Community | August 31, 2009 | 37 comments

Tobacco Makers Sue Over New FDA Powers Claiming Harm To Free Speech

source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/tobacco_makers_sue_over_new_fd.html

Image
xiola
When President Barack Obama signed anti-tobacco legislation into law in June, giving the Food and Drug Administration for the first time the authority to regulate tobacco, experts said the law was likely to be challenged in the courts. And today it was.

Tobacco makers sued the federal government Monday, saying the law violated their First Amendment rights to communicate with their customers.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. was one of several manufacturers that joined a retailer in filing the lawsuit.

In a press release, the company said:

"This suit does not challenge Congress' decision to give the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco products, nor does it challenge the vast majority of the provisions of the new law," said Martin L. Holton III, senior vice president and general counsel for R.J. Reynolds. "However, the law contains provisions that severely restrict the few remaining channels we have to communicate with adult tobacco consumers and, in our opinion, cannot be justified on any basis consistent with the demands of the First Amendment."
Holton adds, "The law also contains provisions that chill our ability to participate in the broader public policy dialogue over the future of tobacco products in this country. Reynolds believes that governments, public health officials, tobacco manufacturers and others can and should play a role in providing adult tobacco consumers with accurate information about the various health risks and comparative risks associated with the use of different tobacco and nicotine products. This suit seeks to confirm that Reynolds' ability to participate in that important dialogue has not been shut down."
The tobacco industry is clearly hoping its arguments are embraced by federal courts which in recent decades have trended towards granting more protection under the First Amendment to commercial speech.

In Lorillard Tobacco Co v. Reilly, the Supreme Court in 2002 ruled as unconstitutional a Massachusetts ban on outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of a school or playground and on point-of-sale advertising lower than five feet from the ground.

The ban was meant to keep protect children from advertising but the high court found that it was too broad.

The majority opinion said:

"A speech regulation cannot unduly impinge on the speaker's ability to propose a commercial transaction and the adult listener's opportunity to obtain information about products."
With the Supreme Court lineup still appearing to favor a five to four conservative majority in such commercial-speech cases, the tobacco industry is clearly looking for another First Amendment victory similar to what it achieved in the Lorillard case.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Health,   US Politics,   1 more
  2. tags:
    Free Speech,  FDA,  Cigarettes,  Tobacco
  3.     
    |

37 comments // Tobacco Makers Sue Over New FDA Powers Claiming Harm To Free Speech

  • wayseeker
    • 0
      wayseeker  

    • Where's Congress and the FDA when it comes to raising taxes and prohibiting ads for alcohol? Whole families are getting wiped out on the streets thanks to drunk drivers. Alcohol can be extremely addictive and can destroy the liver. It also can destroy the mental health of entire families. So where's Congress and the FDA concerning booze?

    • 2 years ago
  • xiola
  • CalgarC
    • 0
      CalgarC  

    • the tobacco industry should just STFU. didn't camel cigarettes steal a girls works and use it in an advertisement or something with the "orphan works" law...

    • 2 years ago
  • FreeGaza_xo
    • 0
      FreeGaza_xo  

    • Why were they brought here to the first place. I thought this was a democratic nation. Choose to be choosen. it's like getting picked last for dodgeball in middle school. You know nobody wants you but they have to pick you. So we have the choice regarding cigarretes and chewing tobacco. BAN baseball then thats all I see them doing chew chew chew and they get paid to do so (somewhat). Americans take alot of things for granted.

    • 2 years ago
  • ProjectBat
    • 0
      ProjectBat  

    • The Democrats love to control freedom when they believe it's in your interest. When will you sheep realize that the answer is personal responsibility, not to have the government take care of you? Why do you think we're about to have this health care overhaul? Government messed with the markets to create our current, broken system. Just as education and a public campaign against cigarettes have curved smoking into a steep downhill, so can people do for themselves. Shocking!

    • 2 years ago
  • BKsaysAction
    • 0
      BKsaysAction  

    • Even though I do not smoke cigarrettes I believe every person has a right to do what they want to their bodies. This notion that people that smoke are not aware of their consiquences is ridiculous. If people want to smoke let them. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned. People die from drinking alcohol all the time but you don't hear that being screamed to be banned. You've already have it banned from resturaunts and bars, give it up already.

