Is graphic Cigarette images on the package a violation of free speech?

[olp1fan]

I don't quite understand this POV. So any warning on any product can be construed as a violation to free speech?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/08/u-s-judge-rules-canada-like-tobacco-warnings-may-be-threat-to-free-speech/

It turns out that American smokers won’t have to put up with the graphic images on their cigarette packs that a generation of Canadians have learned to ignore.

A U.S. judged blocked implementation of a new U.S. rule requiring the tobacco companies to fill the top half of cigarette packages with moderately gruesome images. The tobacco companies are suing the government on the basis that the requirement is an ingringement of free speech. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon concluded that they are likely to win their case, so he blocked implementation in the interim.

From a Canadian perspective, the ruling seems at once both telling and meaningless. Meaningless because Canadian cigarette packages (as with other countries) have carried increasingly alarming images and warnings, yet the industry thrives, proving that people who want to smoke will smoke no matter how many times you tell them they’re going to die. Cigarettes costs a small fortune, are banned pretty much everywhere except open fields and sidewalks, and attract a level of social disapproval just short of that reserved for pedophiles. Yet sidewalks outside office entrances remain littered with butts.

The U.S. images weren’t even that gory. A dead guy with a big chest scar. Some rotten-looking lungs. You can see far worse in any episode of CSI:Wherever. You want ugly, check out this gallery on CBS.com. Those Australians really know how to get their point across, eh?

But the judge decided that the government’s demand went beyond the pure and simple dissemination of information. Written warnings are one thing, but ugly pictures go too far.

Leon found the nine graphic images approved by the FDA in June go beyond conveying the facts about smoking’s health risks and veer into advocacy – a critical distinction in free speech cases.

… “It is abundantly clear from viewing these images that the emotional response they were crafted to induce is calculated to provoke the viewer to quit, or never to start smoking – an objective wholly apart from disseminating purely factual and uncontroversial information,” Leon wrote in his 29-page opinion.

Leon pointed out some photos used in the labels were altered to evoke emotion. He also said the FDA requirement that labels were to cover the entire top half of cigarette packs, front and back and include a number for a stop-smoking hotline, may be unconstitutional. Leon said the labels would amount to a “mini-billboard” for the agency’s “obvious anti-smoking agenda.”

Evidently a restriction that is viewed as perfectly acceptable, even desirable, in Canada is a violation of free speech in the U.S. As if the existing Canadian packages weren’t horrific enough, the tobacco companies have been ordered to adopt even more tougher images by March 2012, including two that feature anti-smoking activist Barb Tarbox taken while she was dying of cancer. Canada’s Health Minister applauded the change when it was announced:

“The new Tobacco Act regulations will put new, updated health warnings and information into the hands of millions of smokers,” said Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.”I applaud the courage and commitment of those who are sharing their experience with tobacco use through these messages,” she said, adding Tarbox’s “unforgettable image has become a symbol of the hazards of smoking.”

In Canada it’s “updated health warnings.” In the U.S. it’s an assault on free speech. Either way, the cancer is the same.

[Topaz]

Personally, I like to see a hefty tax on smokes that goes directly to healthcare for those smokers who will become ill down the road or just ban tobacco all together, which the government won't do because money talks louder than people's health. I don't know what they have added to the tobacco but it stinks!

[Moonlight Graham]

Personally, I like to see a hefty tax on smokes that goes directly to healthcare for those smokers who will become ill down the road ...

Me likes this idea. Make a rough calculation (or as close as one could estimate) what it costs us, then slap it onto tobacco products.

[dre]

Personally, I like to see a hefty tax on smokes that goes directly to healthcare for those smokers who will become ill down the road or just ban tobacco all together, which the government won't do because money talks louder than people's health. I don't know what they have added to the tobacco but it stinks!

Well, the problem is prohibition doesnt work. It would be a gigantic failure, create a gigantic lucrative black market that would become an engine the powers organized criminals and all kinds of other crimes. Just like it did with alcohol... just like it did with marijuana.

Your idea with taxing them is solid though, but really thats what the government already does. A pack of ciggarettes would probably cost about 1.50 if they werent.

