Anti-tobacco Legislation and the First Amendment

world clown

Quote:

Obama to sign sweeping anti-smoking bill
Legislation will give FDA unprecedented authority to regulate tobacco

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is set to sign into law an anti-smoking bill that will give the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate tobacco.

Obama is scheduled to sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act during an event Monday in the Rose Garden. The law allows the FDA to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings.

The law won't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency will be able to regulate the contents of tobacco products, make public their ingredients and prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.

Anti-smoking advocates looked forward to the bill after years of attempts to tame an industry so fundamental to the U.S. that carved tobacco leaves adorn some parts of the Capitol.

Opponents from tobacco-growing states like top-producing North Carolina argued that the FDA has proven through a series of food safety failures that it's not up to the job. They also said that instead of unrealistically trying to get smokers to quit or to prevent others from starting, lawmakers should ensure that people have other options, like smokeless tobacco.

As president, George W. Bush opposed the legislation and threatened a veto after it passed the House last year. The Obama administration, by contrast, issued a statement declaring strong support for the measure.

Obama has spoken publicly of his own struggles to quit cigarettes.

My primary concern here is with "the agency will be able to...prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children." To me, this sounds like a violation of the first amendment of the constution. I don't expect many people to care very much. People always have rationalizations for why their pet projects aren't actually free speech violations, even though they prohibit speech.

RICHMOND, Va. " Two of the three largest U.S. tobacco companies filed suit Monday to block marketing restrictions in a law that gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco, claiming the provisions violate their right to free speech.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., maker of Camel cigarettes, and Lorillard Inc., which sells the Newport menthol brand, filed the federal lawsuit with several other tobacco companies.

It is the first major challenge of the legislation passed and enacted in June, and a lawyer for tobacco consumers doubted the lawsuit will be successful.

The tobacco makers claim provisions of the law "severely restrict the few remaining channels we have to communicate with adult tobacco consumers," Martin L. Holton III, senior vice president and general counsel for Reynolds, said in a statement

but, as i say about other behaviors that are deemed taboo, i don't believe in legislating morality.

Quote:

but, as i say about other behaviors that are deemed taboo, i don't believe in legislating morality.

Does it then follow that people be allowed to buy building products that contain noxious chemicals, DTOM, ....

advertising didn't have much to do with me starting my smoking habit and it didn't have much to do with my stopping after 35+ years.

it's a crap habit. ain't good fer ya. and costs to damn much. glad i quit.

but, as i say about other behaviors that are deemed taboo, i don't believe in legislating morality.

the failed war on drugs should be proof that it doesn't work.

Yes, indeed. That was and is the product of a liberal turn of mind:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yes, indeed. That was and is the product of a liberal turn of mind:

No it wasn't. It was Nixon who introduced the term "war on drugs" and Reagan who began to wage it in earnest. And the Obama administration is shunning that turn of phrase.

The "war" on drugs has been waged by both sides, but more so by the conservatives than the liberals.

Quote:

but, as i say about other behaviors that are deemed taboo, i don't believe in legislating morality.

Does it then follow that people be allowed to buy building products that contain noxious chemicals, DTOM, ones that will surely make them sick? What was all the kerfuffle about for the Chinese products that weren't up to US safety standards? Shouldn't we allow the marketplace to decide these issues?

People who buy cigarettes are making a personal decision to practice a habit that's bad for your health, and that's none of your business.

Quote:

People who buy cigarettes are making a personal decision to practice a habit that's bad for your health, and that's none of your business.

actually it is our business, because we are all on the same team and weak or ill members bring us all down. However, when ever possible we need to let others do their own thing, so that maybe they will return the favor and let us do our thing. This bashing of people who like things that we do not approve of is often times nothing more than garden variety uncivil behaviour.

No actually, it isn't your business.