Tobacco firms sue FDA over new graphic warnings

GOPUSA ^ | August 17, 2011 | Jeffrey Collins (AP)

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Four of the five largest U.S. tobacco companies sued the federal government Tuesday over new graphic cigarette labels that include the sewn-up corpse of a smoker and a picture of diseased lungs, saying the warnings violate their free speech rights and will cost millions of dollars to print.

The companies, led by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co., said the warnings no longer simply convey facts to allow people to make a decision whether to smoke. They instead force them to put government anti-smoking advocacy more prominently on their packs than their own brands, the companies say. They want a judge to stop the labels.

[Rightly Biased]

Good

but I doubt they will win.

[CodeToad]

Warnings for dangers is one thing. Interference of free trade is another. The feds crossed all kinds of lines with these new graphic warnings.

[Perdogg]

I saw those boxes in the airport in Taiwan.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Nanny State PING!

[shadeaud]

What next, full size autos with a decal of people eating dog food while they put gas in their guzzler, or on a plane ticket showing a terrorist with a box cutter.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Please don’t give them any ideas.

[theyreallthesame]

I absolutely despise smoking, but totally support the contention of the tobacco companies.

[boop]

The real scam is that the “graphic images” are FAKE. They’re photoshopped. Since smoking is so dangerous, you’d think they could have taken some REAL photos.

[dila813]

I really do think they will win this one because of the colors etc required, this comes down to a taking without due process.

If it was simply black and white and maybe even red to convey facts, they would have to do it.

Hell, the government could make their packaging be all in black and white and have the warning red, that would even likely pass muster with the courts.

The government stepped on the constitution again, hope the courts do their job.

[D-fendr]

I can understand the Fed's thinking: Knarly death images are well known to not appeal to young yutes.

[GraceG]

A picture of the 1,500 pound lady on the box of Twinkies?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

By this logic, abortion clinics should be required to post photos of dismembered fetuses in garbage bags on their front doors.

[bboop]

Why is it legal and imperative that the tobacco companies run these pictures, but absolutely forbidden, upsetting, and bad for self-esteem for Pro Life clinics to show pictures of aborted babies?

[tal hajus]

May be a little difficult to make it fit with any clarity.

[airplaneguy]

hey I really like that idea!

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

If cigarette smoking is as dangerous as the government would have us believe, then why aren't cigarettes banned entirely?

Oh, that's right. There's that tax revenue-thingy and the campaign contribution-thingy that keeps cropping up.

[Talisker]

Good but I doubt they will win.

Good

and I doubt they will lose.

(Isn't rational conversation fun?)

[doublecansiter]

If the tobacco companies had any guts, they’d stop selling to
anyone in the US. Indian reservations included. Maybe the
loss of all that tax money would cause them to think twice enacting stupid unconstitutional rules and regulations.

Mike

[FatherofFive]

Why is it legal and imperative that the tobacco companies run these pictures, but absolutely forbidden, upsetting, and bad for self-esteem for Pro Life clinics to show pictures of aborted babies?

Because the right to murder babies is a right protected by the constitution. /s