WHO to gov'ts: Show 'suffering' on cigarette packs

[jasmine]

http://money.aol.com/article/who-to-govts-show-suffering-on-cigarette/503292?cid=14



WHO to gov'ts: Show 'suffering' on cigarette packs
By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER
,
AP
posted: 4 HOURS 17 MINUTES AGO
PrintShare
Text SizeAAA
GENEVA -Cigarette packages should include images of sickness and suffering caused by tobacco, along with written warnings, the World Health Organization said Friday.
The U.N. agency urged governments to make people more aware of the health consequences of smoking. It said most countries still do not warn consumers of the risks on packages of cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco.
"Health warnings on tobacco packages are a simple, cheap and effective strategy that can vastly reduce tobacco use and save lives," said Dr. Ala Alwan, a senior WHO official. "Warnings that include images of the harm that tobacco causes are particularly effective at communicating risk and motivating behavioral changes, such as quitting or reducing tobacco consumption."
Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death, killing more than 5 million people worldwide each year. WHO says it is the only legal consumer product that kills when used exactly as intended by the manufacturer.
Warning pictures on cigarette and other tobacco packs have helped smokers kick the habit and prevented others from becoming addicted, WHO said. It cited studies of such campaigns in Brazil, Canada, Singapore and Thailand, and said they revealed "remarkably consistent findings."
But only a tenth of the world's population lives in countries requiring warning pictures, WHO said. It said governments needed to address that shortcoming as ignorance still prevails on the dangers of smoking.
For example, a study in China showed that barely a third of smokers knew they were at higher risk of heart disease and only 17 percent knew that smoking causes strokes, the agency said. In Syria, just a fraction of university students knew that cardiovascular disease was a hazard of cigarette or water pipe smoking.
WHO has taken an increasingly strong stance against tobacco in recent years. It sponsored a 2003 treaty to control tobacco use and has urged a world ban on smoking in indoor workplaces and public buildings. It also has said it will not hire any prospective employees who smoke or use other tobacco products.

[freeby4me]

I know for those in the US they dont want to quit. They already know the consequences and harm.

[dv8grl]

In South America, they had pictures of babies with rotten teeth, smoking,. on packs of cigarettes.

As an Ex-Smoker, I wasn't living in denial., I NEVER ONCE thought., HEY THIS HAS TO BE GOOD FOR ME. I never blamed the cigarette companies for "making me an addict".

[jasmine]

In South America, they had pictures of babies with rotten teeth, smoking,. on packs of cigarettes.

As an Ex-Smoker, I wasn't living in denial., I NEVER ONCE thought., HEY THIS HAS TO BE GOOD FOR ME. I never blamed the cigarette companies for "making me an addict".

I'm a smoker also. I don't blame the cig. companies for myself picking up my very first cigarette and smoking it, that was my choice. How ever, tobacco that is pure grown straight from the ground, is not addictive. However, the chemicals and stuff that the cig. manufaturers add to there tobacco products, is addictive. That is how they get people hooked

[dv8grl]

Winstons have had no additives in them for years., so people who smoke them aren't addicted to smoking? What about AmericanSpirits, 100& Organic.


I'm not saying they are addictive., but so are Lays Potato Chips. And probably just as unhealthy.
Its a combination of the nicotine addiction and the psychological habit.

I'm just saying that these people who sue the cigarette companies are full of sh!t.
Anyone can quit. They are not forcing you to smoke.
I love people who say they smoke because they are stressed out., in actuality., smoking raises your pulse., not relaxing you.
I don't blame people for smokers. Heck, I work in a smoke shop. LOL!
Cigarettes in SouthAmerica were about $1.11 a pack. I know if I moved down there., the temptation of such cheap smokes would be hard to fight.

BTW ~ Florida just announced a $1 per pack tax starting this summer!

[jasmine]

I don't know, when I'm stressed or pissed, I can feel my blood level rise, then I light up a smoke, I am relaxed, and all is well
LMAO

either way, I don't think adding yucky pictures to the cig. packs would do anything? Maybe?

[meltodd69]

My visual was Washington collecting more of my money! That made me quit LOL!

[krisharry]

Who knows? Maybe it would help? Maybe some kid somewhere would see it and think twice before lighting up for the first time. Anyway, it can't hurt.

[ElleGee]

Why do I find this highly amusing lol

[YankeeMary]

What will people complain about if everyone quits smoking? What is going to be taxed to replace the cig tax??? They truly don't want people to quit smoking because they would lose a big cash cow. As far as putting gross pics on packs, I find it rather silly. They would simply either not focus on the pic or buy a cig. case to put them in...geez. They place cars in front of highschools that were involved in drinking and driving yet teens still do it?!?! Don't know what the answer is but "bullying" people will not make them quit smoking.

[Jolie Rouge]

What will people complain about if everyone quits smoking? What is going to be taxed to replace the cig tax???

One thing I have NEVER understood is that the Goverment wants to use the tobbaco taxes to pay for their "universal health care"... if people quit smoking ( or die off ) HOW do they plan to pay for their programs ??

[dv8grl]

One thing I have NEVER understood is that the Goverment wants to use the tobbaco taxes to pay for their "universal health care"... if people quit smoking ( or die off ) HOW do they plan to pay for their programs ??

HaHA! They think that once eveyone quits smoking., no one will ever get sick or die again.

Once eveyone quits smoking cigarettes., they will legalize marijuana and tax that.. SO PLEASE.. QUIT SMOKING CIGARETEES... Free the WEED :canabis:

[Jolie Rouge]

Banks? Check.

Auto industry? Check.

Housing market? Check.

Health care? Getting there.

Tobacco? Why the hell not?


[b]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98IKGPO0&show_article=1&catnum=0

The Senate took a step Tuesday toward giving the government some controls over the tobacco industry, bolstering the chances that a long-sought goal of anti-smoking advocates will finally be realized.

The 84-11 Senate vote to consider the bill came a month after the House overwhelmingly passed a similar measure giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Sixty votes were needed to advance the legislation, and the success in reaching that threshold increase the likelihood that the Senate will move to a final vote by the end of the week. If the House concurs with the Senate measure, it would go to President Barack Obama, who is ready to sign it into law.

The Senate vote came on a day when Obama is to meet Senate Democratic leaders on courses they may take to bring down the runaway costs of health care.

Supporters of the FDA legislation, such as the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association, say controls over tobacco products would be a good place to start: they say tobacco use kills more than 400,000 Americans every year, resulting in $96 billion in health care costs.

Under the measure, the FDA could restrict tobacco marketing, specifically to young people; order changes to the ingredients in tobacco products; and require more prominent health warnings. It would ban remaining tobacco-brand sponsorships of sports and entertainment events and restrict vending machines to adult-only facilities. It would bar the use of “reduced harm” descriptions such as “light,” “mild” or “low.”

It would impose a fee on cigarette manufacturers to pay for FDA regulation.

The FDA would not have the authority to ban cigarettes and other tobacco products.


“The FDA would not have the authority to ban cigarettes and other tobacco products.” Well, of course not, silly. They need the taxes to pay for S-CHIP, Obamacare, etc., etc., etc.

***

I particularly like this detail: “Under the measure, the FDA could…order changes to the ingredients in tobacco products.”

Dried arugula flakes?

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/02/dems-hey-lets-take-over-tobacco-industry-obama-great-idea/


Here is what the bill states on that regard:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:4:./temp/~c1113hMXGR:e75970:


...a cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke.

[IthinkNOT!]

If they do start putting the lovely pics on the pack it will just be more incentive for me to keep up with the cigarette case that I keep losing.

But, from the list of banned ingredients: Coffee? Please tell me there is not a coffee flavored cigarette anywhere. I may never quit...LOL

[ElleGee]

Coffee? Please tell me there is not a coffee flavored cigarette anywhere. I may never quit...LOL

I may start again LOL

[tsquared]

I never have figured out why the Government decided to regulate the ciggy industry except for the taxes they can grab. However they aren't smart enough to realize that higher and higher taxes = less people smoking. Do we regulate when we can drive and how far? Cause we all know cars kill people and innocent people at that. Do we tax guns on a monthly basis cause they can kill and innocent people at that. Do we raise the tax on alcohol cause it can kill and innocent people at that too. A person can go on and on with different things that kill, but yet the Government doesn't think they need to tax it.
Until they cut out pork done to please their constituents nothing is going to slow down on spending.

[Jolie Rouge]

Do we regulate when we can drive and how far?

That is currently under discussion as well ... under the guise of "preventing" or "controlling" "Global Warming" ...

[Jolie Rouge]

Senate moves forward with government tobacco takeover
By Michelle Malkin • June 11, 2009 05:33 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/11/senate-moves-forward-with-government-tobacco-takeover/

On June 2, I called attention to the Democrats’ plans to complete a government tobacco takeover.

