Freedom of Speech?

[Tahl]

"Five tobacco companies have sued the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over a new law that would force them to place graphic health warnings on their cigarette packets."



Full story here

"Picture packets" have been kicking about in the UK for the last few years but it seems that a suggested law to introduce them to the US has drawn much ire from the tobacco companies who claim it's a violation of their freedom of speech.

"In their 41-page complaint, the five companies say the new labels would illegally force them to make consumers "depressed, discouraged and afraid" to buy their products.

"The government can require warnings which are straightforward and essentially uncontroversial, but they can't require a cigarette pack to serve as a mini-billboard for the government's anti-smoking campaign," Floyd Abrams, a lawyer representing the cigarette makers, said in a statement."

A fair complaint?

[grantmepower]

I think they have a right to complain. As stupid as smoking is, it's a personal choice and doesn't really hurt anybody else. If I want to commit suicide one pack at a time, who are you to stop me?
Just please don't make me pay for a smoker's medical care when they get cancer.

[Allerion]

nope, not at all.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

what is being violated?

[Loflar]

"Picture packets" have been kicking about in the UK for the last few years but it seems that a suggested law to introduce them to the US has drawn much ire from the tobacco companies who claim it's a violation of their freedom of speech.

It seems that the problem here is the infamous US court ruling, that (said in a very simplified way) companies have the same rights as people.

"The government can require warnings which are straightforward and essentially uncontroversial, but they can't require a cigarette pack to serve as a mini-billboard for the government's anti-smoking campaign," Floyd Abrams, a lawyer representing the cigarette makers, said in a statement."

So essentially, they want the right to manipulate people by their emotions only for themselves, others must be content with appealing to reason. Well, if government can forbid selling certain products and if it can order certain information being published, these information can include warning.
Of course, there must be a law on form of that warning, but that is about it. We live in a globalized world and companies which do not like the law are free to seek less restrictive markets.

As stupid as smoking is, it's a personal choice and doesn't really hurt anybody else.

What about the people breathing the air contaminated by smoker's cigarette?

[Luna Guardian]

I think they have a right to complain. As stupid as smoking is, it's a personal choice and doesn't really hurt anybody else. If I want to commit suicide one pack at a time, who are you to stop me?
Just please don't make me pay for a smoker's medical care when they get cancer.

This, 100%

[EricJ]

Just please don't make me pay for a smoker's medical care when they get cancer.

The thing is, civilized countries do exactly that.

In exchange, they tax the hell out of tobacco making the smokers pay parts of their own medical bill. For a price comparison, a pack of Marlboro in Sweden is about $10, while I believe it's around $2-3 in the United States. Consequences of these high taxes are admittedly increased smuggling, but more importantly decreased smoking rates which benefits not only the individual, but also society as a whole.

Personally, I don't have a problem with pretty much any restriction on tobacco. About the only reason we still tolerate it at all is due to its cultural heritage, that it's been with us for so long. If tobacco had been discovered today, I'm pretty sure it would've gone the same way as cocaine -- instant ban.

[Luna Guardian]

Personally, I don't have a problem with pretty much any restriction on tobacco. About the only reason we still tolerate it at all is due to its cultural heritage, that it's been with us for so long. If tobacco had been discovered today, I'm pretty sure it would've gone the same way as cocaine -- instant ban.

Coffee as well, probably.

What I find hilarious, is that cigarettes are legal, but snuff isn't.

[Allerion]

warning someone about something isnt preventing them from doing it. nothing is changing except the costs to print the warning for the company, and frankly the cost of the ink is almost negligible

[Raneth]

I think they have a right to complain. As stupid as smoking is, it's a personal choice and doesn't really hurt anybody else. If I want to commit suicide one pack at a time, who are you to stop me?
Just please don't make me pay for a smoker's medical care when they get cancer.

This, 100%

Seconded. I mean, thirded.

As an aside, I haven't smoked in nearly 4 months now. Cold turkey. I feel I'm gonna make it this time, since I've never had an actual reason before. Go me!