Edited November 11, 2011 by dre

[cybercoma]

Personally, I like to see a hefty tax on smokes that goes directly to healthcare for those smokers who will become ill down the road or just ban tobacco all together, which the government won't do because money talks louder than people's health. I don't know what they have added to the tobacco but it stinks!

Make smokes so expensive that people buy them on the black market. Then the gov will lose $

[Guest American Woman]

Make smokes so expensive that people buy them on the black market. Then the gov will lose $

That's already happening:

The Ontario Tobacco Research Unit estimates that 20 percent of cigarettes consumed in Canada are illegal. In the Quebec over 40 percent of the cigarettes purchased are illegal and in Ontario 50 percent of the cigarettes purchased may be illegal. The seizure of 45,000 cartons containing 14 million contraband cigarettes in Alberta suggests a problem previously confined mostly to Ontario and Quebec is spreading across the country.

link

[charter.rights]

That's already happening:

The Ontario Tobacco Research Unit estimates that 20 percent of cigarettes consumed in Canada are illegal. In the Quebec over 40 percent of the cigarettes purchased are illegal and in Ontario 50 percent of the cigarettes purchased may be illegal. The seizure of 45,000 cartons containing 14 million contraband cigarettes in Alberta suggests a problem previously confined mostly to Ontario and Quebec is spreading across the country.

link

Those smokes seized in Alberta are not illegal.

They were manufactured in a federally licensed, and federally inspected factory in Kahnawake Quebec, and all excise taxes have been paid.

The case presently before the courts is whether or not the province has a right to add extra tax to Native brands (packaged and in cartons). In the US the Federal Court has already decided that states don't have that right to tax Native smokes and the case is off to the Supreme Court if they want to hear it...

I suspect the answer will be the same in Alberta and in pending cases in Saskatchewan as well. Natives are not required to pay provincial sales taxes anywhere in Canada, and the provincial tobacco tax is a provincial excise-type tax.

[guyser]

Personally, I like to see a hefty tax on smokes that goes directly to healthcare for those smokers who will become ill down the road or just ban tobacco all together, which the government won't do because money talks louder than people's health. I don't know what they have added to the tobacco but it stinks!

<sigh>.....they already do, and they increased it by $2.50 back in 2003 .

[GostHacked]

Make smokes so expensive that people buy them on the black market. Then the gov will lose $

That's already been done. And the government just ends up spending money for policing and incarcerating those who sell/buy on that black market. Among my friends, the smokes are called 'natives'. They do taste different, and they don't make me feel horrible like most brand smokes.

That being said, I am not a big cigg smoker anyways.

But I recall about 15 years ago, smokes in Canada was reaching about 10 dollars a pack. With so many complaints the taxes/price was reduced to about half that. Now it's crept back up there over the years.

Making things expensive won't stop people from doing those things. They will simply find cheaper alternative sources. Always have, always will.

Edited November 11, 2011 by GostHacked

[cybercoma]

That's already been done. And the government just ends up spending money for policing and incarcerating those who sell/buy on that black market. Among my friends, the smokes are called 'natives'. They do taste different, and they don't make me feel horrible like most brand smokes.

That being said, I am not a big cigg smoker anyways.

But I recall about 15 years ago, smokes in Canada was reaching about 10 dollars a pack. With so many complaints the taxes/price was reduced to about half that. Now it's crept back up there over the years.

Making things expensive won't stop people from doing those things. They will simply find cheaper alternative sources. Always have, always will.

You should read the post by charter.rights at the top. It explains where those 'Native' smokes come from.

[jacee]

Among my friends, the smokes are called 'natives'. They do taste different, and they don't make me feel horrible like most brand smokes.

That's because they're natural tobacco, smooth and without the abrupt 'hit' from commercial cigs. My understanding is that one of the MANY additives put in commercial cigs actually increases the uptake of nicotine into your body beyond the nicotine content listed on the package, to increase addiction.

Another example of the 'free market' (not) regulating itself.

And btw ... smokers do NOT have higher health costs over their lifetimes, because they die younger.

And if anyone thinks we should outlaw smoking because of health effects, I would suggest that we should also outlaw juicy marbled steaks, refined starches and sugar, etc etc.

