Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | White House Counsel Brings in New Staff »

August 17, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e201543498b6f7970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cigarette Companies Claim Graphic Labels Violate First Amendment:

Comments

Ric McCoy

The new graphics will not make a difference for the addiction to cigarettes is a very powerful tool and the warning labels have not made a difference in the past.

Reasons To quit Smoking

I hate to say this but i also agree with the cigarette companies.

Peter S. Chamberlain

The bottom line Constitutional question could come down to whether or not, under the Commerce Clause, etc., the federal government could validly outlaw cigarettes, the politics of that aside. If, as I suspect, then could, then the lesser measure of requiring graphic warnings ceases to be a real First Amendment and becomes a straightforward Commerce Clause business regulation case.
This is the tobacco industry, which used to advertise "not a cough in a carload" and fraudulently concealed the known adverse health effects of its lethal or lethally dangerous product, and their rigging it to enhance physical or psychological addiction, from Congress and the Courts, b affirmative lies and concealment, for years. somebody should check out their role in the manipulation of the law of, inter alia, scientific and expert evidence, too.
If any warning can Constitutionally be required, the "compelled speech" issue drops out and the fact that it must be "graphic" or effective, hardly changes the Constitutional analysis. A requirement that they include the fact that they lied to Congress, the courts, and consumers about the dangers of their products might be Constitutionally and otherwise justified, too.

chirs

These are the same companies who supply cigarette's to Canada? The same companies who have the same type of warning label's that is going in effect?

**search google images for it. Canada cigarette warnings.

 NavinC Naidu

So, its ok to post graphic pictures of an aircrash in airports to prevent people from flying so as to save fuel since we are becoming fuelish !!

Dirk A. Ravenholt

I believe that the cigarette company has a point that the government cannot compell a company to advertise adverse information on products. What's next - cars with the hood covered with graphic pictures of car accidents indicating that you should take a bus instead of your car?
Dirk A. Ravenholt, Esq.

TonySF

Meh. They do this in Europe and people still chain smoke. It's disingenuous to say that anti-smoking advocacy will lead to fewer people smoking. Cigarettes are highly addictive and people are going to continue their smoking habits whether or not there is a back lung on the packaging.

D

If cigarettes need graphic warning labels, so does everything ... http://placeitonluckydan.com/2011/08/cigarette-warning-labels-for-all/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements