Free speech issue? I just don't see it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/24/justice/tobacco-warning-label-law/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
QuoteFederal appeals court strikes down FDA tobacco warning label law
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
August 25, 2012 -- Updated 1538 GMT (2338 HKT)
Washington (CNN) -- A government mandate requiring tobacco companies to place graphic images on their products warning of the dangers of smoking was tossed out Friday by a divided federal appeals court, with the majority saying the requirements were a violation of free speech protections.
The Food and Drug Administration was ordered to immediately revise its rules.
"The First Amendment requires the government not only to state a substantial interest justifying a regulation on commercial speech, but also to show that its regulation directly advances that goal," wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown. "FDA failed to present any data -- much less the substantial evidence required under the federal law -- showing that enacting their proposed graphic warnings will accomplish the agency's stated objective of reducing smoking rates. The rule thus cannot pass muster" under past court precedent.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, passed in 2009, would have required nine written warnings such as "Cigarettes are addictive" and "Tobacco smoke causes harm to children." Also included would have been alternating images of a corpse and smoke-infected lungs.
A group of tobacco companies led by R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard had sued, saying the warnings would be cost-prohibitive and would dominate and damage the packaging and promotion of their brands. The legal question was whether the new labeling was purely factual and accurate in nature or was designed to discourage use of the products.
Ruling in Australia shows 'big tobacco can be taken on and beaten'
A federal judge in March had ruled in favor of the tobacco companies. The 2-1 U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia panel has now affirmed that ruling.
Brown and Judge A. Raymond Randolph rejected the FDA's assertion that it had a governmental interest in "effectively communicating health information" regarding the negative effects of cigarettes.
"The government's attempt to reformulate its interest as purely informational is unconvincing, as an interest in 'effective' communication is too vague to stand on its own," said Brown, named to the bench by President George W. Bush. "Indeed, the government's chosen buzzwords, which it reiterates through the rulemaking, prompt an obvious question: 'effective' in what sense?"
In dissent, Judge Judith Rogers said the rules do not violate commercial speech protections.
"The government has an interest of paramount importance in effectively conveying information about the health risks of smoking to adolescent would-be smokers and other consumers," said Rogers, named to the bench by President Clinton. "The tobacco companies' decades of deception regarding these risks, especially the risk of addiction, buttress this interest."
Other color images required under the agency rules would have been: a man smoking through a tracheotomy hole in his throat; smoke wafting from a child being kissed by her mother; and a diseased mouth, presumably from oral cancer linked to chewing.
There was no immediate reaction to the ruling from the FDA and from the Justice Department, which defended the law in court.
The government can now appeal to the Supreme Court for review, which stands a good chance of accepting the case. A separate federal appeals court in Cincinnati in March concluded that the FDA law was constitutional. Such "circuit splits" are often a good indicator the justices would intervene and offer the final constitutional word.
Health groups condemned the latest decision.
"Today's ruling ignores strong scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of larger, graphic warning labels in communicating the health dangers of tobacco use," said Dr. Robert Block, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. "With 10 million cigarettes sold every minute and almost 3,000 children under the age of 18 starting to smoke each day, this ruling puts children's lives at risk."
The word and image warning labels would have covered half of the cigarette packs sold at retail outlets and 20% of cigarette advertising. The warnings were scheduled to appear on cigarette packs beginning next month.
The federal law in question would also regulate the amount of nicotine and other substances in tobacco, and limit promotion of the products and related promotional merchandise at public events like sporting contests. The free speech aspect was the only issue in the current case.
Several other lawsuits over the labels are pending in federal court, part a two-decade federal and state effort to force tobacco companies to limit their advertising and settle billions of dollars in state and private class-action claims over the health dangers of smoking.
The latest case is R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (11-5332).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2012, 10:04:58 PM
Free speech issue? I just don't see it.
Timmy, I love[1] you, but are you fucking retarded[2]? This is the government compelling that a private person[3] make particular speeches with every sale of their product. How could that be anything other than a free speech issue?
[1] In a prison way.
[2] I tried to write this in a kinder fashion, but couldn't. This is take 3.
[3] To the extent corporations are people, I recommend life without parole[4], but that's beside the point.
[4] Except for corporations under the age of 18, who might be able to reform.
Quote from: ulmont on August 27, 2012, 11:38:06 PM
How could that be anything other than a free speech issue?
By being a commercial speech issue?
Well, the warnings are pretty stupid, but the idea that the government can't compell a company to warn people about their dangerous product is pretty silly. Especially when the company has a history of lobbying and deception.
Good.
you don't notice them after a week anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2012, 06:58:39 AM
Quote from: ulmont on August 27, 2012, 11:38:06 PM
How could that be anything other than a free speech issue?
By being a commercial speech issue?
While commercial speech may have less protections than non-commercial speech, a commercial speech issue is by definition a free speech issue.
Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2012, 07:45:22 AM
Well, the warnings are pretty stupid, but the idea that the government can't compell a company to warn people about their dangerous product is pretty silly. Especially when the company has a history of lobbying and deception.
Umm, they do have the surgeon general's warning on the packages. What was at issue here, I believe, were the rather graphic images that were going to be forced on packaging.
When I was a kid & first started paying attention to cigarette warning labels (I had various aunts & cousins who smoked), I mis-read the label & thought it said "The Surgeon General is determined that smoking is hazardous to your health." -- i.e., the Surgeon General hates smoking so much, he is doing everything he can to make it harmful to you :D
American courts rule in favour of big business over health of its citizens. News at 11.
Quote from: Josephus on August 28, 2012, 01:11:40 PM
American courts rule in favour of big business over health of its citizens. News at 11.
We don't make other products feature graphic potential results do we? :unsure:
No.
though I think you should. I often thought that Budweisers, for instance, should come with a warning that says: "Drinking this may cause you to beat the shit out of your wife."
Or MacDonald's should put warnings on its Big Macs: Eating this will make you laughingly obese.
Quote from: ulmont on August 27, 2012, 11:38:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2012, 10:04:58 PM
Free speech issue? I just don't see it.
Timmy, I love[1] you, but are you fucking retarded[2]? This is the government compelling that a private person[3] make particular speeches with every sale of their product. How could that be anything other than a free speech issue?
[1] In a prison way.
[2] I tried to write this in a kinder fashion, but couldn't. This is take 3.
[3] To the extent corporations are people, I recommend life without parole[4], but that's beside the point.
[4] Except for corporations under the age of 18, who might be able to reform.
:lol:
One of my all time favourite posts.
Quote from: Josephus on August 28, 2012, 01:27:51 PM
Or MacDonald's should put warnings on its Big Macs: Eating this will make you laughingly obese.
Joking aside, food labelling is a big issue. But from the report posted in the OP it seems the goverment simply failed to adduce the necessary evidence to meet the threshold.
Lawmakers pass law without properly considering the evidence (or lack there of) to support their assumptions. News at 11.... :D
Quote from: Josephus on August 28, 2012, 01:27:51 PM
No.
though I think you should. I often thought that Budweisers, for instance, should come with a warning that says: "Drinking this may cause you to beat the shit out of your wife."
Or MacDonald's should put warnings on its Big Macs: Eating this will make you laughingly obese.
Like I said, cigs already have a warning about the fact that they can be damaging. Graphic pictures are a different matter entirely.
Your other suggestions seem well...odd.
Quote from: Josephus on August 28, 2012, 01:11:40 PM
American courts rule in favour of big business over health of its citizens. News at 11.
Some people just can't/don't want to be helped.
QuoteOr MacDonald's should put warnings on its Big Macs: Eating this will make you laughingly obese.
I saw a guy in a documentary who eats nothing but Big Macs. He was pretty thin.
He should go to Somalia and eat nothing but carrion, grass and shell casings.
