Skip to comments.CDC: Graphic anti-smoking ads get results
Posted on 07/07/2012 8:21:47 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Terrie Hall has toured the country, speaking at schools and community gatherings about her firsthand experience with smoking-related illness. But the 51-year-old throat cancer survivor ventured beyond her comfort zone when she appeared in a national television ad, in which she's seen putting in false teeth and covering her stoma with a scarf.
"That was kind of hard to do," Hall said. "I had never taken my wig off in public before."
Hall said she participated in the ad because of her strong belief in its message that tobacco use not only kills, but causes lingering illness that can affect quality of life. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted extensive research into the most effective way to deliver that message.
"Finding out that you're going to die doesn't really help people," said CDC director Dr. Thomas Frieden. "And people don't empathize with their lungs. So, showing the picture of a lung may not be as effective as showing a real person and what happens to that individual."
According to the CDC, the strategy paid off. Calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW doubled and visits to SmokeFree.gov tripled during the 12 week campaign. Public health officials believe the ads will encourage more than half a million smokers to attempt to quit.
As a result of the campaign, Hall is often recognized in public. She said recently one former smoker approached her in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
"She put her hands out to me and she was starting to cry and she said, 'I quit smoking because of you,'" Hall recalled. "Of course, I started crying and had cold chills. It was pretty powerful."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Drango will be ecstatic.
Nanny State PING!
Hey little girl...you forgot to ping me when you mentioned my name.
Now if we could just get those folks to do the same campaign/marketing against the killing of the pre born...
Do not hold your breath....
I know a few people who have dentures and do not smoke.
I know a few people who led super clean lives and ended up with cancer.
Life is deadly. Face it. Enjoy it.
Those ads get the result of me hating my government a little more each time I see one.
NOt so fast.
I detest the Nanny Statists but at least in this case they are letting people make up their own minds rather than using the force of law.
Better this than anti-smoking laws.
I’m not a smoker, but I despise anti-smoking laws.
Thanks for the ping!
To further the thought...
Pursue your happiness, and don't force me to pay for your health or life if you make reckless pursuits.
When those adds come one, I change the channel quickly.
Lying sacks of bovine excrement.
The ad is such bold propaganda it always made me want to light a cigarette.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
why stop at cigarettes?
Photos of globs of fat on ice cream
Photos of acne on candy bars
Photos of Diabetic toes on sodas
Photos of diseased liver on beer.....
You get the picture (or photo)
Yeah, I’m sure he’ll show up after he’s done organizing this week’s torchlight parade.
Every time I see that ad, I want to fire one up...I’m pleased to learn that I am not a drone to be controlled by government mind trickery.
“Life is deadly. Face it. Enjoy it.”
I actually know people who NEVER smoked,yet they still died.
Imagine that !
I would be fine with this if as a taxpayer I wasn’t paying for it. If you want to go preach the evils of smoking do it on your own dime not mine and everyone elses that actually pays these taxes.
Drano’s a very disturbed individual. His lab rat was killed by cigarettes. All logic and meaningful communication with fellow citizens.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2012
Appeals Court Invalidates NYC Graphic Anti-Smoking Poster Law; Shows Why Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Negotiation of Tobacco Act Was a Travesty
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a federal district court’s ruling that invalidated New York City’s requirement that graphic, anti-smoking posters be displayed at the point-of-sale in all retail cigarette outlets.
So how does that demonstrate why the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids negotiating the Tobacco Act was a travesty? To understand that, I need to present some background.
In 2010, a federal judge invalidated New York City’s ordinance which would have required the display of graphic, anti-smoking posters anywhere cigarettes are sold. The law was struck down because it violates the preemption clause in the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA), which preempts state and local regulation of the advertising and promotion of cigarettes.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids responded with a press release arguing that the federal judge is “wrong on the law” because the proposed law regulates the sale of cigarettes, not their advertising or promotion.
According to the press release, entitled “Federal Court Is Wrong on the Law in Striking Down New York City’s Requirement for Tobacco Health Warning Signs in Stores”: “We believe that a federal judge was wrong on the law in striking down New York City’s requirement that all businesses selling tobacco products post tobacco health warning signs. New York City acted lawfully to more effectively inform consumers about the health risks of tobacco use, and we urge the City to appeal. The judge ruled today that New York City’s requirement is preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, which restricts the authority of states to regulate tobacco advertising and promotion. However, this ruling fails to recognize that New York City established the signage requirement as part of its regulation of the sale not the advertising or promotion of tobacco products, which is permitted by federal law. The new federal law enacted in June 2009 that grants the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco products explicitly protects the rights of states and localities to regulate the terms and conditions of tobacco sales. Contrary to today’s ruling, New York City’s regulation does not restrict the advertising or promotion of tobacco products.”
