Free Speech Victory Against the FDA's "Graphic" Warnings
The FDA has, thankfully, suffered another setback in its campaign to force tobacco companies to distribute anti-smoking propaganda. The DC Circuit has upheld a lower court opinion striking down FDA regulations requiring that the front and back panels of every cigarette pack include certain government-approved "graphic warnings" against smoking. Nothing too extreme, mind you, just a man blowing smoke out of a tracheotomy hole and similar pictures.
Over at Manhattan Institute's Point of Law blog, I explain why the DC Circuit's opinion is a victory for free speech (Richard Epstein made similar points back in November, when a district court temporarily halted the regulations). Disclosure - even warning messages - are one thing. They are designed to ensure that consumers have a minimum level of facts about the product. But this kind of compelled speech is a different animal -- forcing manufacturers to proselytize against their own products.
The First Amendment protects your right to say what you want -- so it must also protect your right not to be forced to say things. Read my full analysis at Point of Law.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Free Speech Victory Against the FDA's "Graphic" Warnings
This is one of those things that gets my goat. The only reason the government has an interest in whether citizens smoke or not is because government is on the hook for so much of the cost of healthcare. The health disadvantages of smoking are rather delayed, often until government is responsible for the costs of the behavior. If the government really cared about people and their smoking the best way to show it would be the tough love approach of not paying for the consequences of the behavior. We might reduce government spending a bit as well, which is what they're really after in the first place.
Jun '12
Re: Free Speech Victory Against the FDA's "Graphic" Warnings
They'd rather have the tax revenue from allowing people to kill themselves with cigarettes.
Dec '10
Re: Free Speech Victory Against the FDA's "Graphic" Warnings
ConservativeWanderer
They'd rather have the tax revenue from allowing people to kill themselves with cigarettes. · 6 minutes ago
It must be tough work finding the delicate balance between maximun tax revenue from tobacco and high enough taxes that people actually are dissuaded from smoking.
Oct '11
Re: Free Speech Victory Against the FDA's "Graphic" Warnings
I was in a deli yesterday and the woman in front of me in line bought a pack (one single pack) of Parliament Lights for $15. $15! That has to be at least 50-60% taxes.
May '11
Re: Free Speech Victory Against the FDA's "Graphic" Warnings
The government would rather abridge the freedom of speech than just make cigarettes illegal.
May '10
Re: Free Speech Victory Against the FDA's "Graphic" Warnings
I might agree, Prawn, if it were possible to identify smoking with certainty as the cause of a medical condition. But all they can say is that smoking is unhealthy.
What other chemicals and irritants does a person inhale in a lifetime? What of vehicle exhaust? What of dust and allergens? Some people spend years inspecting flooded buildings, full of dangerous molds. Some people work around concrete and sawdust. What about smoke and ash inhaled by wildfires?
Cigarette tar and nicotine are harmful, but cannot be positively identified as the cause or even a primary cause of any specific case of lung cancer, emphysema or other ailment because they cannot be isolated from countless other pathogens and irritants a person inhales in a lifetime.
This is the same reason statistics about the vehicle accidents caused by drunk driving annoy me. They assume that any collision involving alcohol ingestion must be caused by it. Being tired or emotional can also slow response times and cause poor judgment. Poor night vision can cause collisions. So can bad luck.
Re: Free Speech Victory Against the FDA's "Graphic" Warnings
Granted, that's expensive. But have you tried Parliament Lights? It's a satisfying smoke with the famous recessed filter!
Re: Free Speech Victory Against the FDA's "Graphic" Warnings
The FDA regulations go so far beyond medical "facts" it's hardly worth debating the science (although I respect your point). Even if we stipulate a link between smoking and lung cancer, that information is disclosed through the existing labels. The "graphic" warnings include things like women and children crying -- they convey no information whatsoever and are, as the Circuit Court said, an "unabashed" attempt to evoke emotions. The federal government is forcing private companies to distribute government propaganda at their own expense.
Edited on September 12, 2012 at 9:14pmMay '10
Re: Free Speech Victory Against the FDA's "Graphic" Warnings
The required smoking labels are already unreasonable, partially because of the problem I just described. Most statistics that link cigarettes to cancer are also drawn from a generation of people who grew up with indoor smoking.
That said, Denis Leary was correct when he said cigarettes could be marked with skull-and-crossbones and people would still smoke them. Like most efforts of the nanny state, this one is as naive as it is coercive.
Re: Free Speech Victory Against the FDA's "Graphic" Warnings
Apropos of nothing, I'll note that I just updated my profile picture, and the site has retroactively inserted my new picture into the old posts and comments. Talk about revisionism!