Tobacco companies contest NY anti-smoking signs
A man smokes outside the Taipei railway station January 13, 2010.
Credit: Reuters/Pichi Chuang
NEW YORK |
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City anti-smoking signs depicting a decaying tooth, diseased lungs and a damaged brain violate cigarette vendors' free speech and should be removed, tobacco companies and retailers said in a lawsuit.
Philip Morris USA, Lorillard Tobacco Company, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., plus two major retail trade groups and two convenience stores, alleged in the Manhattan federal court lawsuit that the signs violate the sellers' rights by imposing the signs on them.
"The government may not force private parties to carry messages beyond purely uncontroversial factual statements that are designed to prevent consumer deception," said the lawsuit, filed on Wednesday and made available to reporters on Thursday.
The three different signs, developed by the city's Health Department and required as of last December, graphically depict the harmful effects smoking can have on the body. They bear messages such as "smoking causes tooth decay" and list the number of a city helpline for assistance on how to quit.
"The signs ... do not describe the risks of smoking in purely factual terms. Instead, the signs force tobacco manufacturers and retailers to communicate vivid images at the point of sale," the suit said.
New York cigarette sellers face a $2,000 fine if they fail to display at least one warning sign at the cash register or next to the cigarettes. No other U.S. city has adopted similar measures, city Health Department officials said.
City agencies, however, said the anti-smoking campaign was necessary and Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made a smoke-free New York one of his major priorities, having banned smoking in bars and restaurants.
"We are confident that the health code provisions being challenged will withstand legal scrutiny," said New York City Law Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Thomas.
"By trying to suppress this educational campaign, the tobacco industry is signaling its desire to keep kids in the dark," a statement by the city's Health Department said.
The lawsuit also alleged federal anti-smoking rules prevent local governments from interfering with cigarette advertising.
(Reporting by Basil Katz; editing by Anthony Boadle)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
We pass a law that stops restaurants from serving over weight people, steak. How is this the same thing, well let me tell you how I can argue that point. Lets say a restaurant gave a steak to an over weight person and as the person was driving home, they had a heart attack. Well then you could be killed and have nothing to do with the over weight person. Sound funny, but it is laws like NY’s that could allow stupid laws, like the one I mention, happen. FYI.. the second hand smoking studies that keep being used for these laws are from the 60’s and was a controlled experiment where they pumped ciagrette smoke into a box that contained a rat and waited until the rat died. Then did the math. Well I have to say, what a STUPID experiment. They could have pumped exhaust from cars into that box and killed the rat faster. Are we making laws against car exhaust? To a point we do, but not to the extent that the cigarettes have been attacked. Here is another example that could happen with this type of logic. Laws against baby strollers. Yup, think about my example with the car exhaust. Where is a muffler on a car? How high off the ground is that muffler? How high is your baby’s head off the ground in a stroller? Are we to ban mufflers on cars, because Baby’s could inhaled the fumes when the mother is waiting on a corner to walk across the street. Think I am crazy? Ever walk in NYC or any metropolitan and see a truck, bus, or car spit out a ton of black smoke from their muffler? So with the cigarette logic, your baby is being exposed to something way worse then cigarettes. Want to argue that, then take a hit from a cigarette and put your lips to a muffler and see which one hurts more.. I know that my points are to the extremes but I need everyone to consider the implications of passing laws like NY’s cigarette law.
MUSE4YOU:
“So, instead of thinking the smokers are weak,
and lying to yourself because you can physically see what it is that is “wrong” with them
while YOU know you have your own faults,~
~you should look into different means of fulfilling this desire that leads to smoking.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
100% of those who don’t smoke (and yet judge smokers) have their own nasty habit/vices them-self.
Many smokers are gentle folk who would love to see you free of your habits/vices too.
Most smokers don’t want to smoke, YET are not waiting for you to outlaw smoking as a misguided and incomplete solution.
I smoke in solitude, outdoors, always aware of the wind direction.
I don not believe in smokers rights, but I do believe that those who are making progress in quitting should be allowed to do so in peace.
Follow Reuters