13
   

Anti-tobacco Legislation and the First Amendment

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 11:31 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
world clown

That sounds even funnier that DiscWorld.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 10:50 pm
@joefromchicago,
Don't be such a lazy ****, Joe. Just use "Crtl F".
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 10:59 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

AGREED.
The damned government is running wild.
It has overthrown the Constitution
and refers to it only on those occasions when it offers support
for whatever adventures thay have in mind.

Downward spiral; Marxist inspired downward spiral.

Note, incidentally, that since age 4, I have always been a very anti-smoking fellow.





David
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 11:02 pm
@engineer,
Let's try analogies that are analogous, Engineer. Paint companies have been required to clean up their products because of dangerous chemicals. WR Grace is being sued because of one dangerous chemical in its product 'vermiculite'. There are many other examples.

Tobacco companies aren't being required to clean up their products. They are being allowed to sell a product that contains, how many toxic chemicals? Governments continue to make money acting as partners to purveyors of these toxic substances.

It's hard to imagine how something this stupid can continue.

I've heard that it will children as young as 12 will soon be able to buy tobacco products as long as they wear a helmet while engaged in smoking them.

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 11:06 pm
Quote:
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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tobacco_lawsuit

Sure took long enough....this should be a slam dunk. If the collective wants to make tobacco illegal then they need to do so. Failing that cigs are a legal product and government must stand aside.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 07:40 am
Speaking as a mom and and grandmother, I am glad that they are finally going to lower the nicotine in tobacco and ban candy cigarettes. As for the advertising being made to put larger graphic warning of the dangers of nicotine, so what, what if some people can't read that small writing. As Set has already pointed out there has already been a ruling on this advertising stuff, I don't see how this bill is breaking new ground except to make the warning big enough to be able to see it from the road or whatever. The only sticking point I see is maybe the banning of words low and light if they really are lower and lighter than other cigarettes, however if those were false advertising in the first place that is another story.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 03:50 pm
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.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 04:04 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
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?
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 04:16 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

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, ....


that doesn't seem like an issue of personal morality to me. public safety, perhaps. but to answer you; no, i would rather building materials be safe.

and to head off a potential assertion involving second hand smoke; that would be more of a zoning issue. in other words, rather than saying "you cannot ever do that", it falls more along the lines of "you can't do that here"..

what do you think about it ?

okay. gotta split for a doctor's appointment.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:44 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

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:
ignoring the rights of the individual
to run his own life as he sees fit, including self-destructive conduct.
I perceive ingestion of those drugs as being very destructive
of one 's life and 100% within his rights to take if he wishes.
Everyone has the fundamental right to suicide, as a personal choice.

As the direct result of this liberal and unconstitutional policy,
America was beset with a crimewave of financially desperate dope addicts,
so that innocent non-addicts are brutally, ofen fatally,
forced to finance the addict 's habit.



David
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 02:57 am
@OmSigDAVID,
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.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:08 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
DTOM, I don't really want to get into the issue of effectiveness and the war on drugs as an example. For purposes of this particular discussion it is not really relevant. At issue is whether Obama has been breaking the first amendment and as others have pointed out government have been interfering in advertisement for years so Obama is hardly breaking new ground with this signing of this bill. And there has already been a ruling concerning this in 2001.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:20 am
The following may or may not be related to the legislation which started this thread. In any case it still has a lot of useful information dealing with first amendment issues and tobacco legislation.

The FDA Tobacco Legislation Fully Complies with the First Amendment
decisions of the Supreme Court in Central Hudson and Lorillard v. Reilly
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 04:04 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

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.
I was referring to the actual effects, rather than nomenclature.

I believe that the seminal USSC case that held that
jurisdiction existed to criminalize use of drugs was
in the 1920s. That was a collectivist-authoritarian notion,
deviating from the original Individualism emphasized
by 9th and 10th Amendment rights.





David
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 04:48 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
except the war on drugs was started by nixon.

you of all people should know he was not a liberal.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 04:50 pm
@revel,
just my opinion, revel.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:47 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

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?

It's completely different, and obviously so. If y0u make a building with noxious chemicals, then people will be hurt who don't know about it and didn't choose it. The tainted milk was marketed as ordinary milk, not milk with poison. 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.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:07 pm
@Brandon9000,
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.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

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. From now on, you're forbidden to eat fatty foods or foods with too much sugar. We'll be watching you, comrade.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:23 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
No actually, it isn't your business.


so haw far are you willing to take that theory? Are there any valid laws? Are any victimless crimes legitimate controlling force from the collective? Do employeers have the right to screen your piss and do a credit check on you?

You are going to draw the line someplace, and then I will have you in a TKO. What you do effects others, thus others have rights to control and or punish your behaviour.
 

Related Topics

Fabulous new stop-smoking plan - Discussion by gungasnake
Could I get in trouble for this? - Question by aspvenom
Dissolvable Tobacco Products Draw FDA Scrutiny - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Has anyone tried an e-cigarette? - Discussion by chai2
Tobacco Forum - Question by pm76
Underage smoking, what happens? - Discussion by Jaii
massachusetts buying tabacco online - Question by viasindios87
Tobacco vs. Driving - Question by bulldog-2010
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2020 at 11:49:17