The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on February 29, 2012, 10:31:22 PM
-
I wonder. How much did this decision cost the tobacco companies? (mildly graphic image of dead man)
Judge blocks graphic cigarette labels .
A federal judge on Wednesday told the FDA to find better ways to warn consumers of the dangers of smoking than "gruesome images." (Handout)
Reuters
2:51 p.m. CST, February 29, 2012
A U.S. judge sided with tobacco companies on Wednesday, ruling that regulations requiring large graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging and advertising violate free-speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Cigarette makers challenged the Food and Drug Administration's rule requiring companies to label tobacco products with images of rotting teeth, diseased lungs and other photos to illustrate the dangers of smoking.
"The government has failed to carry both its burden of demonstrating a compelling interest and its burden of demonstrating that the rule is narrowly tailored to achieve a constitutionally permissible form of compelled commercial speech," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said.
While educating the public about the dangers of smoking "might be compelling, an interest in simply advocating that the public not purchase a legal product is not," Leon wrote in a 19-page ruling.
>snip<
more here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-judge-rules-graphic-cigarette-labels-unconstitutional-20120229,0,2481424.story
How does "free speech" apply to tobacco companies, you might ask. I'm no legal scholar, but this seems to be coming from the same place as Citizens United.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002365863
JSnuffy
2. Because...
... it's ridiculous to expect that a private company should have to print and distribute a government mandated message
Let alone the fact that it is contrary to their own interests.
I've often wondered where the appropriate 'pics' are on the labels of candy bars, potato chips, soda pop, fast-food garbage burgers, etc.
Or, for that matter, the 'sin tax' on the aforementioned products that contribute nothing to nutrition.
Sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander, one wonders why one product that is detrimental to overall health is targeted, while others are free to promote their wares without the same interference.
Stinky The Clown
4. There's no second hand diabetes or second hand heart disease
by a diet of too many candy bars and too much Coca-Cola?
Second-hand health issues are another topic entirely - why aren't the first-hand health problems equally important?
You can't help but wonder how fewer chocolate bars would be consumed by kids (too young to concern themselves with health issues) if they had a 'sin tax' attached, making them less affordable to children with a pocketful of money meant to be spent on more nutritious fare.
If you are 'for' a sin tax on cigarettes, along with graphic photos of the consequences displayed on the product's labeling, why not be equally 'for' the same on sugar-laden, devoid-of-any-nutritional-value garbage that is marketed to kids?
But have at it if you feel better.
Your argument is totally off topic. This thread was about tobacco warnings. It has nothing to do with food.
That's not to say there is no problem with junk food. Just that it is not part of the topic being discussed.
No, the topic was the governments rights to interfere with legitimate business.
-
Government interfer with private business?
No, say it ain't so.
Just ask Boeing, they'll set you straight.
-
Don't stop with Boeing. The whole airline industry is being driven into bankruptcy by over regulation.
-
Don't stop with Boeing. The whole airline industry is being driven into bankruptcy by over regulation.
Yes, I know.
Work with that every stinking day.
-
We are just one more regulation away from a perfect socialist future and it will be glorious komrades, GLORIOUS!
-
Stinky The Clown
4. There's no second hand diabetes or second hand heart disease
Just what the **** does that have to do with the cost of tea in China or this conversation "StinkFinger"?
by a diet of too many candy bars and too much Coca-Cola?
Second-hand health issues are another topic entirely - why aren't the first-hand health problems equally important?
You can't help but wonder how fewer chocolate bars would be consumed by kids (too young to concern themselves with health issues) if they had a 'sin tax' attached, making them less affordable to children with a pocketful of money meant to be spent on more nutritious fare.
If you are 'for' a sin tax on cigarettes, along with graphic photos of the consequences displayed on the product's labeling, why not be equally 'for' the same on sugar-laden, devoid-of-any-nutritional-value garbage that is marketed to kids?
I'll be damned! A DUmpster Diver that is actually on the "right" side in an argument!