The next step took place today while America slept. Another day, another industry grab: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_go_co/us_fda_tobacco


Congress struck the government’s strongest anti-smoking blow in decades Thursday with a Senate vote to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in cigarettes, drastically curtail ads and ban candied tobacco products aimed at young people.

Cigarette foes say the changes could cut into the 400,000 deaths every year caused by smoking and reduce the $100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco.

The legislation, one of the most dramatic anti-smoking initiatives since the U.S. surgeon general’s warning 45 years ago that tobacco causes lung cancer, would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the content, marketing and advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Here’s the roll call vote.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00207#position

YEAs ---79

Akaka (D-HI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---17

Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Roberts (R-KS)

Not Voting - 3
Bond (R-MO)
Byrd (D-WV)
Kennedy (D-MA)

[whatever]

Maybe they are trying to cut down on lawsuits for people "blaming" the tobacco industry to their health issues AFTER smoking for 40 years. Just like I have heard about lawsuits toward fast food joints when people are obese. LMAO. You know they made you smoke or eat there. :)

[meltodd69]

Why is it that it is just smoking? Why isn't chew ever mentioned? It's just as bad if not worse.
Most of the factories around here won't hire you if you smoke. But they will if you chew.

I was a kid when I started smoking. And when I was a kid I got into alot of trouble. Ended up going to group homes and such. These homes are funded by the government. I was given a pack of smokes a day, everyday. I was very young under 13 at that time. So I would say they were a big part of me smoking. They gave me a pack a day for almost 6 years.

[hotwheelstx]

What will people complain about if everyone quits smoking? What is going to be taxed to replace the cig tax??? They truly don't want people to quit smoking because they would lose a big cash cow. As far as putting gross pics on packs, I find it rather silly. They would simply either not focus on the pic or buy a cig. case to put them in...geez. They place cars in front of highschools that were involved in drinking and driving yet teens still do it?!?! Don't know what the answer is but "bullying" people will not make them quit smoking.

Mary, you have a great point. Thank you. I'm in the process of quitting (not by choice, by prices now). In high school there were lectures with photo's, live guests who drove while intoxicated, took heavy drugs, stole, lied, cheated, killed others. Never stopped anyone else that I knew of.

I remember seeing a film in grade school about smoking. Can't remember the name of it but it was very, very graphic on what the effects were even then in the 70's. It never bothered me.

I know of 4 people who passed away from lung cancer. NONE OF THEM even thought about smoking their entire life. One of them being my grandfather who passed away in 89.

If we're not taxed more on cigarettes, alcohol, gambling (here in Tx.) govt. will come up with something else to be taxed on.

[Jolie Rouge]

Cigerettes New Labels
Michael Felberbaum, Ap Tobacco Writer – 1 hr 27 mins ago

RICHMOND, Va. – Rotting teeth and gums. Diseased lungs. A sewn-up corpse of a smoker. Cigarette smoke coming out of the tracheotomy hole in a man's neck. Cigarette packs in the U.S. will have to carry these macabre images in nine new warning labels that are part of a campaign by the Food and Drug Administration to use fear and disgust to discourage Americans from lighting up.

The labels, announced on Tuesday, represent the biggest change in cigarette packs in the U.S. in 25 years.

At a time when the drop in the nation's smoking rate has come to a standstill, the government is hoping the in-your-face labels will go further than the current surgeon general warnings toward curbing tobacco use, which is responsible for about 443,000 deaths a year in the U.S. "These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.

The FDA estimates the labels will cut the number of smokers by 213,000 in 2013, with smaller additional reductions through 2031.

Other countries such as Canada and Uruguay have used graphic, even grisly, warnings for years, and various studies suggest they spur people to quit. But exactly how effective they are is a matter of debate, since the warnings are usually accompanied by other government efforts to stamp out smoking. "I think it's a great deterrent for kids," said Kristen Polland, 24, of Prattville, Ala. "If you start there, you have won half of the battle."

Rhonda Vanover, 43, of Cincinnati, on the other hand, said: "No one is going to stop me __ unless they make it illegal. Cigarettes get me through the day. They are part of my life."

The labels also include images of a smoker wearing an oxygen mask and a mother and baby with smoke swirling nearby. Some images are not graphic at all; one shows a man wearing an "I Quit" T-shirt.

The warnings will take up the entire top half — both front and back — of a pack of cigarettes. They must also appear in advertisements and constitute 20 percent of each ad. Cigarette makers will have to run all nine labels on a rotating basis. They have until the fall of 2012 to comply.

