block the FDA. The question of "coercion" was limited to that of forcing the Cig. Co.s to advertise on behalf of the government . . . I think.

The thing is, the evidence shows these kinds of paternalistic policies don't really work:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228376.500-nudge-policies-are-another-name-for-coercion.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

They're also coercive and take away freedom from companies and consumers.

If you think you can let the anti lobby beat up on cigarette smokers without them also coming after cigar smokers, you're kidding yourself. They want to stamp out all forms of tobacco, no matter what smokers want and no matter what the evidence shows about relative levels of harm between cigars and cigarettes. They hate our hobby and our freedom to engage in it.

[Phillycyclocross]

As for the statement that graphic labels are "coercive and take away freedom," I don't understand how you can say this, or I don't know what you mean. .

I think the freedoms he is referring to that are being taken away is that of business. Too much government. If you don't want your kids to smoke then become more involved in their lives and teach them to make better choices. I see the FDA as moving more towards a babysitting police state.

[Peter11216]

Just to be clear - the business will not be restricted from selling cigarettes. It is clear no freedom to sell is being taken away, right? The original story makes it sound like the judgment hinged on requiring the companies to advertise for the government/FDA.

This particular FDA initiative relates very, very tenuously to restricting freedom.

I'm not defending the FDA labels, but I am saying that before we start talking "freedom" and "too much government" we ought to at least understand exactly what the issues are. The FDA is only requiring information be added to packages, it doesn't stop the cigarette co. from saying anything. So, I would say this particular issue is different than regulations which prevent cigarettes from advertising on TV, which really is a restriction of the company's ability to advertise.

Suppose I don't want my kid to see advertising for cigarettes on billboards. Do the cigarette companies take away my freedom not to have my kid see such adverts? Unless the kid is confined to the house, or has to walk around with a blindfold, it is impossible for all practical purposes to prevent her from seeing advertising for cigarettes. I'm not sure whether it makes sense to label this a restriction of my freedom . . . it starts to get a little hazy, right?

I think the freedoms he is referring to that are being taken away is that of business. Too much government. If you don't want your kids to smoke then become more involved in their lives and teach them to make better choices. I see the FDA as moving more towards a babysitting police state.

[Phillycyclocross]

If the government starts requiring all motorcycle dealers to show graphic pictures of dead bodies on the doors of their business because parents don't want their kids partaking in a dangerous sport, is that OK? Or how about they do the same with beer and wine?

Is the FDA stripping businesses of the right to sell? No. Are they severely hindering them? Yes. Are they breaking the first amendment to free speech and freedom of the press? IMO, yes. I don't need the government to help me raise my children and I don't want them restricting businesses ability to sell their product. Even if I don't agree with their product.

[Peter11216]

I'm not sure how it violates the 1st Amendment. Please take me at my word that I'm not being a jerk - I humbly ask that you explain how you think it violates the 1st Amendment. I'm not sure it does.

Regarding the motorcycles and such . . . those are different cases, and I think they should be looked at individually.

Regarding the government: If you regard the government as an alien force which you have no control over, and no say in, then yes I would want the government not to restrict businesses' ability to sell stuff.

However, even if it isn't working in practice right now, in a democracy the idea is that people control the government and then democratically decide what rules they want and don't want.

Personally I don't think street drugs should be illegal, but I think this because I don't think restrictions work. However, I would have to think carefully about whether I would want cigarette companies to say, wait outside a school and offer free cigarettes to students, or something else that sounds just as crazy. That is a limit on business that I think is reasonable . . . but that is just one case, and I can't generalize much past it. Just because I don't think cigarette companies shouldn't be allowed to directly market to kids, doesn't mean I think the same thing about junk food manufacturers, for example.

[Orion21]

Guess what? People are going to do what they want even if tobacco products have warnings, pictures...whatever. The only thing that changes habits are taxes. When a pack of cigarettes costs $5-10 because of taxes less people are going to smoke or are going to smoke less.

The judge in this case has it 1000% correct when saying the pictures are part of an anti-smoking agenda and provide no meaningful information to educate people about the hazards of smoking. My great grandfather smoked cigars and cigarettes until he died at the ripe old age of 93. Can it be a contributing factor to cancer and other health issues? Of course, but pictures on a pack of smokes is not going to keep an 18 year old from buying a pack on the way to the bar or club. What the government's real goal seems to be is to continue to try to convince the general public that without it's role as Grand Overseer we are doomed to kill ourselves because we won't know any better...

This is not the 1950's when tobacco companies were learning about the health hazards of smoking and covering it up. EVERYONE knows smoking in excess is bad for your health and continuing to expand regulations is in the government's best interest, as it helps expand it's power. Australia is a prime example of government power run crazy and I am happy at least one judge in the US had the sense to call out the anti-smoking lobby and the government and shine a light on their true intentions.

[Skitalets]

I'm not sure how it violates the 1st Amendment. Please take me at my word that I'm not being a jerk - I humbly ask that you explain how you think it violates the 1st Amendment. I'm not sure it does.

Compelling speech is just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as prohibiting certain speech. In other words, telling cigarette companies they *must* publish photos on their packages is a violation of free speech...because they're not free to refrain from the speech required by government.

Put another way, if you were required by the government to tell everyone you meet, "Hello, my name is NN., I'm a bad person," would you say you still had freedom of speech?

Separately, government is trying to take away my right to a free exchange with the cigarette (or cigar) manufacturer through the retail sales channel. I'm not free any longer to buy smokes that are unadulterated with these (often misleading) messages from government.

[Phillycyclocross]

Compelling speech is just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as prohibiting certain speech. In other words, telling cigarette companies they *must* publish photos on their packages is a violation of free speech...because they're not free to refrain from the speech required by government.

Put another way, if you were required by the government to tell everyone you meet, "Hello, my name is NN., I'm a bad person," would you say you still had freedom of speech?

Separately, government is trying to take away my right to a free exchange with the cigarette (or cigar) manufacturer through the retail sales channel. I'm not free any longer to buy smokes that are unadulterated with these (often misleading) messages from government.

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[bc8436]

I'm not sure how it violates the 1st Amendment. Please take me at my word that I'm not being a jerk - I humbly ask that you explain how you think it violates the 1st Amendment. I'm not sure it does.

There are plenty of previous rulings on the subject matter. In short, the government is only allowed to impose disclosure of information that is “purely factual and uncontroversial." This would include things such as calorie counts and list of ingredients on food. Exceptions can be made if the required label is “narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest.”

According to the court filings, the FDA's own studies have shown that these new labels will not lead to a decrease in second-hand smoke exposure or youth smoking, nor will it increase the likeliness for smokers to quit. They have also failed to prove that these new graphic labels will offer any significant improvements over current warning labels. So, the new label requirement fails the "compelling interest" test.

Therefore, since the labels are clearly controversial, fail to use the least speech-restrictive means and do not further a compelling interest, they directly violate the tobacco companies' First Amendment rights.

[Orion21]

Thank you LLee! A perfect summary of the legal findings that gets right down to it.