[Andrew_uk]

I think they have a right to complain. As stupid as smoking is, it's a personal choice and doesn't really hurt anybody else. If I want to commit suicide one pack at a time, who are you to stop me?
Just please don't make me pay for a smoker's medical care when they get cancer.

This, 100%

Seconded. I mean, thirded.

As an aside, I haven't smoked in nearly 4 months now. Cold turkey. I feel I'm gonna make it this time, since I've never had an actual reason before. Go me!

Errr - the three of you want to back up what you say on it not hurting anybody else? Second hand smoke is a massive killer. Not to mention a cigarette held at waist height by an adult (precisely where I see most people hold it while it's not in their mouth which seems to be about two thirds of the time it's lit) is at roughly the right height for their children. I'm not saying the kids are running along behind taking a puff but the fumes do get into the air and they are breathed in. Adults can always choose to walk away if someone is smoking and they dislike it but when it is your parent you have no choice, and if it is done at home the house becomes full of thick smoke.

Also if your parents are smokers you are considerably more likely to take up smoking yourself. Aggressive pictures like this probably have little effect on pushing people to give up but there was a picture in the UK which would I think sum up my current point and probably hit hard enough to get people to consider where and when they smoke and how they protect their kids.

I've tried finding this picture and can't - it has an ash tray with a couple of crayons in it. The tagline is 'if you smoke around children they smoke too'

[dabber]

Just please don't make me pay for a smoker's medical care when they get cancer.

The thing is, civilized countries do exactly that.

I agree. If we could make smokers lose government benefits, I'd be THRILLED.

In exchange, they tax the hell out of tobacco making the smokers pay parts of their own medical bill. For a price comparison, a pack of Marlboro in Sweden is about $10, while I believe it's around $2-3 in the United States.

From a little research, the tax on a pack of cigarettes is about $2-3 a pack in the US, although it varies widely between states.

[Tahl]

EricJ more or less hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the high tax on smoking products already pays for any care they might need and probably then some.

For me the argument boils down to the companies right to market their product. They argue that it is their right to market their product and tailor it for specific markets. That the images impede them from managing to make connotations between their product and anything but death.

They want to market it as this



opposed to the image at the top of the thread.

[Facade19]

As stupid as smoking is, it's a personal choice and doesn't really hurt anybody else. If I want to commit suicide one pack at a time, who are you to stop me?

But, then the issue arises of second hand smoking. What if I do not want to inhale somebody's nasty, smoke filled odor and mouth breath whenever they talk to me? Or what if I am in area where all people do is smoke and I have no option to leave such an establishment? Are not my liberties being violated? The problem is not that they are committing suicide, but additionally poisoning the environment thereby harming my health too. So I think Andrew has very good points.

[Allerion]

As stupid as becoming a crack whore is, it's a personal choice and doesn't really hurt anybody else. If I want to commit suicide one sniff at a time, who are you to stop me?

youseewhatididthar?

For me the argument boils down to the companies right to market their product. They argue that it is their right to market their product and tailor it for specific markets. That the images impede them from managing to make connotations between their product and anything but death.

what the surgeon general is putting on their packaging isnt exactly false advertising, and the marketing that tobacco companies typically do.... well... I would argue it is. because youre not going to look like that hunk on the car, not the sexy wife of some billionare at some formal function. Youre going to be old and feeble and unable to get off the couch without taking a five minute break to catch your breath.

[Prince_Asuryan]

As stupid as becoming a crack whore is, it's a personal choice and doesn't really hurt anybody else. If I want to commit suicide one sniff at a time, who are you to stop me?

youseewhatididthar?

The harm to others from crackwhores comes in the form of the crime used to fund the habits. Also, large amounts of gang warfare results from drug addiction. So drugs harm others more than cigarettes, at least finacially, if not physically.

[Phloop]

As a smoker, let me just get my $0.02 in here.

Just please don't make me pay for a smoker's medical care when they get cancer.

The thing is, civilized countries do exactly that.

I agree. If we could make smokers lose government benefits, I'd be THRILLED.