The legality of the new labels is already being challenged in a federal lawsuit bought by some of the major tobacco companies, which argue that the warnings will relegate the brand name to the bottom half of the cigarette package, making it difficult or impossible to see.

A spokesman for Richmond-based Altria Group Inc., parent company of the nation's largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, said the company was looking at the final labels and had no further comment. Altria Group is not a party in the federal lawsuit.

A pack-a-day smoker would see the graphic warnings more than 7,000 times per year.

American Cancer Society CEO John R. Seffrin said the labels have the potential to "encourage adults to give up their deadly addiction to cigarettes and deter children from starting in the first place."

The introduction of graphic warning labels was required in a 2009 law that, for the first time, gave the federal government authority to regulate tobacco. Tuesday's announcement follows reviews of scientific literature, public comments and results from an FDA-contracted study of 36 labels proposed last November.

The U.S. first mandated the use of warning labels stating, "Cigarettes may be hazardous to your health" in 1965. The current warning labels — put on cigarette packs in the mid-1980s — say more explicitly that smoking can cause lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses. But the warnings contain no pictures; they consist only of text in a small box.

The share of Americans who smoke has fallen dramatically since 1970, from nearly 40 percent to about 20 percent. But the rate has stalled since about 2004, with about 46 million adults in the U.S. smoking cigarettes. It's unclear why it hasn't budged, but some experts have cited tobacco company discount coupons on cigarettes and lack of funding for programs to discourage smoking or to help smokers quit.

In recent years, more than 40 countries or jurisdictions have introduced labels similar to those created by the FDA. The World Health Organization said in a survey done in countries with graphic labels that a majority of smokers noticed the warnings and more than 25 percent said the warnings led them to consider quitting.

In 2000, Canada introduced blunt warning labels that included images of a pregnant woman smoking, a child and parent puffing away, and a drooping cigarette to illustrate the risk of impotence from smoking. Since then, the county's smoking rate has declined from about 26 percent to about 20 percent. How much the warnings contributed is unclear because the country took other steps to reduce smoking.

David Hammond, a health behavior researcher at the University of Waterloo in Canada, who worked with the firm designing the labels for the FDA, said that while the images are graphic, they are necessary. "This isn't about doing what's pleasant for people," he said.


___

Online: New Cigarette Warning Labels: http://1.usa.gov/j2DI5f.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20110621/i/r2297140555.jpg?x=400&y=315&q=85&sig=iqdhupocJN_G_gJEmC7SEA--


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20110621/i/r2408007109.jpg?x=206&y=345&q=85&sig=8WQKg2142_QUykZXzKIKIw--


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20110528/capt.photo_1306651525803-1-0.jpg?x=400&y=192&q=85&sig=eTr5nypkXCPU2kDilFuIGw--


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/net/20101110/capt.d0be748429dbf6f105eb4e1ed2bf8630.jpeg?x=184&y=345&q=85&sig=YMyxVZQ9Ep_Ols8MEJJXzw--


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/net/20101110/capt.c8bbf5dacff9f8bda52b0344e0708b8f.jpeg?x=184&y=345&q=85&sig=xkRupMXLBi3N2CPnf7DSIQ--


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/net/20101110/capt.77df0fd5dfeb60a19a0fc9703858f83e.jpeg?x=399&y=200&q=85&sig=uVmDdW9FqEj3BGH0MPKTeg--



See more : http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//110621/ids_photos_ts/r2297140555.jpg/#photoViewer=/110621/ids_photos_ts/r2408007109.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

Judge blocks graphic images on cigarette packages
By NEDRA PICKLER - Associated Press | AP – 59 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A judge on Monday blocked a federal requirement that would have begun forcing tobacco companies next year to put graphic images including dead and diseased smokers on their cigarette packages. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that it's likely the cigarette makers will succeed in a lawsuit to block the requirement. He stopped the requirement until the lawsuit is resolved, which could take years.

Leon found the nine graphic images approved by the Food and Drug Administration in June go beyond conveying the facts about the health risks of smoking or go beyond that into advocacy — a critical distinction in a case over free speech. The packaging would have included color images of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat; a plume of cigarette smoke enveloping an infant receiving a mother's kiss; a pair of diseased lungs next to a pair of healthy lungs; a diseased mouth afflicted with what appears to be cancerous lesions; a man breathing into an oxygen mask; a cadaver on a table with post-autopsy chest staples; a woman weeping; a premature baby in an incubator; and a man wearing a T-shirt that features a "No Smoking" symbol and the words "I Quit"

"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. He pointed out that at least some were altered photographs to evoke emotion.

