Reynolds, Lorillard challenge tobacco law on free speech grounds
I suppose logos count as "speech":
"Tobacco legislation signed by President Barack Obama in June violates the First Amendment protections for free speech, according to a lawsuit joined by Reynolds American Inc.’s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
The legislation “imposes unprecedented restrictions” on companies by “limiting their ability to disseminate truthful information about tobacco products to adult consumers,” according to the lawsuit, filed today in U.S. District Court in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Reynolds, the second-largest U.S. cigarette maker, and third-biggest Lorillard Tobacco Co. sued after opposing the legislation that gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversight over tobacco products. The law goes beyond discouraging youth smoking and limits the use of colors and logos in most advertising and packaging so severely that the producers have “virtually no means” to communicate with adult tobacco users, the suit said."
Source
They probably have a point but I doubt that they'll get much sympathy -- so either way this will probably end up before SCOTUS
6 comments:
Of course, those who choose not to smoke will see this effort by the tobacco companies as "silly". But, what if, instead of tobacco, it was the companies who produce tofu, or bottled water, or bean sprouts, or Starbucks? Would those same anti-tobacco people still think it was silly? Hardly!
Even those who are anti-tobacco know that the massive, govt. funded (and instigated) attack on tobacco was politically motivated. That the rights of Americans "who choose" to use a legal product have been taken away, proves this is not about health, but about control. If it were truly a health issue, the simple stroke of a pen could outlaw the growing, sale, and possession of all tobacco products. Has that been done?
If you believe this is still a free country, and you feel it should stay that way, then why should some people be treated as lepers, and punished by massive over-taxation, simply because they're legally doing something you don't like. And what happens when they get around to something YOU enjoy doing?
You conveniently omitted the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.
"You conveniently omitted the harmful effects of second-hand smoke."
---Second-hand smoke is harmless unless you're living with a smoker. A smoker on the street is no different than a car on the street, in fact, cars deliver way more CO2 than all the smokers in the world combined.
Anonymous said...
"You conveniently omitted the harmful effects of second-hand smoke."
What is truly harmful is inhaling too much politically motivated propaganda.
Aside from the PC'ized Kool-Aid drinking followers of Algore, "no one has ever produced a scintilla of documented, scientific evidence showing second-hand smoke to be harmful to anyone or anything"!
"no one has ever produced a scintilla of documented, scientific evidence showing second-hand smoke to be harmful to anyone or anything"!
You
might
want
to
rethink
that
some.
From the article:
Aug. 31, 2009 -- "Just a few whiffs of tobacco smoke or dirty air can have a profound negative impact on your heart’s health."
Assuming you live on this planet, how long have you (we) been breathing "dirty" air, especially if you live in a large urban area? Funny, how the tobacco Nazi's never mention the tens-of-thousands of people who die every year from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, who never smoked, nor were they exposed to any tobacco smoke? Then again, that would interfer with getting their politically motivated message across, wouldn't it.
The left-leaning AMA, one of the Democrats largest contributors, is simply furthering the agenda. It's not about health. It's about control!
Post a Comment