CIGARETTE PACKAGE WARNINGS

The tobacco industry has won a significant court battle.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon of Washington ruled last week that the June requirement by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that nine new warnings were required to be placed prominently on cigarette packages was unconstitutional.

 

Some background.

 

The issue involves what might otherwise be described as graphic cigarette labels. The graphic work mandated by the FDA included a man blowing smoke through a hole in his throat, diseased lungs, dead bodies and rotted teeth. All required to be in color. The obvious purpose to discourage cigarette smoking.

 

Congress controlled smoking till 2009. At that time, Congress gave that right to the FDA. As with any federal agency, the FDA took the responsibility seriously. In June of this year, the FDA mandated the placing of the colorful graphic images described on cigarette packages.

 

The tobacco industry went to court.

 

They won.

 

Judge Leon determined that free speech was involved. Basically, the law says a person cannot be compelled to say that which they normally would not say. Obviously the tobacco companies do not believe smoking is injurious to health. By being forced to place revolting type images on their product, tobacco companies were being forced to say that which they would not promulgate otherwise. There is legal philosophy to the effect that compelled speech is presumptively unconstitutional.

 

Ergo, Judge Leon declared the FDA mandate unconstitutional.

 

A somewhat similar argument is being made against the Obama Health Care law. That law requires people to buy insurance. They might never have purchased the insurance  otherwise. They are being compelled to do that not normally required. Note that Obama Health Care involves a different section of the Constitution. The commerce clause. However, the reasoning is the same.

 

Judge Leon decided the FDA went a step too far with its mandate.

 

The FDA said it would appeal.

 

There is a similar case that arose in Kentucky. There the judge ruled in favor of the FDA/government. An opposite decision based on similar facts. That case is pending argument in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Conflicting federal decisions in a case of significance,  generally end up before the United States Supreme Court. Expect this issue to arrive before the Supreme Court in due course.

 

This case is a perfect example of the balancing of respective rights. On the one hand, the right of the government to protect the health of its citizens. On the other, the right of a company to deliver its product to the consuming public without hindrance.

 

What does Louis think? This is a hard one. I suspect the ruling will be in favor of the tobacco industry. That compelling speech is presumptively unconstitutional affects my thinking. It is basic law taught first year law students. I see the position carrying the day for the tobacco industry.

 

Note that my conclusion is based strictly on the law. Moral and/or social considerations played no part in my thinking.