When I used to smoke (I quit four years ago Labour Day), I actually used to love collecting Canada's graphic warnings. There was one really cool one (they've changed them since) that had a picture of a cigarette with one end slowly sloping down in an arch and the slogan was: Smoking makes you impotent.
My favourite though was the one in the hospital which had the slogan: Cigarettes reduce Life Expectancy. To which I used to say, "Bah, I don't expect much out of life anyways."
Anyways, Canada has had cool graphic warnings probably for 20 or more years. Nobody even thought to think of it as violating free speech.
25, 30 years ago, some doctors' waiting rooms had anti-smoking/drinking posters. One that I particularly remember was cigarette stumps and two burning cigarettes in an ash tray that was shaped like a lung.
Quote from: Josephus on August 28, 2012, 02:34:49 PM
Anyways, Canada has had cool graphic warnings probably for 20 or more years. Nobody even thought to think of it as violating free speech.
:huh:
There has been lots of litigation whether or not various restrictions on cigarette ads violate free speech or not. It's generally been found that yes, they do restrict cigarette companies free speech, but that such limit is justifiable under s. 1. However in some cases such restrictions have been struck down. See RJR MacDonald v Canada [1995] 3 SCR 199.
I take that back.
Other than the cigarette companies, and,maybe, their lawyers, no one really is all fussed about it.
I talked to a friend who said if those images (shown in OP link) were on a pack, she'd smoke more as they'd stress her out. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:30:02 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 27, 2012, 11:38:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2012, 10:04:58 PM
Free speech issue? I just don't see it.
Timmy, I love[1] you, but are you fucking retarded[2]? This is the government compelling that a private person[3] make particular speeches with every sale of their product. How could that be anything other than a free speech issue?
[1] In a prison way.
[2] I tried to write this in a kinder fashion, but couldn't. This is take 3.
[3] To the extent corporations are people, I recommend life without parole[4], but that's beside the point.
[4] Except for corporations under the age of 18, who might be able to reform.
:lol:
One of my all time favourite posts.
:D Yeah it is. I didn't see it until I got home from work at 4:30AM and my brain was too frazzled at that point to respond but I did Laugh Out Loud
TM when I read it.
Quote from: sbr on August 28, 2012, 04:42:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:30:02 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 27, 2012, 11:38:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2012, 10:04:58 PM
Free speech issue? I just don't see it.
Timmy, I love[1] you, but are you fucking retarded[2]? This is the government compelling that a private person[3] make particular speeches with every sale of their product. How could that be anything other than a free speech issue?
[1] In a prison way.
[2] I tried to write this in a kinder fashion, but couldn't. This is take 3.
[3] To the extent corporations are people, I recommend life without parole[4], but that's beside the point.
[4] Except for corporations under the age of 18, who might be able to reform.
:lol:
One of my all time favourite posts.
:D Yeah it is. I didn't see it until I got home from work at 4:30AM and my brain was too frazzled at that point to respond but I did Laugh Out LoudTM when I read it.
Glad you two liked it.
Quote from: Josephus on August 28, 2012, 03:15:20 PM
I take that back.
Other than the cigarette companies, and,maybe, their lawyers, no one really is all fussed about it.
Not especially, but it's still stupid and pointless.
Actually who are these people who have yet to learn that smoking is harmful?
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
Actually who are these people who have yet to learn that smoking is harmful?
Teenagers and particularly teenage girls.
They know, they just don't care. Pictures won't stop that. When I started I knew cigarettes were bad. They didn't have pictures yet, but if they did I highly doubt it would do anything.
Quote from: HVC on August 29, 2012, 12:56:41 PM
They know, they just don't care. Pictures won't stop that. When I started I knew cigarettes were bad. They didn't have pictures yet, but if they did I highly doubt it would do anything.
The idea is to create a stigma around smoking. Thats why the anti smoking adds these days focus on how it makes you look like crap. We cant prevent people from doing stupid things but we can appeal to their vanity.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2012, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
Actually who are these people who have yet to learn that smoking is harmful?
Teenagers and particularly teenage girls.
Pretty sure they know they are bad. Kinda like HVC said. I know its been a bit since I was a teen but already in the 90s we had lots of info pushed on us about how bad smoking was. And now with so many places where it is banned...
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2012, 01:00:30 PM
The idea is to create a stigma around smoking. Thats why the anti smoking adds these days focus on how it makes you look like crap. We cant prevent people from doing stupid things but we can appeal to their vanity.
How's that one working?
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 01:05:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2012, 01:00:30 PM
The idea is to create a stigma around smoking. Thats why the anti smoking adds these days focus on how it makes you look like crap. We cant prevent people from doing stupid things but we can appeal to their vanity.
How's that one working?
Smoking rates continue to decrease, and are at all time lows. :)
IIRC teen smoking fell in he mid nineties but has been at the same level since. So in regards to pictures on packs, that didn't work. What did was über taxing them, with the unentended consequence of "counterfeit" smokes hitting a new high. These don't have the same safety percausions as normal smokes (limited they may be) and are worse for you. It's always chinas fault lol
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 01:05:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2012, 01:00:30 PM
The idea is to create a stigma around smoking. Thats why the anti smoking adds these days focus on how it makes you look like crap. We cant prevent people from doing stupid things but we can appeal to their vanity.
How's that one working?
Smoking rates continue to decrease, and are at all time lows. :)
Because of the ads? :yeahright:
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 01:05:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2012, 01:00:30 PM
The idea is to create a stigma around smoking. Thats why the anti smoking adds these days focus on how it makes you look like crap. We cant prevent people from doing stupid things but we can appeal to their vanity.
How's that one working?
Smoking rates continue to decrease, and are at all time lows. :)
Because of the ads? :yeahright:
It appears to be part of it. :)
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:21:47 PM
It appears to be part of it. :)
Keep telling yourself that. I'd have a hard time imagining the ads keeping one kid from smoking.
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 01:27:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:21:47 PM
It appears to be part of it. :)
Keep telling yourself that. I'd have a hard time imagining the ads keeping one kid from smoking.
:console:
You should work on your imagination, then. I can imagine all kinds of things, myself. :)
you two seem stressed. Have a smoke, it does wonders :D
Quote from: HVC on August 29, 2012, 01:34:36 PM
you two seem stressed. Have a smoke, it does wonders :D
Right now I'm imagining my foot up your ass.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:21:47 PM
It appears to be part of it. :)
I think the smoking bans are much more significant.
I could imagine having a cigar right now. Too bad I can't do that at work. Never have time these days at home :angry:
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:35:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 29, 2012, 01:34:36 PM
you two seem stressed. Have a smoke, it does wonders :D
Right now I'm imagining my foot up your ass.
:o why are you anti-smoking guys so violent :(
Quote from: HVC on August 29, 2012, 01:52:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:35:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 29, 2012, 01:34:36 PM
you two seem stressed. Have a smoke, it does wonders :D
Right now I'm imagining my foot up your ass.
:o why are you anti-smoking guys so violent :(
What you call violence, I call negative reinforcement.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Quote from: Neil on August 29, 2012, 01:36:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:21:47 PM
It appears to be part of it. :)
I think the smoking bans are much more significant.
I think you are correct. Watching all those wretches standing on the street corner in their expensive suits smoking in the rain went a long way to make it look uncool. Even to teenage girls more concerned about smoking helping them keep off the weight.
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2012, 01:01:29 PM
Pretty sure they know they are bad. Kinda like HVC said. I know its been a bit since I was a teen but already in the 90s we had lots of info pushed on us about how bad smoking was. And now with so many places where it is banned...
Yes when you were a teen it was pushed on you in the 90s. The teenagers of today didnt get that info. Is there a good public policy argument for not educating a new generation because it worked with the previous generation?
I'm all for edumacation*, and i'm pretty sure it's still pushed hard (i don't think anyone alive today doesn't know the harm of smoking). It's just that info on the packs don't do much, i don't think. If you've got the pack (first or otherwise) in your hand looking down at a picture won't make you go "eww, i'm not goiung to smoke this". Buying the cigarettes means you're past the point of consideration.
*in school, can't remember which grade, we had a demontration between a healthy sheeps lung and smokers sheeps lung. it "breathed" and everything. ALhtough my only thought was poor forced-to-smoke sheep.
Quote from: HVC on August 30, 2012, 11:41:48 AM
I'm all for edumacation*, and i'm pretty sure it's still pushed hard (i don't think anyone alive today doesn't know the harm of smoking). It's just that info on the packs don't do much, i don't think. If you've got the pack (first or otherwise) in your hand looking down at a picture won't make you go "eww, i'm not goiung to smoke this". Buying the cigarettes means you're past the point of consideration.
*in school, can't remember which grade, we had a demontration between a healthy sheeps lung and smokers sheeps lung. it "breathed" and everything. ALhtough my only thought was poor forced-to-smoke sheep.
Its a lot better than the bad old days when packages used to promote "light" cigarrettes as being more healthy. You might be right that it would not affect hard core smokers but if it stops just one person from smoking isnt that enough?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 11:45:40 AM
but if it stops just one person from smoking isnt that enough?
:huh:
Why not put the packs in those hard plastic shells to make them really difficult to open? Surely at least one person will throw it away in frustration, never start smoking, and it will all be worth it.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 30, 2012, 11:49:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 11:45:40 AM
but if it stops just one person from smoking isnt that enough?
:huh:
Why not put the packs in those hard plastic shells to make them really difficult to open? Surely at least one person will throw it away in frustration, never start smoking, and it will all be worth it.
Good idea.
Or let's randomly shoot teens. If it stops just one from smoking, that's a win!
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 12:01:31 PM
Or let's randomly shoot teens. If it stops just one from smoking, that's a win!
A good example of why Republicans fail at public policy issues.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 11:31:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2012, 01:01:29 PM
Pretty sure they know they are bad. Kinda like HVC said. I know its been a bit since I was a teen but already in the 90s we had lots of info pushed on us about how bad smoking was. And now with so many places where it is banned...
Yes when you were a teen it was pushed on you in the 90s. The teenagers of today didnt get that info. Is there a good public policy argument for not educating a new generation because it worked with the previous generation?
What evidence do you have that the teens of today didn't get such info? I grew up when there was still smoking in restaurants and yet learned all about the dangers of smoking in school. With all the smoking bands nowadays and ads shown about dangers of smoking, why would we assumed that teens no less than I did then? :huh:
And my point was that I'm not sure why we need graphic images on cigarette packs to instruct teens.
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 11:31:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2012, 01:01:29 PM
Pretty sure they know they are bad. Kinda like HVC said. I know its been a bit since I was a teen but already in the 90s we had lots of info pushed on us about how bad smoking was. And now with so many places where it is banned...
Yes when you were a teen it was pushed on you in the 90s. The teenagers of today didnt get that info. Is there a good public policy argument for not educating a new generation because it worked with the previous generation?
What evidence do you have that the teens of today didn't get such info?
I dont. In fact my argument is that they do get the info and they should keep getting it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 01:35:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 11:31:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2012, 01:01:29 PM
Pretty sure they know they are bad. Kinda like HVC said. I know its been a bit since I was a teen but already in the 90s we had lots of info pushed on us about how bad smoking was. And now with so many places where it is banned...
Yes when you were a teen it was pushed on you in the 90s. The teenagers of today didnt get that info. Is there a good public policy argument for not educating a new generation because it worked with the previous generation?
What evidence do you have that the teens of today didn't get such info?
I dont. In fact my argument is that they do get the info and they should keep getting it.
Teens here don't get very detailed information on their cigarette packs, so...
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 01:35:50 PM
I dont. In fact my argument is that they do get the info and they should keep getting it.
I agree. They're getting it in school and should continue to get it in school. Lord knows I had it drilled into my head from 3rd grade thru 12th grade that smoking was bad.
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 01:44:02 PM
Teens here don't get very detailed information on their cigarette packs, so...
Perhaps that is part of the problem. They dont get much detailed information about a lot of things they are putting into their bodies - to tie back to Josephus' comment.
I suppose the one good thing about these sorts of threads is that it makes me realize that the Canadian right and left agree on much compared to the US.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 02:03:16 PM
Perhaps that is part of the problem. They dont get much detailed information about a lot of things they are putting into their bodies - to tie back to Josephus' comment.
:huh:
So you're arguing that there is a significant group of individuals who have missed out on every warning out there about the danger of cigarettes but would pay attention if it was clearly marked on the package?
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 01:35:50 PM
I dont. In fact my argument is that they do get the info and they should keep getting it.
I agree. They're getting it in school and should continue to get it in school. Lord knows I had it drilled into my head from 3rd grade thru 12th grade that smoking was bad.
I'm not sure there is anyone here who said they shouldn't. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 02:22:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 02:03:16 PM
Perhaps that is part of the problem. They dont get much detailed information about a lot of things they are putting into their bodies - to tie back to Josephus' comment.
:huh:
So you're arguing that there is a significant group of individuals who have missed out on every warning out there about the danger of cigarettes but would pay attention if it was clearly marked on the package?
Not what I am saying at all. I am saying the more ways we can inform/convince people not to smoke the better.
Question- Actors from b&w movies in the 40s. Were they cool because they smoked :smoke: or were they cool because they wore fedoras? :outback: (not perfect but closest we got)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 02:31:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 02:22:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 02:03:16 PM
Perhaps that is part of the problem. They dont get much detailed information about a lot of things they are putting into their bodies - to tie back to Josephus' comment.
:huh:
So you're arguing that there is a significant group of individuals who have missed out on every warning out there about the danger of cigarettes but would pay attention if it was clearly marked on the package?
Not what I am saying at all. I am saying the more ways we can inform/convince people not to smoke the better.
I think there's a limit on the usefulness once you've hit a certain critical mass of ways. and don't really see why cigarettes should be singled out among the vast array of harmful consumer products.
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 03:32:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 02:31:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 02:22:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 02:03:16 PM
Perhaps that is part of the problem. They dont get much detailed information about a lot of things they are putting into their bodies - to tie back to Josephus' comment.
:huh:
So you're arguing that there is a significant group of individuals who have missed out on every warning out there about the danger of cigarettes but would pay attention if it was clearly marked on the package?
Not what I am saying at all. I am saying the more ways we can inform/convince people not to smoke the better.
I think there's a limit on the usefulness once you've hit a certain critical mass of ways. and don't really see why cigarettes should be singled out among the vast array of harmful consumer products.
Frankly, if something's legal, I'm not really sure it's appropriate for the government to attempt to discourage it, or force private companies to attempt to discourage it.
Of course, if we're discussing teen smoking specifically, it
is illegal--but then, unless the law's already been broken, teens aren't going to be getting ahold of cigarette packs with those anti-smoking messages on them in the first place, now are they?
At any rate, it's been common knowledge that smoking is very bad for you at least since the mid-1960's, at least in the US. Anyone who has started smoking since then has either been willfully ignorant of the health affects, or at least has willfully ignored what they did know.
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2012, 06:15:56 PM
Frankly, if something's legal, I'm not really sure it's appropriate for the government to attempt to discourage it, or force private companies to attempt to discourage it.
The alternative then is to make the activity illegal. That doesnt strike me as the most reasonable of arguments.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 07:08:07 PM
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2012, 06:15:56 PM
Frankly, if something's legal, I'm not really sure it's appropriate for the government to attempt to discourage it, or force private companies to attempt to discourage it.
The alternative then is to make the activity illegal. That doesnt strike me as the most reasonable of arguments.
Actually, whenever the War on Drugs is being discussed, I can't help but think that if tobacco cigarettes are legal, there's nothing that should be illegal.