The judge also pointed out the size of the labels suggests they are unconstitutional — the FDA requirement said the labels were to cover the entire top half of cigarette packs, front and back and include a number for a stop-smoking hotline. The labels were to constitute 20 percent of cigarette advertising, and marketers were to rotate use of the images. Leon said the labels would amount to a "mini-billboard" for the agency's "obvious anti-smoking agenda."

The Justice Department argued that the images, coupled with written warnings, were designed to communicate the dangers to youngsters and adults. The FDA declined to comment on the judge's ruling.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, urged the Obama administration to appeal the ruling that he said "is wrong on the science and wrong on the law." He said a delay would only serve the financial interests of tobacco companies that spend billions to downplay the health risks of smoking and glamorize tobacco use. "Studies around the world and evidence presented to the FDA have repeatedly shown that large, graphic warnings, like those adopted by the FDA, are most effective at informing consumers about the health risks of smoking, discouraging children and other nonsmokers from starting to smoke, and motivating smokers to quit," Myers said in a statement. "Because of that evidence, at least 43 other countries now require large, graphic cigarette warnings."

Congress instructed the FDA to require the labels, following the lead of the Canadian regulations that require similarly graphic images on cigarette packs. The cigarette makers say their products have had Surgeon General warnings for more than 45 years, but that they never filed a legal challenge against them until these images were approved.

Tobacco companies are increasingly relying on their packaging to build brand loyalty and grab consumers. It's one of few advertising levers left to them after the government curbed their presence in magazines, billboards and TV, and the graphic labels could cost them millions in lost sales and increased packaging costs.

The cigarette makers that sued the FDA are R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. of Winston-Salem, N.C., Lorillard Tobacco Co. of Greensboro, N.C., Commonwealth Brands Inc. of Bowling Green, Ky., Liggett Group of Mebane, N.C., and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. of Santa Fe, N.M.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-blocks-graphic-images-cigarette-packages-163548328.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Judge blocks graphic images on cigarette packages
Judge blocks FDA rule requiring graphic images on cigarette packs of the dangers of smoking
By Michael Felberbaum, AP Tobacco Writer | Associated Press – 9 hrs ago March 1, 2012

.

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A judge on Wednesday blocked a federal requirement that would have begun forcing U.S. tobacco companies to put large graphic images on their cigarette packages later this year to show the dangers of smoking and encouraging smokers to quit lighting up.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington ruled that the federal mandate to put the images, which include a sewn-up corpse of a smoker and a picture of diseased lungs, on cigarette packs violates the free speech amendment to the Constitution.

He had temporarily blocked the requirement in November, saying it was likely cigarette makers will succeed in a lawsuit, which could take years to resolve. That decision already is being appealed by the government.

Some of the largest U.S. tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co., had questioned the constitutionality of the labels, saying the warnings don't simply convey facts to inform people's decision whether to smoke but instead force the cigarette makers to display government anti-smoking advocacy more prominently than their own branding. They also say that changing cigarette packaging will cost millions of dollars.

Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration has said that the public interest in conveying the dangers of smoking outweighs the companies' free speech rights.

In his ruling Wednesday, Leon wrote that the graphic images "were neither designed to protect the consumer from confusion or deception, nor to increase consumer awareness of smoking risks; rather, they were crafted to evoke a strong emotional response calculated to provoke the viewer to quit or never start smoking."

"While the line between the constitutionally permissible dissemination of factual information and the impermissible expropriation of a company's advertising space for government advocacy can be frustratingly blurry, here the line seems quite clear," Leon wrote.

The judge also pointed out alternatives for the federal government to curb tobacco use, such as increasing anti-smoking advertisements, raising tobacco taxes, reducing the size and changing content of the labels, and improving efforts to reduce youth access to tobacco products.

The FDA and the Justice Department declined to comment Wednesday. But the Department of Health and Human Services released a statement late Wednesday saying the administration is determined to do everything it can to warn young people of smoking's dangers.

"This public health initiative will be an effective tool in our efforts to stop teenagers from starting in the first place and taking up this deadly habit," the statement said. "We are confident that efforts to stop these important warnings from going forward will ultimately fail."

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer representing Lorillard in the case, said he was pleased with Wednesday's ruling.

"The government, as the court said, is free to speak for itself, but it may not, except in the rarest circumstance, require others to mouth its position," Abrams said.