    • 2 years ago
  • kstein
    • 0
      kstein  

    • Obama smokes like a fish, we will have to give him a raise to pay for the cig costs now and pay for his cancer treatment later, while the avg. joe dies in pain at home from breathing in second hand smoke at the job he lost Including health care. and big tobacco sues and raises our tax rate to 98%, to pay the 50 new Obama lawyers.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
  • timetide
    • 0
      timetide  

    • I smoke because I want to. I know exactly what would happen to me and I choose. to tell me I don't ahve the right to choose what I put in my body as long I don't harm anyone else is morally wrong. Sigh.

    • 2 years ago
  • JohnA
  • bailey78
  • pandaman2105
    • 0
      pandaman2105  
    • JohnA:

      because most of them realize the big differences in terms of health effects.

      tons of people prefer marijuana over tobacco because there's an overwhelming amount of evidence of how it's better and no one gets those fucked up diseases.

      how would it be prescribing a cigarette for someone's ailments??? we know the alternative benefits of marijuana and legalization, if not at least decriminalization, should be put into effect.

    • 2 years ago
  • bailey78
    • 0
      bailey78  

    • I can't wait to see peoples reaction when they have to go to the doctor to get a script then go to the phamaice to get there smokes. Just like all the other legal addicts..

    • 2 years ago
  • NaturalAnthem
  • jac1992
    • 0
      jac1992  

    • The cigs don't give people cancer, its the people who smoke that do. I Do not smoke because i know it is bad for me, which the cigarette companies have informed me of, but i have absolutely no sympathy for people who start smoking and then are outraged that they develop cancer or lung problems.

      IT SAYS IT ON THE BOX!!! If the people trying to sell the product tell you it's bad, then it's probably bad for you, so don't use it. It's that simple

    • 2 years ago
  • thewallisgirl
  • Ares
    • 0
      Ares  

    • It's my right to smoke cigarettes as frequently as I wish, wherever I wish, local law withstanding.

      If the FDA thinks they can pressure a health agenda on the entire nation, they're getting a little too bold for their own good. If you outlaw cigarettes, you have to outlaw soda, cookies, chocolate, vitamin water, dietary supplements, corn chips, caffeine, and dozens of other substances that CAN be deadly in certain quantities over certain time periods.

    • 2 years ago
  • NaturalAnthem
    • 0
      NaturalAnthem  
    • Ares:

      oh but they've already done it to marijuana and halucinagenic mushrooms. why should they stop there?

      ... I just really want me freedom back, being born into a life of submission isn't freedom.

    • 2 years ago
  • JohnA
  • Ares
  • ryanmac3
    • 0
      ryanmac3  
    • Ares:

      "If you outlaw cigarettes, you have to outlaw soda, cookies, chocolate, vitamin water, dietary supplements, corn chips, caffeine, and dozens of other substances that CAN be deadly in certain quantities over certain time periods."

      To bad your forgetting one point...by you using those products it is not harming the other individuals around you. Instead I have to deal with walking through clouds of 2nd hand smoke while trying to walk through the front doors of college which is affecting my health. If you want to kill yourself thats fine, but keep it at home. Also while not all smokers litter a good majority do and just throw their butts out which can cause forest fires and are not biodegradable.

    • 2 years ago
  • RojoGatto
  • smallgod
    • 0
      smallgod  
    • Image
    • Ares:

      Ryanmac, secondhand smoke doesn't kill. That's an old wives' tale. You don't have to worry about smokers outside so it's really just your personal preference of disliking the smell that's bothering you.

      Attacking smokers is a moot point. We've all got around 70-some years as Americans, anyway, so leave them alone and let them enjoy their lives as much as they can.

      People obsessed with buying 'organic' put themselves at much higher risk for things like salmonella (I experienced this twice for myself and no longer buy organic) and other ailments (due to sludge....ick). I have a friend who's been a long time strict germophobic vegan - a person so 'careful' with everything about his body that it's hard for him to have friends - and is now dying from stomach cancer. Basically, the point is that no one knows what's right for others - people don't even really 'know' what's good or right for themselves.

