Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ok, so now us non smokers also will have to see these ugly images, ther will be no getting away from it.
blech!!! why dont they just kill all the tobacco plants and call it a day already. since they dont want us to smoke any how.....and while they are at it might as well get rid of soda, candy, cake, tanning parlors....etx..
A society choosing to stop (or largely stop) smoking is a good thing, a society being coerced by government into stopping smoking is a scary thing.
Good post. A society that allows it's government to tell them how to live is not a free society.
Every regulation takes away freedom. Yes, some are necessary, but sooner or later there will be regulations that take freedoms away from everyone.
Too many people don't understand freedom at all. They only get concerned when government regulations take something away from them personally.
A government that is so powerful that it can tell business how to package it's products is a government powerful enough to take away any freedom that it chooses to squash.
Interesting subject. Note that the regulation is not in force yet (the deadline for the tobacco companies is October 2012). The big tobacco companies have, of course, filed suit, and a hearing will be held in Federal Court (I think in Ohio) this coming July; part of the preliminary hearing will concern the tobacco companies' request for an injunction pending resolution of the lawsuit (which may well be granted; if the Supreme Court accepts the case, then it may be quite a while before you see the new packages at your stores).
This regulation was made via the authority given the FDA by this bipartisan bill passed into law in 2009:
Of course, Congress (and President Obama, who signed it) state that they have Constitutional authority to pass such a bill, stating "Under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress is vested with the responsibility for regulating interstate commerce and commerce with Indian tribes". I doubt that the tobacco companies will 'win' under the theory that Congress lacks the authority to make such a law under the Commerce clause (indeed, I don't think they are even claiming such).
However, Big Tobacco is claiming that the law infringes upon their Constitutional right of speech under the First Amendment, by forcing their names to appear at the bottom of the pack (i.e., right underneath the images) and by markedly limiting their right to advertise to adults.
They are also claiming that such packaging interferes with copyright law and trademarks. I believe that they lost on this issue 25 years ago when the warnings were mandated to be put on the side of the packs of smokes. However, the courts may well make a distinction between written warnings on the side of a package, and the graphic images on the front/back of the packages, tied in with the products name. I feel that the current Supreme Court might be sympathic to the big tobacco companies arguments.
ok, so now us non smokers also will have to see these ugly images, ther will be no getting away from it.
blech!!! why dont they just kill all the tobacco plants and call it a day already. since they dont want us to smoke any how.....and while they are at it might as well get rid of soda, candy, cake, tanning parlors....etx..
kill me now
The American Indians used tobacco other than smoking for medical purposes for headaches,skin problems it has anticeptic properties.Anything that God has put on this green earth has a purpose to do good if used properly so lets not be in a hurry to kill anything that can help cure diseases or ills.
If they are going to use horrible pictures of tobacco caused diseases then they also need to show pictures of aborted fetuses at abortion clinics and providers of abortions.Just my view...
Interesting subject. Note that the regulation is not in force yet (the deadline for the tobacco companies is October 2012). The big tobacco companies have, of course, filed suit, and a hearing will be held in Federal Court (I think in Ohio) this coming July; part of the preliminary hearing will concern the tobacco companies' request for an injunction pending resolution of the lawsuit (which may well be granted; if the Supreme Court accepts the case, then it may be quite a while before you see the new packages at your stores).
This regulation was made via the authority given the FDA by this bipartisan bill passed into law in 2009:
Of course, Congress (and President Obama, who signed it) state that they have Constitutional authority to pass such a bill, stating "Under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress is vested with the responsibility for regulating interstate commerce and commerce with Indian tribes". I doubt that the tobacco companies will 'win' under the theory that Congress lacks the authority to make such a law under the Commerce clause (indeed, I don't think they are even claiming such).
However, Big Tobacco is claiming that the law infringes upon their Constitutional right of speech under the First Amendment, by forcing their names to appear at the bottom of the pack (i.e., right underneath the images) and by markedly limiting their right to advertise to adults.
They are also claiming that such packaging interferes with copyright law and trademarks. I believe that they lost on this issue 25 years ago when the warnings were mandated to be put on the side of the packs of smokes. However, the courts may well make a distinction between written warnings on the side of a package, and the graphic images on the front/back of the packages, tied in with the products name. I feel that the current Supreme Court might be sympathic to the big tobacco companies arguments.
Good post, and I agree with your assessment. A small warning label on the side of the cigarette pack, that does not impact the overall design of the cigarette pack, is one thing, but when that government mandated message occupies 75% of the cigarette pack (half the front, and the entire back of the pack), I think they have taken it too far.
Just how far does Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause extend? Congress has certainly mandated labeling on other products, but has never been as specific or as encompassing as this latest requirement with cigarettes. As far as trademark law is concerned, I would have to give that to Congress and not the businesses. Congress created the trademark laws, therefore they can alter those laws as they see fit by enacting another law. Does the Commerce Clause supersede a businesses freedom of speech? That is a very good question, one that I do not have an answer for. I am not sure what happens when the constitutional authority granted to Congress impinges upon constitutionally protected rights. It should prove to be an interesting case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gruesome Images on Cigarette Packages
