No free speech for tobacco companies?
We read:
"The marketing and advertising restrictions in the tobacco law that Congress passed last week are likely to be challenged in court on free-speech grounds. But supporters of the legislation say they drafted the law carefully to comply with the First Amendment. The law's ban on outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds would effectively outlaw legal advertising in many cities, critics of the prohibition said. And restricting stores and many forms of print advertising to black-and-white text, as the law specifies, would interfere with legitimate communication to adults, tobacco companies and advertising groups said in letters to Congress and interviews over the last week, the NY Times reports.
The controversy, legal experts say, involves tension between the right of tobacco companies to communicate with adult smokers and the public interest in preventing young people from smoking. Opponents of the new strictures, including the Association of National Advertisers and the American Civil Liberties Union, predict that federal courts will throw out the new marketing restrictions. They say, for example, a 2001 Supreme Court decision struck down a Massachusetts rule that had imposed a similar ban on advertising within 1,000 feet of schools, reports Times writer Duff Wilson.
Source
16 comments:
America has undergone a health craze even before Obama was elected. Take Arkansas governor Huckabbee, he lost a lot of weight so now he wants everyone to lose weight. That's funny, I also lost a lot of weight yet I'm not harassing my fat friends about it. Last year the he ordered the schools to give report cards based on the children's weight, and if the kids are fat, the school nurse should meet with the parents and lecture them.
Then you got all the junkfood crazies, the ones that are removing vending machines from schools, putting salad bars, making physical and making education mandatory.
At most workplaces we have to put up with human resources giving us lectures about wellness, some companies even celebrate/reward weight loss, and some companies will fire or not hire anyone who doesn't fit the politically correct version of health.
As with Tobacco, the Bush administration didn't fight much for Tobacco, Fox News even ridiculed Obama for being a smoker, and the Tobacco companies themselves have accepted many settlements and lost their pride in defending their product.
This is simply another phase of the battle being waged by the Left to have total control over how we live. Look around, it's happening everywhere. This is not so much a health issue, but one about the power to control. And don't be fooled into believing that if you choose not to smoke, you must agree wth the Left. If you do agree with them, it means you also agree that you don't have "the right" to make your own choices.
One of the oldest tricks in the Left's handbook is to first create a fear of something, (or someone) they dislike, then demonize it, then create hysteria. What they get in return is the ability to pass laws, rules and regulations which force people to comply with the wishes of the Left. These are basic tactics used by the radical FoodNazi's, EnviroNazi's, healthNazi's, and the tobaccoNazi's.
Does any rational person truly believe having an add in black and white will stop some person from doing what they want? In fact, this type of government-sponsered oppression usually has the opposite effect. Ever hear about the Prohibition of the 1930's? The only thing it accomplished was to give birth to organized crime in America.
Another trick the Left uses is the "radical, bizarre, and dishonest" manipulation of information, especially when there's no one to challenge them. (case in point) NYC's fascist mayor Bloomberg, a rabid anti-gun, anti-smoking zealot, made a statement on national TV in which he said, "400,000 children die in NYC every year from second-hand smoke". There is not one scintilla of scientific evidence to back-up that bizarre claim, nor is there any evidence showing any harm from "so-called" second hand smoke! After hearing a statement like that, would it not be reasonable to assume the streets of NYC would be littered with small bodies? FEAR!
Another question for rational minds. If the US govt "truly believed" (and could prove) that tobacco use was as dangerous as they claim, wouldn't they simply outlaw it's growing, sale, and possession? And if they didn't, would they not be guilty of gross negligence?
Think for your self!
The government cannot afford for those who smoke now to stop smoking, nor can they afford for smoking rates to drop precipitously over time, as that would cut into their tax base. They seem content to allow 25% of the population to smoke.
Actuarial data suggests that smokers are a "wash" for the government, as they don't generally live as long as non-smokers, thus drawing less SSI benefits. This is offset by the increase in costs by some of the more expensive treatments they require, but non-smokers are generally a healthier lot living longer and draining the health care and social networks as much by the end as non-smokers.
The Tobacco companies didn't use this as defense against the big settlements a few years ago because it required the admission that cigarettes kill. The Government wasn't going to bring it up because it would have torpedoed their own arguments that smokers cost more than non-smokers.
This is just a warm up for the next "dangerous" thing that kids do - eat at fast food restaurants....
Where've ya been Stan. That's already been done. The most dangerous thing to our national health is the govt.
IMO, the tobacco companies made a major mistake back then by not fighting. First, it would have saved them hundreds-of billions in settlements. Second, it would have forced people to prove their claims, something the overwhelming majority couldn't do. They could have spent a hundred-million on lawyers fighting these cases for decades, and still saved Billions! It would have also shut-down the anti-everything zealots.
"One of the oldest tricks in the Left's handbook is to first create a fear of something, (or someone) they dislike, then demonize it, then create hysteria. What they get in return is the ability to pass laws, rules and regulations"
Bush used this approach quite well.
Yes, he learned it from the Clintons.
Ever notice how vigorous the left fights for peoples right to make personal choices, like abortion, gender change, etc. And the cost-to-the-public argument is a phony one since most of the people in those two groups usually get their funding directly or indirectly via public funds. (welfare, medicaid, etc.) So why is it that tobacco users are penalized for doing the same thing? Or, is your choice only acceptable when you choose something the left agrees with?
I choose not to smoke, but that doesn't mean i want some incompetant, corrupt DC officials telling people what choices they must make, at the risk of being penalized. (ie: taxed into submission) Apparently, their version of free is very different from mine.
If smoker's want to kill themselves, it's just fine by me.
I won't get in their way.
The scary question is, even for those who do not smoke, what will they pick on next? Will it be something you enjoy that has been deemed "inappropriate or unacceptable"? While the American people remain in a coma, our freedoms are being slowly and deliberately erased, and all for the sole purpose of maintaining political power.
"Those who fail to value their freedoms will surely value them when they're gone".
As a "reformed" smoker who consummed a pack-a-day for the better part of 35-years and who is now feeling the ill effects I would advise people not to fall prey to this addiction.
A choice I made at 16-years of age when cigarette smoking was touted by doctors as a way to "calm the nerves" haunts me every time I have to gasp for breath when walking up a flight of stairs.
So,
Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette
Puff, puff, puff and if you smoke yourself to death
Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate
That you hate to make him wait
But you just gotta have another cigarette!!
I wonder... no question that individuals have a right to freedom of expression - do corporations have the exact same right?
Serious question.
I would think just as a matter of common sense that it would be much easier and more acceptable to regulate corporate speech over individual speech...
A "corporation" is nothing more than a gathering of individuals. To say that if we're a group, we have fewer rights than if we are individuals is ludicrous.
The question is, what are commercial versus private free speech rights. Do business entities have fewer free speech rights? The SCOTUS seems to feel they do in some cases.
So does the SEC.
Maybe it we all learned to have respect for each others rights and choices, we'd get along better.
Tobacco is the only legal product in this country where it's users are penalized, and heavily. And aside from all the hype, fear tacitcs, hysteria, misinformation, and outright lying, has anyone actually seen documented, scientific evidence that proves the claims made by anti-tobacco zealots? And as another poster stated, if it's really that bad, why doesn't the government simply make it illegal? All it would take it the stroke of a pen.
And no, i don't smoke. I just don't like being bullied.
Stan B - a corporation is indeed more than just a gathering of individuals. It is recognised as an entirely seperate legal entity and has capacity to sue and be sued in its own name - not merely as a representative of its members.
However, the point you go on to raise is just what I was thinking. Certain guarantees are made to people - not to 'artificial' entities.
Post a Comment