    • 2 years ago
  • hunzedog
    • 0
      hunzedog  

    • lip service, fu(k the fda ! they make money off the deaths of millions of people every year..the only thing they protect is their bottom line !

    • 2 years ago
  • fernweher
    • 0
      fernweher  

    • gawd how horrible. in a time in American history where the individuals are losing more and more rights, commercial free speech is being protected? im so glad.

      the tobacco companies can all go to hell. they're making a profit on something designed to be addictive and kill people. they deserve whatever regulation the government imposes.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
  • chuygarsia2
  • lookatmypix
  • Ares
    • 0
      Ares  
    • lookatmypix:

      No, but the last time I looked, you had the right to use legal substances in their intended manner while understanding their risks as mandated by the manufacturer.

      Do you honestly think if you asked 50 smokers on the street if they thought cigarettes were good for them, you would get one answer in the affirmative? Fuck no you wouldn't. Know and accept the risks, it's called adulthood holy shit.

    • 2 years ago
  • lookatmypix
    • 0
      lookatmypix  
    • lookatmypix:

      The Alien:"It is mandatory for humans to wear a safety belt while driving a vehicle, they do not want you to get harmed or killed by an accident. Is that correct?"
      Me:"Yes but what's your point?"
      The Alien:" Do they sell you vehicles with a warning message too? Something that goes like this: Driving without a safety belt kills you, free to choose.
      With or without a safety belt, optional!
      Do they?"
      Me:"No, there is no such a thing in the market"
      The Alien:"Are you starting to see a connection"
      Me:"What are you really saying?
      How dare you to think they are slowly killing us?
      How dare you to think that cancer is legally being sold?
      Go back to your planet and leave us alone."

    • 2 years ago
  • allIknowis
    • 0
      allIknowis  
    • lookatmypix:

      I agree Ares, the feds put up all kinds of regulations to prevent us from starting to smoke, but they aren't shy when it comes to collecting tobacco taxes. Kind of duplicitous, no?

      If tobacco is SO bad why don't they ban it's growth, processing, sale, and use. It's worked well for pot, coke, and most other drugs? If they can't stop it they'll at least make money off it? Only in America.

    • 2 years ago
  • Sumbodyswatchin
    • 0
      Sumbodyswatchin  

    • Dear Tobbacco industry,

      Shut the fuck up. How's that for free speech? Your cancer sticks and propoganda killed both my grandparents, so you all can go stick your free speech up your gaping assholes.

      yours truly
      -SBW

    • 2 years ago
  • evilliberalbastard
  • Ares
    • 0
      Ares  
    • Sumbodyswatchin:

      Grow the fuck up, cigarettes didn't kill both your grandparents, your grandparents made the decision to smoke, and they paid the ultimate price for it. THAT IS YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN. I'm not going to stop smoking because the federal government thinks they know what's best for me. I know the risks because I'm not a fucking retard.

      For goodness sake, your bloody profile is supporting my point: "The price of freedom is personal responsibility. Pay the price or suffer the consequences." We have a responsibility to know that certain things in certain quantities are bad for us. There is more to addiction that physically addicting chemicals like nicotine. You can be mentally addicted to exercise, carrots, hell anything. However, it is your FREEDOM to do whatever you want, while understanding the risks behind each decision.

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • Sumbodyswatchin:

      @Ares

      I agree to a certain extent. However people didnt know the risks of smoking for quite some time. Therefore its safe to say that SBW's grandparents were killed by smoking because they didnt know the risks...

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
    • 0
      Ares  
    • Sumbodyswatchin:

      Sorry I don't buy it. If you're stupid enough to ingest something on a regular basis and fail to notice a decline in your stamina and general health, you're an idiot. I am sorry to hear that SBW's grandparents died, but it was at their own hands, and I won't feel sympathy in that respect.

    • 2 years ago
  • ProjectBat
    • 0
      ProjectBat  
    • Sumbodyswatchin:

      Agreed. And the fact that no one knew further justifies not getting mad at the tobacco companies. Now that it is known however, we've got warning labels! They say the shit causes cancer. If you smoke then blame the companies for your cancer, you're a fucking moron.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos