Judge Hears Arguments in Cigarette Warning Labels Case
| NACS Online |
|
|||||||||
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon already blocked enforcement of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) tobacco marketing and sale regulations, but the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has requested that he reverse that decision, the Legal Times reports.
The government appealed Leon’s ruling, and an appellate court will hear the case in April. However, the DOJ wants the judge to support the rules because of Leon’s concern about caution to consumers and government encouragement. At stake is the agency’s requirement for tobacco firms to slap graphic images and warnings on cigarette packs and in tobacco ads. Part of Leon’s concern stems from Congress not considering how the label regulations might impact First Amendment rights. DOJ lawyer Mark Stern argued before the judge yesterday that the government’s anti-smoking sentiments are not unknown, saying the gruesome images provide consumers with information about the tobacco product. However, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company attorney Noel Francisco countered that the government is not allowed to use companies to become mouthpieces for the government, which is what the rules do. Francisco said that the images are meant to frighten consumers, especially given that the DOJ has not shown such pictures actually work. Judge Leon indicated he will rule prior to the when the D.C. Circuit court would hear oral arguments related to the preliminary injunction. Business groups have come out against the new graphic warning labels. Last month, NACS sent a letter to the FDA with comments on its proposed tobacco marketing rules. |
February 5th, 2012 at 5:35 am
It is unclear to me where the line wouid be drawn, if this is allowed, with regard to other products.
IF the a government has the power to do this, why would not that power extend to the ABILITY to require car sales concerns to post gruesome pictures of bloody car crashes on their showroom vehicles? Same pictures on bottles of beer, wine, and spirits? And so on.
“Oh but the government doesn’t want to stop car or alcohol sales.” Well, the government has a bad history with the latter … and as to the former, neither did the government want to stop tobacco sales 20 years ago. The question is, why can a government choose to target a legal product for ANY such campaign.
I do not see whay A GOVERNMENT in this country (Federal or otherwise) should ever have the power to choose … to single out … a legal product or class of such products to target for elimination from the market, and/or from consideration by consumers, by any means it chooses … graphic pictures, outrageous levels of taxes, or WHATEVER.
It is one thing for our governments to use established fact as a basis for education of the public with regard to marketplace choices. The current warnings on cigarette packs are factual for the most part, although some imply that results that are unlikely to accrue to persons who use a minimal amount of tobacco will happen to all (and there are persons who use tobacco responsibly in limited amounts).
There are also actually virtually safe tobacco products (from Star Scientific) on which false labels are forced [Star’s dissolvable tobacco products are unlikely to be able to cause mouth or any other cancer, for example) … as FDA well knows, and yet FDA will not act on Star’s applications for modified risk status. WHY DOES NOT FDA PURSUE WITH EQUAL VIGOR ITS OBLIGATION TO PROMULGATE TRUTH ABOUT SUCH PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC ARENA AS IT IS TO PROPOGATE FICTIONALIZED “HAZARDS” OF OTHER PRODUCTS???
How can ANY government be allowed to pick and choose its facts about legal products, and to hurry up promulgating fiction and falsehoods while at the same time choosing to drag its feet on and even sidestep its duty with regard to facts that are AT LEAST equally important to the tobacco consumer in the marketplace??? In this case the government is choosing to sidestep science and to pursue other agendas, those that are the pets of particular improper outside influences from other industries (health, pharmaceutical, etc.)
FDATP has totally lost its credibility, as has its so-called scientific advisory committee. FDATP is clearly serving other masters besides the public. Thus FDATP is operating outside its mandate … offering fantasy as fact on the one hand, and refusing on the other hand, month after month, year after year, to address and offer up fact of which it is well (painfully, for FDA, apparently) aware that would allow the public to make safer and even safe choices in the tobacco marketplace.
Aristocracy is alive, well, AND IN CONTROL … as usual.