What next? Um... yeah, we're not gonna help those people with cycling injuries, because everyone know that you can fall off and hurt yourself, so they don't deserve any treatment. And while we're at it, people that have kids with genetic deseases, because their parents knew there was a chance the kids would get it so it's their fault...
Why are there benefits when you're gonna dictate who get to use them? Heath Insurance is there BECAUSE these things happen.

As stupid as smoking is, it's a personal choice and doesn't really hurt anybody else. If I want to commit suicide one pack at a time, who are you to stop me?

But, then the issue arises of second hand smoking. What if I do not want to inhale somebody's nasty, smoke filled odor and mouth breath whenever they talk to me? Or what if I am in area where all people do is smoke and I have no option to leave such an establishment? Are not my liberties being violated? The problem is not that they are committing suicide, but additionally poisoning the environment thereby harming my health too.

I understand the implications of secondhand smoking. And as a smoker, I don't smoke around kids and I sit in the smoking section at bars and restaurants where kids aren't allowed anyway.
But because it upsets you does it mean everyone that feels differently has to budge?
Don't go to establishments that have smoking areas. Don't hang out with smokers if it bugs you that much.
And the damage to the enviroment is almost ZERO compared to the output of SUVs each year, nevermind the damage to the roads they do and the enviromental fallout the repairs to the road have.
Smoking is typically a symptom of the working class. No one is calling for these wealthy arseholes with the giant cars to drive in specified "SUV Areas". Picking on people who have an addiction is just low.

For me the argument boils down to the companies right to market their product. They argue that it is their right to market their product and tailor it for specific markets. That the images impede them from managing to make connotations between their product and anything but death.

what the surgeon general is putting on their packaging isnt exactly false advertising, and the marketing that tobacco companies typically do.... well... I would argue it is. because youre not going to look like that hunk on the car, not the sexy wife of some billionare at some formal function. Youre going to be old and feeble and unable to get off the couch without taking a five minute break to catch your breath.

Advertising cigarettes is illegal in my country, so I haven't seen any advertising for it in years.
However, I have never spoken to a smoker who thought cigarettes would make them rich or beautiful. Most of us started because we weren't allowed to by our parents. Or we wanted to look more adult. Or because that cute girl/boy smoked and it was a way to hang out with them. Those little warnings didn't mean shit.
Now we're stuck with an addiction that is fucking HARD to get rid of. I've been off drugs now for 5 years now, I don't regret a second of my clean time and I'll never go back. I stopped smoking for six months and I started again because of one bad day.
I know I'll probably get cancer (Non-smokers won't let me forget! Heh.) and not for one second do I think that what I'm doing is a good idea. It's a bad choice and I'm paying through my teeth for it. But many of you haven't got a clue what it's like, so please don't act like I'm being a dick on purpose out of some sort of spiteful vendetta against you. Don't treat me like dirt for being stuck in a situation I struggle to control. There are much worse problems in the world.

[~Milliardo~]

It's an annoying, disgusting habit, like spitting or excessive gum-chewing, but to outright ban it is a little too much. Stick as many pictures or discouraging words on the pack as you like, and don't let them smoke inside, but if someone wants to kill themselves slowly, I say let em. If someone smokes around me, I'll move or tell them to please stop, or kindly force them to swallow it. :3

[Ghost]

So... just wondering, anyone got any stats on second hand smoke??? I don't really follow how it can be worse then actually smoking, and people just throw the word around making it seem more like a scare tactic for people to avoid smokers and make it socially unacceptable. Anyhow, anyone with some free time know where to find scientific proof that i will die from second hand?

[EricJ]

So... just wondering, anyone got any stats on second hand smoke??? I don't really follow how it can be worse then actually smoking, and people just throw the word around making it seem more like a scare tactic for people to avoid smokers and make it socially unacceptable. Anyhow, anyone with some free time know where to find scientific proof that i will die from second hand?

While I'm not going to do your homework for you, a good place to start is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking. In particular, check out sections "Effects", "Evidence" and "Risk level".

[Luna Guardian]

As a smoker, let me just get my $0.02 in here.

I agree. If we could make smokers lose government benefits, I'd be THRILLED.

