Judge blocks rules on graphic cigarette labels

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON | Mon Nov 7, 2011 11:24am EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge sided with tobacco companies on Monday, granting a temporary injunction blocking rules requiring new warning labels that use graphic images like a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a hole in his throat.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon granted a temporary injunction after determining that the tobacco companies would likely prevail in their lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration's requirement as unconstitutional because it compels speech in violation of the First Amendment.

(Reporting by Alina Selyukh and Jeremy Pelofsky in Washington, editing by Dave Zimmerman)

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/07/us-fda-tobacco-idUSTRE7A63V120111107

[Democrats_win]

1. Rats! I guess you can always go to hospice to see the actual human cost of tobacco company crime.

[cosmicone]

2. This would mean no warnings on pharmaceutical package inserts

too? That would be insane!

Our judges are either getting senile or drinking too much.

[former9thward]

11. Another first amendment hater.

Don't worry, you have alot of company. The pharmaceutical warnings are not placed there by the government, they are put there by the companies. In the cigarette case it is the government who wishes to put pictures on the packs. Exactly the opposite of the drug situation.

[cosmicone]

17. Actually, the FDA requires the package inserts in a certain form

and requires indications, contraindications, pharmacodynamics, cautions, dosage, warnings and how supplied.

Companies have an incentive to put the warnings in there for their own protection, that is correct, but to say that the FDA doesn't require them is disingenuous.

[former9thward]

20. Does the FDA write the warnings?

Does the FDA demand the warnings be posted in large type on the package? Does the FDA require drug makers to show pictures of dead people who used the drugs in the wrong way? I don't think the two can be compared. I agree with the judge that this is a violation of first amendment rights.

[No Elephants]

27. If cigarettes were not addictive and the First Amendment were absolute, I'd consider agreeing with

you about the first amendment issue.

[SpartanDem]

3. Judge blocks graphic images on cigarette packages

Source: AP

Washington — A judge on Monday blocked a federal requirement that would have begun forcing tobacco companies next year to put graphic images on their cigarette packages to show the dangers of smoking.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that it's likely the cigarette makers will succeed in a lawsuit claiming the images violate the free speech amendment to the Constitution. He stopped the requirement until the lawsuit is resolved, which could take years.

Leon held a hearing on the case in September and questioned the Justice Department about whether the nine graphic images approved by the Food and Drug Administration in June convey just the facts about the health risks of smoking or go beyond that into advocacy — a critical distinction in a case over free speech.

The images include a cloud of cigarette smoke within inches of a baby's face; a pair of healthy lungs next to the diseased lungs of a smoker and a warning that smoking causes fatal lung disease; a smoker's stained teeth and a lip diseased by cigarettes; and a dead smoker on an autopsy table with surgical stitches in his chest and the words "Smoking can kill you."




Read more: http://www.detnews.com/article/20111107/NATION/111070399/1361/Judge-blocks-graphic-images-on-cigarette-packages

[robinlynne]

4. These images have been in use in other countries for over ten years.

At least 15 years in Brazil.

[Withywindle]

30. In Brazil?

I was there for a month in 2004 and didn't see any graphic pictures (and I'm a smoker, so I would). What I saw was pictures warning and suggesting that smoking would make you ugly and smelly and impair your odds of getting laid. I saved a pack for years because I thought it was so funny and right-on in a weird way.

[dtexdem]

5. Free speech? Does this mean no regulation at all of commercial speech?

Do those corporate "persons" have a right to lie all they want when selling their products?

[valerief]

6. Of course, tobacco wins! There is no justice, just horrible, slow deaths. nt

[SoapBox]

8. Ditto.

[The Straight Story]

7. Are they gonna put the same pics on cars, fast food, alcohol, etc?(nt)

[ixion]

12. That's silly. Everyone knows the only dangerous thing is tobacco.

:sarcasm:

[alp227]

22. such as printing drunk driving accidents on beer bottles

or fat kids on Happy Meals?

Question is, how do you compromise public health and sales? How low do companies have to stoop due to the ignorance of their target audiences?

[MADem]

26. Fat kids on Happy Meals!!!

:rofl:

The very concept is terribly humorous...

[Lionessa]

9. GOOD! I'm getting real tired of the nanny's not nannying their favorite

ingested crap, and only picking on smokers and tobacco industry.

Unless and until, twinkies come with pictures of old, obese people trying to wear spandex, or birthcontrol pills come with pictures of teens with cystic acne and 30#s overweight, and alcohol products have pictures of dead lacerated bodies from car accidents caused by drunk drivers....

Yeah, this is good. Cigarettes are just one of a number of not healthy things we put in our bodies or do to our bodies. Time to move on.

[OhioChick]

23. I agree n/t

[trof]

28. I second that.

Horrific graphics will never stop me from smoking.
If it comes to pass, I'll just buy a nice cigarette case.

[starroute]

10. These images were propaganda and not factual warnings

In this case I have to agree with the judge, because I had doubts when the rules were first announced.

It's one thing to have fact-based warning labels. But these shock images are the equivalent of anti-choicers parading around with pictures of dead fetuses. They're meant to target the old mammalian brain with images that trigger fear and revulsion.