This is an important statement, because it demonstrates that the effect of the Tobacco Act depends heavily upon whether the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids correctly understood and interpreted the law with regards to federal preemption of local tobacco regulation. The Campaign took it upon itself to negotiate the Act with Philip Morris, without involvement of the rest of the tobacco control community. In these secret, back-room negotiations, the Campaign made all of the decisions and took the future of local tobacco control regulation into its own hands.
Critically, any mistakes in understanding and interpretation of the law by the Campaign could result in devastating consequences for the future of tobacco regulation in the United States.
The Rest of the Story
On January 27, 2011, I responded to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids’ argument with the following counter-argument:
The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) states that: “No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.” (15 U.S.C. §1334)
The key phrase here that needs to be interpreted in light of New York City’s proposed law is “with respect to.”
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids would have us construe “with respect to” in the most narrow possible way. The Campaign is arguing that the requirement for graphic anti-smoking posters is merely a restriction on the sale of cigarettes and does not affect the promotion of cigarettes in any substantial way that would invoke the preemption clause. The judge, however, found that such a construction of the term “with respect to” is too narrow.
Let me explain why I think the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is the one who is wrong on the law and why I think that any restriction which substantially impacts the promotion of cigarettes, even if primarily intended as a restriction on cigarette sales, runs afoul of the “with respect to” meaning and therefore must be viewed as being preempted by federal law.
The clear intention of the graphic, anti-smoking posters is not simply the provision of scientific information or facts. One look at the intended images will convince anyone that the purpose of these posters is to discourage the purchase of cigarettes. In other words, this is all about requiring an anti-promotional display. It is intended to counter the promotion of cigarettes, or more accurately, to require cigarette retailers to counter their own promotion of cigarettes. There is no question that these required posters undermine the promotion of cigarettes by the store.
Thus, at its core, this regulation is not about regulating the sale of cigarettes. It is about regulating the promotion of cigarettes to the public.
Suppose that a city decided to require the display, at point of sale of cigarettes, of a six-foot poster with the text of the Surgeon General’s warnings. Based on the Campaign’s interpretation of the law, such a requirement would not be preempted because it is regulating the sale of cigarettes, not the advertising or labeling of these products. But such a provision would clearly be preempted by FCLAA because it is essentially requiring huge warning labels to be displayed at the point of sale. Only the federal government has the authority to regulate cigarette warning labels.
My point is that the mere fact that a regulation is intended to control the conditions under which cigarettes can be sold does not mean that the regulation is not being imposed with respect to the advertising and promotion of cigarettes. One must look more broadly at the overall impact of the restriction. If that restriction has a substantial and direct effect on the promotion of cigarettes, then it runs afoul of the preemption provision and is not permitted under federal law.
In this case, the proposed law clearly imposes a requirement regarding the promotion of cigarettes in retail stores. The law must therefore be interpreted as imposing a regulation with respect to the promotion of cigarettes. Such a regulation is preempted by FCLAA.
The city of New York has appealed the District Court judge’s decision. Based on my analysis, I do not expect that appeal to ultimately be successful.
The Appeals Court Decision
In upholding the District Court’s ruling, the Appeals court wrote: “Plaintiffs argue that it is a requirement with
respect to promotion; defendants argue that it is only a requirement with respect to sale. (Appellees’ Br. at 20-21; Appellants’ Br. at 24-25). We agree with plaintiffs that the Resolution is a requirement with respect to the promotion of cigarettes. ... By its terms, it affects the display of cigarettes, which is a type of promotion. Specifically, a display is a form of publicity that can further the sale of merchandise. ... Placing a graphic warning adjacent to a product display necessarily affects — or “treads on,” Vango Media, 34 F.3d at 74 — the content of the image projected and the message conveyed to the consumer by that display. ... requiring a warning sign in close proximity to a cigarette display has practically the same effect as requiring a warning on the display itself, thereby directly affecting the content of the promotional message conveyed to consumers at the point of The display is therefore a form of promotion. Indeed, by the City’s own admission, one of the reasons it chose to regulate the point of sale was to “deliver a different message” from that delivered by the cigarette manufacturers and to “counteract tobacco advertising.” (Id. at 27; Proposal at 9). Requiring that the manufacturers’ message be countered at the point of purchase is surely a form of regulating promotion.”