[Topaz]

That's because they're natural tobacco, smooth and without the abrupt 'hit' from commercial cigs. My understanding is that one of the MANY additives put in commercial cigs actually increases the uptake of nicotine into your body beyond the nicotine content listed on the package, to increase addiction.

Another example of the 'free market' (not) regulating itself.

And btw ... smokers do NOT have higher health costs over their lifetimes, because they die younger.

And if anyone thinks we should outlaw smoking because of health effects, I would suggest that we should also outlaw juicy marbled steaks, refined starches and sugar, etc etc.

Perhaps the answer is to make the manufacturers of all process food, take out what is dangerous to people. For ie, the microwave popcorn, the "butter" content, can cause cancer. I was shocked when I heard that and have gone back to hot air popcorn. There's nothing good about sodas, empty calories and there's just NOT a lot of education about the foods we eat and as far as smokes go, make them all plain tobacco and keep everything else out of them.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Coke tells it's employees that Coca-cola can be part of a healthy lifestyle.

I suppose you could argue that someone could smoke and still be healthy. The graphic images are preventing them from expressing this.

Ignorant and misguided? yes.

[GostHacked]

Perhaps the answer is to make the manufacturers of all process food, take out what is dangerous to people. For ie, the microwave popcorn, the "butter" content, can cause cancer. I was shocked when I heard that and have gone back to hot air popcorn. There's nothing good about sodas, empty calories and there's just NOT a lot of education about the foods we eat and as far as smokes go, make them all plain tobacco and keep everything else out of them.

I've not used my microwave period in about a year. It uses microwave radiation to cook the food. Once I understood more clearly what that radiation does to the food .. i stopped using it altogether. I really just should get rid of the damn thing, it's taking up counter space.

I may have a soda here and there. And I tend to now stay away from most junk food (I do indulge in it now and then) I've slowly changed my diet over the last year or so, and eating better. Not really losing any weight, but I do feel better.

And on your last sentence. I agree!!

[Bonam]

I've not used my microwave period in about a year. It uses microwave radiation to cook the food. Once I understood more clearly what that radiation does to the food .. i stopped using it altogether.

Clearly you didn't understand very well, since microwave radiation doesn't do anything to the food besides causing water molecules in it to vibrate more quickly, thus raising its temperature. Microwave radiation is not ionizing radiation. Don't let the word "radiation" fool you. What comes out of your light-bulb is radiation too. And your skin is constantly emitting radiation. Heck the inside of your mouth is constantly irradiating your tongue. Your cell linings are constantly being irradiated by the radiation coming out of your red blood cells. Omg. Whatever shall you do?

Microwave radiation, just like visible radiation, can only harm things by heating them up.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Bonam

[blueblood]

I've not used my microwave period in about a year. It uses microwave radiation to cook the food. Once I understood more clearly what that radiation does to the food .. i stopped using it altogether. I really just should get rid of the damn thing, it's taking up counter space.

I may have a soda here and there. And I tend to now stay away from most junk food (I do indulge in it now and then) I've slowly changed my diet over the last year or so, and eating better. Not really losing any weight, but I do feel better.

And on your last sentence. I agree!!

The microwave is only good for making things somewhat warm. You get the hot on the outside cool on the inside phenomenon with it, and when you think about it the microwave is primarily used in prepping food that isn't that healthy or warming up leftovers.

It's funny in the fifties there was pop and candy all over the place, but people's attitudes toward them were different. It was a rare treat and gave much more satisfaction because it was consumed so rarely. Notice there wasn't an obesity epidemic in those days.

Its not about losing pounds, it's about less inches on the calipers.

[Topaz]

The microwave is only good for making things somewhat warm. You get the hot on the outside cool on the inside phenomenon with it, and when you think about it the microwave is primarily used in prepping food that isn't that healthy or warming up leftovers.

It's funny in the fifties there was pop and candy all over the place, but people's attitudes toward them were different. It was a rare treat and gave much more satisfaction because it was consumed so rarely. Notice there wasn't an obesity epidemic in those days.

Its not about losing pounds, it's about less inches on the calipers.

If you think back though, the teens weren't in front of the computer or the TV, some didn't have one yet. Most kids played outside,the dances were more like exercises of today. What exercises do most kids get, running from bullies or the cops!

[Bonam]

What exercises do most kids get, running from bullies or the cops!