And I don't like seeing anything in the public discourse being conducted on a basis of crude behavioral manipulation.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. How do you feel about marketing and advertising then?

Just generally. Since it's based on crude behavioural manipulation. Or is that all right?

[davidthegnome]

15. Uh, should we outlaw advertising harmful products?

We'd have to also throw in knives, fire arms, alcohol, various foods and drinks, a variety of toys.

Marketing and advertising is based on crude behavioral manipulation, but I'm really not seeing your point here. Is it alright? I don't know, I've never been terribly fond of advertisements in general, but that doesn't mean I have the right to interfere with or stop them - except for in the case of blatant false advertising.

Already, cigarettes cannot be advertised in a typical tv ad and there are strict regulations regarding most forms of tobacco advertising. I don't recall seeing a blatant ad anywhere (in the last decade and more) but in magazines or occasionally at various stores. This is the information age - everyone is aware that smoking is bad for you and can cause serious health problems. Some people continue to do so anyway because they enjoy whatever benefit they receive from smoking and may consider it worth the cost.

Adding graphic images intended to disturb, depress, even frighten the users of these products just isn't cool with me. There are warnings on the labels and have been for quite some time. There are constantly new taxes being imposed upon tobacco products - supposedly as a sin tax, a measure to assist the economy in caring for smokers who have become ill as a result of their habit. I suspect though, that the majority of that revenue is used for other projects. In fact, a recent study indicated that a smoker, throughout the course of their life will cost less than a healthy person due (primarily) to the shorter life expectancy.

Nearly every state now has strict regulations regarding smoking in any public building or area. It is outlawed in most bars and restaurants throughout the Country and some towns have attempted to ban it entirely (with varying success rates).

Now I suppose people could simply disregard or trash the labels containing graphic images, but if someone started putting people killed in drunk driving incidents in graphic photos on various bottles of alcohol... I suspect the outcry would be great. Prohibition does not work. Making people view disturbing images isn't going to force them to quit smoking either - it will annoy them and scare some, but little more than that.

I think enough is enough. Unless you want to outlaw it entirely, the regulations already in place are plenty.

[cosmicone]

18. what bad can happen if people saw cigarettes with fear and revulsion? n/t

[davidthegnome]

21. I don't think it will inspire them to quit

If that is the goal - greater safety, better health, for smokers... I think it's being gone about the wrong way there. Generally speaking, I find that graphic, disturbing images are not the best motivator and certainly not particularly educational. Seeing someone in a hospital who is sick and/or dying as a result of smoking is one thing and far more likely to be somewhat effective - having to see images that show a man exhaling smoke through his throat... not so much.

We could take pictures of really out of control parties and show people puking, or having their stomachs pumped in the hospital afterwards, or getting liver cancer as a result of alcoholism. We could then put those pictures on bottles of wine, whiskey, beer, etc. Do you think that the public would tolerate it or that it would be wise or effective?

If you really want cigarettes to inspire fear and revulsion in those who smoke, show them the people who this has been done to. Don't show them pictures or images of people they have never met and will never know. The personal touch is far more effective - as an on and off smoker for years, I should know.

[alp227]

29. I thought about it and agree, since the image wouldn't be scientifically accurate anyway

Will people really be moved by photo of blackened lung affected by smoking?

[onehandle]

14. What a surprise. Appointed by George W. Bush.

Corporate earnings protected again.

[SOS]

16. A ludicrous waste of time

Smokers will just buy a cigarette case and throw the
"graphic" packs in the garbage.

[Devil_Fish]

19. Well if that argument houlds up, they don't even have to put warning lables on the boxes now do they

Scum bags.

[lynne]

24. What? No pic of auto wreck blood & guts on beer cans? No -

- cirrhosis of the liver pics on liquor bottles? I'd love to see a photo of a coronary patient's autopsied clogged and fatty heart on the label of a Big Mac and on a Krispy Kreme box.

Hey, if we're going to do this "in the interest of public health" stuff, we need to apply the treatment equally to all risky behaviors.

OOH . . . that picture of Jayne Mansfield's totaled car with her dead dog lying next to it . . . it would be GREAT at stop signs!

[ZombieHorde]

25. Awesome. Nice to see some decency.

Reminds me of the gross, abortion pics some people seem to love.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. If cigarettes are truly addicting then a mere picture won't cure that

anymore more than pictures of dead heroin addicts would turn someone away from heroin. They're already addicted.

A warning aimed at informed consent is one thing but the government using the force of law to try and emotional manipulate people is a matter of a higher magnitude. We have a hard enough time just battling mandatory pre-abortion sonograms. Imagine some conservative state demanding women seeking abortion view graphic pictures of medical waste.

My husband, bless his conservative heart, has a good rule -- In a democracy, never pass a law you wouldn't want your worst enemy to enforce.

[healthybody]

32. It is mind that decides and not pictures

Obviously the decision is not bad. It cannot be taken as the judge siding with the companies as everyone know the bad effects of cigarette and I don't feel a picture will decrease the temptation of smoking or the health hazards due to it. No use of trying to add one more picture and waste the resources. Rather more interest should be shown to give advices when a person is young enough to start a habit of smoking. But are nowadays popular which says the harm is much reduced on using the same.