The Consequences of the Co-optation of the Tobacco Control Movement by CTFK
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has demonstrated that it has a poor understanding of the law. I am not a lawyer, but it was clear to me based on a careful analysis of the facts of the case that the New York City law was preempted by FCLAA because it represented a regulation with respect to the promotion of cigarettes. Had the Campaign allowed the input of other groups and consulted with tobacco control experts throughout the country, it would have been informed of the invalidity of its interpretation of the law, and the Tobacco Act’s preemption of local regulations like those attempted in New York City could have been avoided.
The Bigger Picture
When I started my career in tobacco control, it was truly a grassroots social movement. The individuals involved in the movement were largely unpaid volunteers and they were involved because of a deep personal conviction in the cause, motivated by nothing other than a sincere desire to reduce tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. Similarly, the organizations involved seemed to be motivated solely by a desire to reduce tobacco-related disease.
But there was one thing which we didnt have in the movement: money. Both individuals and organizations worked either as volunteers or on a shoestring budget. Even many of the researchers in the field did their tobacco research on no budget or on a very low budget. There were no multi-million dollar grants for anti-smoking research or interventions.
At the time, many of us (myself included) felt that if only we had money, if only we could establish a huge infrastructure for tobacco control, then we could really have an impact. If only there were a number of well-funded, national organizations devoted to tobacco control. If only there were well-funded national grant-making organizations that could fund research and intervention at the local level. And if only these national organizations would have the money necessary to be able to access the media: that would give us tremendous political power.
Money, we believed, could extend and enhance the grassroots social movement of tobacco control, bringing it to all communities throughout the country.
I will be the first to admit that I was wrong.
Unfortunately, money has resulted in the appearance of one prominent anti-smoking organization the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids that in my opinion has essentially taken over the entire movement. There simply is no other organization with the level of resources available and thus there is no competition or opposition to anything the Campaign decides to do or to support.
While there could be no single, dominant organization when no one had money, the fact that one group has huge amounts of money and others have little has created a harmful monopoly in the tobacco control infrastructure.
But what makes the situation even worse is that the Campaign has co-opted the grassroots social movement of tobacco control by taking it upon itself to play the role of official representative of the tobacco control movement in all major federal policy matters. It was the Campaign that was at the negotiating table during the global tobacco settlement talks, which ultimately resulted in the Master Settlement Agreement. And it was the Campaign that was at the negotiating table during the talks that ultimately resulted in the federal FDA tobacco legislation.
In my opinion, the Master Settlement Agreement is the worst public health blunder of my lifetime. It will be surpassed as the worst blunder as the ill effects of the Tobacco Act are realized in future years.
Unfortunately, policy makers in Washington seem to have the impression that somehow the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is the representative of the anti-smoking movement. So anything the Campaign approves seems to be viewed inaccurately — as representing the endorsement of the public health establishment. It is the Campaigns self-annointment as the representative for the movement that has enabled two of the worst federal tobacco control policies ever to gain acceptance.
Sadly, the infusion of money into the tobacco control movement has led to the end of the grassroots nature of the movement. Instead, it has resulted in its institutionalization as a money-driven bureaucracy that has little interest in what the grassroots actually think. I simply do not see groups like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids or even the voluntary health agencies really taking the time to listen to their constituencies. They tell their constituencies what to think and what to support. There is no room for dissension or opposition and no interest in engaging the grassroots in the decision-making process.
So rather than being a movement that is driven by the community, through its individual grassroots advocates, the tobacco control movement has become one that is driven by one or two national organizations, without grassroots participation in the decision-making process.
Perhaps most importantly, I think that the monopolization of the tobacco control movement has pushed aside or perhaps even undermined the work of true grassroots organizations as well as individuals, working at the community level, leaving them essentially powerless. How can a local advocate or advocacy group play any kind of leadership role when the leadership has been usurped away by one or two national organizations?
So I have to say that I was wrong. The availability of money at the national level has not helped the tobacco control movement. It has hurt it.
While the national money has certainly resulted in some accomplishments, in the long run, I think it has resulted in, and will continue to result in greater harm to the tobacco control movement. What I see is the degradation of the movement due to its co-optation by one or two well-funded national organizations, with the loss of integrity and character of the movement and its major organizations, the emergence of a regulation for regulations sake mentality, and most importantly, the destruction of the grassroots social movement that achieved tremendous success in the effort to reduce the toll that tobacco takes on the health and lives of Americans.
Eric & TSR are very sad that Sandusky was convicted ‘cause they think its a right of every adult to abuse kids.