While the government, public health officials, tobacco companies and others "share a responsibility to provide tobacco consumers with accurate information about the various health risks associated with smoking ... the goal of informing the public about the risks of tobacco use can and should be accomplished consistent with the U.S. Constitution," Martin L. Holton III, executive vice president and general counsel for R.J. Reynolds, said in a statement.

Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called Leon's ruling "wrong on the science and the law."

"(The warnings) unequivocally tell the truth about cigarette smoking — that it is addictive, harms children, causes fatal lung disease, cancer, strokes and heart disease, and can kill you. What isn't factual or accurate about these warnings? Not even the tobacco industry disputes these facts," Myers said in a statement.

The nine graphic images approved by the FDA in June include color images of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat; a plume of cigarette smoke enveloping an infant receiving a mother's kiss; a pair of diseased lungs next to a pair of healthy lungs; a diseased mouth afflicted with what appears to be cancerous lesions; a man breathing into an oxygen mask; a cadaver on a table with post-autopsy chest staples; a woman weeping; a premature baby in an incubator; and a man wearing a T-shirt that features a "No Smoking" symbol and the words "I Quit."

The FDA requirement said the labels were to cover the entire top half of cigarette packs, front and back and include a number for a stop-smoking hotline. The labels were to constitute 20 percent of cigarette advertising, and marketers were to rotate use of the images.

Joining North Carolina-based R.J. Reynolds, owned by Reynolds American Inc., and Lorillard Tobacco, owned by Lorillard Inc., in the lawsuit are Commonwealth Brands Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc.

Richmond, Va.-based Altria Group Inc., parent company of the nation's largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, which makes the top-selling Marlboro brand, is not a part of the lawsuit.

The free speech lawsuit is separate from a lawsuit by several of the same companies over the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. That law, which took effect in 2009, cleared the way for the more graphic warning labels and other marketing restrictions. But it also allowed the FDA to limit nicotine and banned tobacco companies from sponsoring athletic or social events or giving away free samples or branded merchandise.

A federal judge upheld many parts of the law, but the case is now pending before the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

While the tobacco industry's latest legal challenge may not hold up, it could delay the new warning labels for years. And that is likely to save cigarette makers millions of dollars in lost sales and increased packaging costs.

Tobacco companies are increasingly relying on their packaging to build brand loyalty and grab consumers. It's one of few advertising levers left to them after the government curbed their presence in magazines, billboards and TV.

___

Michael Felberbaum can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/MLFelberbaum.


http://news.yahoo.com/judge-blocks-graphic-images-cigarette-163548877.html

comments

The "public interest" outweighs free speech? Sounds an awful lot like something Hitler or Stalin would have said.

...

What about requiring a picture of a smashed car on all cell phones? Maybe they should put a picture of colon cancer on the wrapper of a Big Mac. Do you really need the government to tell you the smoking is bad ??? If people want to smoke,let them.You already told us we have to work hard to the ripe old age of 99.Who the hell wants that kind of future ?

...

I am a smoker and frankly, its the stupidest thing I've ever done and would do anything to keep my kids from picking it up. I box, workout daily, eat right- but putting down the weeds has been the biggest struggle. And yes, I've done everything from Chantix to hynotism. That said. I used to work in Canada where they have incredibly graphic labels. We used to ask the clerk to give us the grossest ones they had so we could take them back to the States. It reminded me of the Seinfield routine where he thought the warnings on the pack were what you'd wind up with. "I'll trade you testicular cancer for low fetal birth weight..." These graphics won't do anything. Anyone who has picked up a cigarette since about 1965 knows they are death sticks. Until we ban or heavily regulate them the problem will always exist. the rest is pretty much fluff. And I have always found it interesting that my insurance will cover the cost of my lung cancer, but not the cost of my nicotine patches. Silly. Time for a new approach. I can go without french fries for years at a time, limit myself to two drinks at dinner and get my #$%$ up for the gym at 5:00AM everyday, so I know I have willpower. If a motivated person has this much trouble, do they think a picture of a tumor on the pack will dissuade me? We need a more effective treatment. And if not, then its always been my right to kill myself. As long as I don't impact those around me.

...


"Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration has said that the public interest in conveying the dangers of smoking outweighs the companies' free speech rights."

and there you have it folks, the "official" end to the Constitution.

...

If the government wants to have graphic pictures on packs of cigarettes then they should buy a cigarette company and do so. I think the comment below that politicians wear shirts labeling them as liars or worse is as valid as their labeling on cigarettes.

...

If the leftist nanny-state who res in government weren't so addicted to tax revenues from tobacco sales, they could just ban tobacco.