:bleeding:
I hope these murderous fucks burn in hell.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/17/cigarette.labels.lawsuit/
QuoteTobacco 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.
Should automobiles be painted to look like the mangled corpses they leave behind?
Oh, I don't think the FDA murders anyone.
Quote
"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.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 17, 2011, 10:55:16 AM
Quote
"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.
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2011, 10:56:53 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 17, 2011, 10:55:16 AM
Quote
"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.
Keep on misplacing that rage, Tim :lol:
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
Quote from: LaCroix on August 17, 2011, 12:27:28 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 01:33:14 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 17, 2011, 12:27:28 PM
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.
:rolleyes: Yes, but maybe it will. Duh.
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.
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 01:39:28 PM
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:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffunkydowntown.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2FDonna-Simpson-Wants-to-be-World-Fattest-Woman-6.jpg&hash=827bb8d803eccac8792748a2d0ce66815e9c8123)
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 01:33:14 PMYeah. 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
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.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2011, 03:53:52 PM
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
Smokers are pretty fucking stupid to begin with, and smokes don't make them smarter. If anything pictures are probably too high brow.
Canada implemented the pictures years ago. I don't even notice them anymore. I've never read the warning letter in the pack either. Negative advertisements don't work
Quote from: LaCroix on August 17, 2011, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2011, 03:53:52 PM
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
Yeah, I bet the geniuses that designed that stupid billboard with a cigarette shaped like a bullet thought their campaign would be effective as well.
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 04:27:01 PMYeah, I bet the geniuses that designed that stupid billboard with a cigarette shaped like a bullet thought their campaign would be effective as well.
or those ridiculous smoking-kills commercials where the actors fall down in the street? :lol:
but seriously, commercials and billboards are a little different from pervasive ads on every pack. exposure comes with every purchase. even if it did nothing for me personally, i would feel a little more self-conscious whipping out a pack in public that's covered in death as opposed to the slick marlboro designs :D
Quote from: LaCroix on August 17, 2011, 04:50:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 04:27:01 PMYeah, I bet the geniuses that designed that stupid billboard with a cigarette shaped like a bullet thought their campaign would be effective as well.
or those ridiculous smoking-kills commercials where the actors fall down in the street? :lol:
but seriously, commercials and billboards are a little different from pervasive ads on every pack. exposure comes with every purchase. even if it did nothing for me personally, i would feel a little more self-conscious whipping out a pack in public that's covered in death as opposed to the slick marlboro designs :D
they should put one of those greeting card song chips in every pack so that when you open it you hear the funeral march song :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 09:26:56 AM
Oh, I don't think the FDA murders anyone.
They're a US government body, and that means they're complicit in all the murders committed by the US armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention all those CIA killings.
And Ruby Ridge!
Only weak people smoke anyway. Might as well weed them out a bit earlier. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 12:20:44 PM
Keep on misplacing that rage, Tim :lol:
Am I filled with rage? :unsure:
Tim:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.incredible-hulk-library.com%2Fsuperhero-library%2FImg%2FCharacters%2Fhulk-from-the-movie.jpg&hash=07e1f0fa9b51afc7f4859e182d9f28509ab02c14)
Quote from: HVC on August 17, 2011, 05:33:05 PM
they should put one of those greeting card song chips in every pack so that when you open it you hear the funeral march song :lol:
:hmm:
Quote from: LaCroix on August 17, 2011, 04:50:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 04:27:01 PMYeah, I bet the geniuses that designed that stupid billboard with a cigarette shaped like a bullet thought their campaign would be effective as well.
or those ridiculous smoking-kills commercials where the actors fall down in the street? :lol:
but seriously, commercials and billboards are a little different from pervasive ads on every pack. exposure comes with every purchase. even if it did nothing for me personally, i would feel a little more self-conscious whipping out a pack in public that's covered in death as opposed to the slick marlboro designs :D
You would probably get cancer from worrying about disturbing images on the package. :P
I think rules against smoking around people who do not want it are fine, but that's where the whole anti-cigarette campaign should stop. People should have a right to smoke what they like and get their health fucked up.
The whole ruccus around smoking is very hypocritical on both sides, btw. I reserve special loathing for the idiots who think that banning smoking would be a disaster but support banning pot (well, except tobacco companies who are just business savvy if they hold such stance).
I think there's something to LaCroix's point about design. If those warnings and texts are on each of the packages, it makes it harder for the cigarette manufacturers to position the product as slick and cool and stylish.
The "smoking kills" and "here's a gross picture" parts of the package are not about deterring regular smokers, but about making picking up that pack just a little bit less cool for non-smokers I would expect.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 17, 2011, 07:10:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2011, 12:20:44 PM
Keep on misplacing that rage, Tim :lol:
Am I filled with rage? :unsure:
Quote
I hope these murderous fucks burn in hell.
Sounds like rage to me.
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2011, 12:48:44 PM
I think there's something to LaCroix's point about design. If those warnings and texts are on each of the packages, it makes it harder for the cigarette manufacturers to position the product as slick and cool and stylish.
The "smoking kills" and "here's a gross picture" parts of the package are not about deterring regular smokers, but about making picking up that pack just a little bit less cool for non-smokers I would expect.
Yeah but why would we do it? Stupid people who pay a tax so they can die younger are what we need.
Quote from: Martinus on August 18, 2011, 03:18:49 PM
Yeah but why would we do it? Stupid people who pay a tax so they can die younger are what we need.
So long as they wait to die until right when they are about to draw a government pension...presuming they have a job.
Quote from: Martinus on August 18, 2011, 03:18:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2011, 12:48:44 PM
I think there's something to LaCroix's point about design. If those warnings and texts are on each of the packages, it makes it harder for the cigarette manufacturers to position the product as slick and cool and stylish.
The "smoking kills" and "here's a gross picture" parts of the package are not about deterring regular smokers, but about making picking up that pack just a little bit less cool for non-smokers I would expect.
Yeah but why would we do it? Stupid people who pay a tax so they can die younger are what we need.
Because they don't kust keel over - smokers have a lifetime of health concerns / problems that are very expensive to treat.
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2011, 03:25:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 18, 2011, 03:18:49 PM
Yeah but why would we do it? Stupid people who pay a tax so they can die younger are what we need.
Because they don't kust keel over - smokers have a lifetime of health concerns / problems that are very expensive to treat.
But a shorter lifetime, which leads to a net savings.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health-why-smoking-may-help-to-lower-the-cost-of-health-care-1234901.html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506
:frog: Shove your warning labels.
Smokers cost less to treat than all the healthy lunatics living to 88.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 19, 2011, 01:44:31 AM
:frog: Shove your warning labels.
Smokers cost less to treat than all the healthy lunatics living to 88.
That's true. However, if you smoke regularly, it means you are a fucking idiot.
Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2011, 01:45:42 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 19, 2011, 01:44:31 AM
:frog: Shove your warning labels.
Smokers cost less to treat than all the healthy lunatics living to 88.
That's true. However, if you smoke regularly, it means you are a fucking idiot.
:huh: Just because I staked my No Bull homestead in Marlboro Country doesn't make me an idiot. :hmm: