Tobacco giants suing FDA over warning labels mandate

[jimmy olsen]

I hope these murderous fucks burn in hell.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/17/cigarette.labels.lawsuit/

Tobacco giants suing FDA over warning labels mandate
By Mark Morgenstein, CNN
August 17, 2011 9:53 a.m. EDT
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- Five tobacco companies, including some of the largest in the United States, filed a lawsuit against the federal government on Tuesday, alleging that government-mandated graphic warning labels on cigarette packages unconstitutionally infringe on the companies' rights.

"The primary complaint is that we think it violates the First Amendment for the government to require people who produce a lawful product to essentially urge prospective purchasers not to buy it," says Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment case expert who's representing the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, pits R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Commonwealth, Liggett, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco against the Food and Drug Administration, its chief, Margaret Hamburg, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

In June, the FDA unveiled nine new warning labels, complete with graphic photos and the phone number 1-800-QUIT-NOW. FDA regulations say that starting in September, 2012, half of each cigarette package will have to display one of those new labels.

Abrams says the tobacco companies don't have a problem with the written wording required by the latest FDA ruling.

"The government has lot of power to require warnings, but it doesn't require half of a cigarette pack to scream out, 'Don't buy this product!," the New York-based attorney says. "What is at issue is putting photographs of diseased people on every cigarette pack, include a phone number, and ask people to stop smoking. It's the direct advocacy to not buy the product, as opposed to a straightforward warning."

Abrams says it's likely his clients will seek some sort of preliminary injunction against the warning labels before the statute goes into effect next year.

"[We're] seeking resolution prior to that, in light of all the funds that would need to be expended changing current warnings to the level of screaming at prospective purchasers not to buy the product," Abrams says.

An FDA spokeswoman said in a statement that the agency "does not comment on proposed, pending or ongoing litigation."

Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature and preventable death in the United States, and it claims almost half a million lives each year, according to the FDA website.

The more prominent cigarette health warnings are the first time those warnings have been revised in 25 years and "are a significant advancement in communicating the dangers of smoking... expected to have a significant public health impact by decreasing the number of smokers, resulting in lives saved, increased life expectancy, and lower medical costs," the FDA website says.

[Ideologue]

Should automobiles be painted to look like the mangled corpses they leave behind?

[Razgovory]

Oh, I don't think the FDA murders anyone.

[Iormlund]

"The primary complaint is that we think it violates the First Amendment for the government to require people who produce a lawful product to essentially urge prospective purchasers not to buy it," says Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment case expert who's representing the plaintiffs.

That complaint could be sorted out easily enough. The FDA could simply make their product unlawful in the first place. Problem solved.

[garbon]

"The primary complaint is that we think it violates the First Amendment for the government to require people who produce a lawful product to essentially urge prospective purchasers not to buy it," says Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment case expert who's representing the plaintiffs.

That complaint could be sorted out easily enough. The FDA could simply make their product unlawful in the first place. Problem solved.

I don't think there is anything simple about doing that.

[Habbaku]

"The primary complaint is that we think it violates the First Amendment for the government to require people who produce a lawful product to essentially urge prospective purchasers not to buy it," says Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment case expert who's representing the plaintiffs.

That complaint could be sorted out easily enough. The FDA could simply make their product unlawful in the first place. Problem solved.

I don't think there is anything simple about doing that.

There's something pretty "simple" about suggesting it, though.

[derspiess]

Keep on misplacing that rage, Tim

[LaCroix]

of course they are, but they need to be bitch slapped. go ahead and put giant skull and bones on every pack and death warnings, maybe it'll do some good

[derspiess]

of course they are, but they need to be bitch slapped. go ahead and put giant skull and bones on every pack and death warnings, maybe it'll do some good

Yeah.  Except that it won't.  It would be pretty pointless, in fact.

[Habbaku]

of course they are, but they need to be bitch slapped. go ahead and put giant skull and bones on every pack and death warnings, maybe it'll do some good

Yeah.  Except that it won't.  It would be pretty pointless, in fact.

Yes, but maybe it will.  Duh.

[HVC]

if by now people don't know smoking will kill them there's no helping them. If they already know but continue to smoke a little picture won't stop them. The little warnings are useless.

[grumbler]

if by now people don't know smoking will kill them there's no helping them. If they already know but continue to smoke a little picture won't stop them. The little warnings are useless.

I think you are right.  Those still smoking after all the warnings and all the hassle are not going to quit because the warnings are in a larger font.

Better for the FDA to require all booze labels to consist of the mangled remains of people killed in drunk-driving accidents, and all fast food packages to have the label "Go ahead and eat me, you fat fuck!" with this picture:

[LaCroix]

Yeah.  Except that it won't.  It would be pretty pointless, in fact.

if it won't influence anyone to stop or not start smoking, then the lawsuit is sorta pointless. the tobacco clearly think it will have an affect on their customer base, to at least some degree

[Martinus]

I don't think anyone who smokes these days in the Western world is unaware of harm it causes to health. So not sure what this campaign is supposed to achieve.

[LaCroix]

I don't think anyone who smokes these days in the Western world is unaware of harm it causes to health. So not sure what this campaign is supposed to achieve.

knowing cigarettes are harmful isn't the same as seeing death on every pack purchased. i can see the visual deterrent working for some