Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act Rightly Overturned By Court

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 was struck down by a federal judge who ruled that Congress failed to abide by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. However, “the significance of Wednesday’s [Feb. 29] ruling is unclear, since the Obama administration has appealed the injunction.” 

The Act, in part, mandates that tobacco companies post graphic images on cigarette packages that depict the horrendous effects of smoking, such as cancerous lungs and lips. Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment scholar, said that "The government [. . .] is free to speak for itself, but it may not [. . .] require others to mouth its position.”

I find it alarming — if not altogether suspect — that Congress passed this law in the first place. The only exception to the free speech clause that is at all even related to the Act is that advertising receives diminished protection, which is not at issue here. Although the Act itself does place limitations on tobacco advertising, I fail to see how limitations authorize the government to mandate offensive graphic advertising, which, tobacco companies argued, “goes beyond the ‘compelled commercial speech’ courts have ruled is permissible under the First Amendment to protect consumers from confusion and deception.”

True, some of the elements of the Act, such as banning flavored cigarettes, are laudable, but a grocery list of laudable elements does not permit one of those elements to violate Constitutional rights. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote that the 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.” Put another way, inciting hysterics makes for poor argument and for even poorer governing.

I am suspect of conspiracy theory, but was the ultimate goal of the Act, which is to protect and preserve the well-being of U.S. citizens, sabotaged in backroom deals with the tobacco industry? Was the Act ultimately designed to fail? Is the Act really just a smokescreen to obfuscate the actual health risks so that cigarette makers can continue peddling addictive narcotics unabated behind the veiled threat of an advertising annoyance while politicians appear as anti-smoking, family-value heroes? Even though there is a provision in the Act that calls for limiting addictive additives, if the government really wants to protect U.S. citizens, why not patently stop tobacco companies from putting any amount of addiction enhancing chemicals in cigarettes? Does Congress really believe that fractional addiction is possible? According to community health sciences professor Michael Siegel the Act "creates the appearance of regulation without allowing actual regulation."

If the government’s aim is to protect society from the consequences of unhealthy behaviors, why not broaden the Act to read “The American Family Protection Act” and include other preventable health risk behaviors like number two, obesity, and number three, alcohol? Why not mandate that makers of fattening foods put pictures of grossly obese people on their product packages and that alcohol beverage producers put pictures of homeless, pee-stained gutter drunks on all containers, including, say, the 1982 Bordeaux collection sold in the U.S?

I am an ex-smoker and I’d just as soon hope the tobacco industry drops off into the sea. I smoked because I liked it for whatever insidious reasons. I knew the health risks long before the advent of “Warning Labels.” I quit because my two little girls, who had learned about the dangers of smoking in school health classes, but mostly from imbibing information from our anti-smoking culture, kept after me to quit. All we needed was society’s evolutionary censure and love and care for one another — not a dubious Congressional Act aimed at feathering political nests.

Photo Credit: mame Anthony

How likely are you to make Mic your go-to news source?

Gary Sanford

I am a semi-retired international (Poland, Kuwait, China, Saudi Arabia) high school English teacher and a Vietnam veteran (1971, 51st Infantry). I have three daughters (36, 12, 8). I live in NE Poland where I can be close to my two youngest girls who are Polish-American and where I spend a lot of time reading and writing and watching my kids grow. I am domiciled in Oregon. Visit me at http://gbsanford.wix.com/gb-sanford

MORE FROM

Hillary Clinton says Republicans will be the "death party" if they pass health care bill

Hillary Clinton spoke out against the Republican's proposed bill on Twitter.

It's time to redefine the clitoris, according to sex education experts

"Words matter. They shape and mold our ideas and beliefs about our purpose, our bodies, our self-worth and our place in the world around us."

Al-Jazeera becomes a target amid Qatar diplomatic crisis

Gulf states are demanding the broadcaster be shut down.

5 blocks of London apartments to be evacuated over potentially flammable cladding

800 North London apartments will be evacuated following a fire inspection that turned up evidence that the buildings could be unsafe.

Tomi Lahren wants to rally women to her side after criticizing feminists and "pro-choicers"

"My view on abortion is not black-and-white," Lahren said.

These 5 states are drafting laws to limit protests on college campuses

The legislation is intended to protect free speech on campus.

Hillary Clinton says Republicans will be the "death party" if they pass health care bill

Hillary Clinton spoke out against the Republican's proposed bill on Twitter.

It's time to redefine the clitoris, according to sex education experts

"Words matter. They shape and mold our ideas and beliefs about our purpose, our bodies, our self-worth and our place in the world around us."

Al-Jazeera becomes a target amid Qatar diplomatic crisis

Gulf states are demanding the broadcaster be shut down.

5 blocks of London apartments to be evacuated over potentially flammable cladding

800 North London apartments will be evacuated following a fire inspection that turned up evidence that the buildings could be unsafe.

Tomi Lahren wants to rally women to her side after criticizing feminists and "pro-choicers"

"My view on abortion is not black-and-white," Lahren said.

These 5 states are drafting laws to limit protests on college campuses

The legislation is intended to protect free speech on campus.