Major cigarette makers sue over new tobacco law

[garbon]

Speaking of free speech for corporations...

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

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.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gives the FDA authority over tobacco for the first time and lets the agency reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also must put large graphic warnings over any carton images.

The companies say in their lawsuit that the law, which takes full effect in three years, prohibits them from using "color lettering, trademarks, logos or any other imagery in most advertisements, including virtually all point-of-sale and direct-mail advertisements." The complaint also says the law prohibits tobacco companies from "making truthful statements about their products in scientific, public policy and political debates."

The tobacco makers say the new mandated health warnings for cigarettes would relegate the companies' branding to the bottom half of the cigarette packaging, making it "difficult, if not impossible, to see."

The lawsuit doesn't challenge the decision to give the FDA authority over tobacco products, and Reynolds spokesman David Howard said the company opposes only portions of the law.

Joining in the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Bowling Green, Ky., are: National Tobacco Co., Discount Tobacco City & Lottery Inc., and Kentucky-based Commonwealth Brands, which is owned by Britain's Imperial Tobacco Group PLC.

"We believe that many of the provisions within the Act violate our constitutional rights and are not reasonably related to the goal of reducing youth access to tobacco products," Jonathan Cox, president and chief executive of Commonwealth Brands said in a statement.

FDA spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

The tobacco makers name the FDA, the government and individual officials as defendants in the lawsuit, which seeks to put portions of the law on hold while the case is heard. Ultimately, they want the marketing provisions stripped from the law.

"My expectation is that this lawsuit will be ultimately unsuccessful," said Ed Sweda, a lawyer for the Tobacco Products Liability Project in Boston, pointing to previous laws limiting cigarette advertising and marketing that have been in place for more than 40 years.

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer representing Lorillard in the case, said he was confident the suit would be successful.

"Some of these regulations go so far in the direction of stifling the entirely lawful speech of Lorillard to its customers that it violates the First Amendment," he said.

The law doesn't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco, but the agency will be able to regulate what goes into tobacco products, publicize those ingredients and prohibit certain marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.

Richmond, Va.-based Altria Group Inc., parent company of the nation's largest tobacco maker, Philip Morris USA, supported the bill, saying the company backs tough but fair regulation.

Altria's chief rivals — No. 2 Reynolds American Inc., parent company of R.J. Reynolds, and No. 3 Lorillard, both based in North Carolina — opposed the bill, saying FDA restrictions on new products would lock in Altria's share of the market. Altria's brands include Marlboro, which held a 41.2 percent share of the U.S. cigarette market in the second quarter, according to data from Information Resources Inc.

Altria spokesman David Sylvia said the company has not yet reviewed the lawsuit and would not comment.

Also, how am I going to buy my Camel Lights if the FDA bans the word "Light"?

[saskganesh]

Camels Cools
Camel Blues
Camel Relax
Camel Modernity

any number of colourful alternatives.

in regards to free speech, when you have a product that kills people, a product that you have in fact lied about for decades, you have to take what you can get.

[garbon]

Camels Cools
Camel Blues
Camel Relax
Camel Modernity

any number of colourful alternatives.

I wouldn't recognize those names. I'd be...adrift.

Btw, I actually think said legislation was a good thing; although I am skeptical about giving the FDA more oversight, considering that it already fails at handling its current duties.

[Jaron]

1st Amendment > Stupid people who can't keep the "tobacci" out of their mouths.

[sbr]

I wouldn't recognize those names. I'd be...adrift.

Btw, I actually think said legislation was a good thing; although I am skeptical about giving the FDA more oversight, considering that it already fails at handling its current duties.

No kidding; let's wait until they can get the salmonella out of my peanut butter and the e coli out of my pre-made Caesar salad then give them more things to look at.

[Martinus]

Such restrictions are virtually ubiquitous in Europe. Although they do tend to exemplify our society's hypocrisy when it comes to dealing with tobacco (as well as other harmful leisure substances).

[garbon]

Such restrictions are virtually ubiquitous in Europe.

Camel Lights were purchased for me in the UK, counselor.

[Martinus]

Such restrictions are virtually ubiquitous in Europe.

Camel Lights were purchased for me in the UK, counselor.

I meant restrictions about marketing/advertising, direct sales etc., not necessarily specific bans like this.

Also, UK != Europe. They have wildly different laws from the rest of Europe when it comes to consumer protection.

[garbon]

It heartens me that I can still go to the one civilized place in Europe.

[Josephus]

Stupid ciggie smokers.

Oh, that reminds me. I quit smoking exactly a year ago today!!

[Liep]

Stupid ciggie smokers.

Oh, that reminds me. I quit smoking exactly a year ago today!!

What a perfect occasion to celebrate with a smoke.

[saskganesh]

Canada banned terms like lights, medium this year; now we have colours (blue, silver, red and so on). a good tobacconist can tell one what's what.

we also have large warnings on the box, card inserts, and graphic pictures, possibly soon to include deathbed photos:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1948903

as an addict, I commend it.

[Valmy]

Next they will be legally required to call them 'death sticks'.

[ulmont]

Next they will be legally required to call them 'death sticks'.

Then "Black Death" will be the only allowed brand: http://www.cigarettespedia.com/index.php/Black_Death_American_Blend

[DontSayBanana]

I'm not sure. If the government wins the suit, it would be more to "make a statement." I can understand the FDA having authority to regulate the info provided regarding materials it oversees, I can even understand it being authorized to dictate acceptable avenues of marketing, but giving them authority to dictate the format for marketing? The format and art for marketing are part of the branding process, and that's not something the government should be involved in.