What next? Um... yeah, we're not gonna help those people with cycling injuries, because everyone know that you can fall off and hurt yourself, so they don't deserve any treatment. And while we're at it, people that have kids with genetic deseases, because their parents knew there was a chance the kids would get it so it's their fault...
Why are there benefits when you're gonna dictate who get to use them? Heath Insurance is there BECAUSE these things happen.

Sorry, absolutely no pity from me. If you get lung/mouth cancer from smoking, I won't shed a tear. If your health insurance covers EVERYTHING your smoking causes later in life, then maybe. But if you cause the government to spend one cent on your healthcare due to problems that came from smoking, no pity or compassion at all.

Don't make other people pay for your mistakes, especially when a) you know it's stupid and b) you know it's fully and easily avoidable

[Raneth]

But if you cause the government to spend one cent on your healthcare due to problems that came from smoking... Don't make other people pay for your mistakes

That perch high enough for you? How highly is tobacco taxed in Argentina, anyway?

I know I'll probably get cancer (Non-smokers won't let me forget! Heh.) and not for one second do I think that what I'm doing is a good idea. It's a bad choice and I'm paying through my teeth for it. But many of you haven't got a clue what it's like, so please don't act like I'm being a dick on purpose out of some sort of spiteful vendetta against you. Don't treat me like dirt for being stuck in a situation I struggle to control. There are much worse problems in the world.

I know exactly how you feel, some people will take just about any excuse to look down on another and will never realize the mental struggle that accompanies addiction. Good luck on your next attempt!

[~Milliardo~]

Besides, don't smokers pay a higher premium on their insurance anyway?

[Raneth]

They do out here, though I don't know how hard it is to just lie about and get away with it. I've changed my status from smoker to non-smoker about two months ago, but no insurance guys have approached me yet to verify.

[Luna Guardian]

How highly is tobacco taxed in Argentina, anyway?

No idea, never been there

I know exactly how you feel, some people will take just about any excuse to look down on another and will never realize the mental struggle that accompanies addiction. Good luck on your next attempt!

You have my absolute full support in trying to quit. Honestly, I am truly wishing that you will one day. True, I've never had to struggle with addiction myself, but I've witnessed people do so from very close (my father smoked, my mother smoked, some of my friends were addicted to much worse) and they've all managed to beat it. I'm not going to go on a motivational rant about how "you just have to believe in yourself". However, others have managed to break free from their addictions, why couldn't you?

[Meif]

Freedom of Speech .

[Raneth]

Oh well, Finland then

but I've witnessed people do so from very close (my father smoked, my mother smoked, some of my friends were addicted to much worse)

Have you suffered any ill effects from second-hand smoking yet? If so, do you reckon it's the tobacco industry's fault or your parents'?

[Luna Guardian]

Oh well, Finland then

but I've witnessed people do so from very close (my father smoked, my mother smoked, some of my friends were addicted to much worse)

Have you suffered any ill effects from second-hand smoking yet? If so, do you reckon it's the tobacco industry's fault or your parents'?

Nope, my parents were always very considerate about smoking, doing so away from me and my brother. However, if I were to develope ill effects, I would blame my parents for those.

[BorkBork]

Coffee as well, probably.

with out Coffee there is no science!

[slug]

Picture packets have been in Australia for years. I have no sympathy for smokers and I see no reason why I should pay for their medical care. In Tasmania it's illegal to smoke in a car if there are also kids under 18 in the same vehicle.

Slug

[Andrew_uk]

I'm a bit annoyed when they brought in regulations about people not using their mobile while driving in this country. It would have been better to have widened it to say Eating, Drinking, Smoking, Map Reading, Reading anything else... ect ect. These things are all covered by 'driving without due care and attention' but thats a far more grey area and wouldn't result in an on the spot fine and probably wouldn't result in more than a caution.

Not wanting to divert away from the topic with this rant though. Just thinking that of all those things I mentioned above the smoking one more than anything would have so many benefits beyond driving incidents. As slug says Smoking in a room where people are effectively not allowed to move away is unfair especially when they're under 18.