An interesting argument, and probably a valid one. I wonder if the tobacco companies now have grounds for a lawsuit against the Federal government, for all those decades of being forced to run a warning label on their product.

In any case, I don't think the warning labels matter that much; everyone knows that smoking is dangerous.

What perplexes me is that people start up in the first place. We all know that smoking is unhealthy and expensive to both the users and anyone in proximity, and that there are fewer and fewer places which are set aside as designated smoking areas. We also that smokers are almost universally despised by a smug society who still consumes grain products and soda but can lecture people on unhealthy habits.

"Duuuh, yeah, but it looks cool!"

What perplexes me about smoking is that everyone I know who smoked had to effectively force themselves through the first pack or two.

I am in general in favor of not forcing companies to have warning labels. However, they are usually there because of over reaching judges and our over litigious society. Not to actually warn people of true danger but to cover their ass in case of lawsuit.

What perplexes me is that people start up in the first place. We all know that smoking is unhealthy and expensive to both the users and anyone in proximity, and that there are fewer and fewer places which are set aside as designated smoking areas. We also that smokers are almost universally despised by a smug society who still consumes grain products and soda but can lecture people on unhealthy habits.

"Duuuh, yeah, but it looks cool!"

Posted by: Patrick at June 14, 2013 3:20 AM
_________________________________

I know. Last I heard, the number of Americans smokers who started smoking after age 18 is.......get this....60%!

OK, so apparently that's 34% who were between 18 and 21, plus the 26% who started smoking after 21. Still, I think it just goes to show that maybe we really shouldn't be allowing so many legal rights to teens - after all, to give another example, just because the driving laws written a century ago allow today's 16-year-olds to drive don't change the fact that teen fatalities are much HIGHER today, not just because there are so many cars, but because the lawmakers never envisioned smooth highways and cars that would allow for speeds of 120 m.p.h. or so. Or teens that are allowed to spend precious gas money just for the fun of driving. Or teens who could be said to be far less mature today than they were back then.

I faintly remember there was legislation a few years back that re-classed tobacco/nicotine as a drug and took it out of the USDA and put it under the FDA.

So under the FDA it would need to have the "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

Wouldn't it?

Since when is regulatory information "speech"?

There's an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for gasoline. Are you saying you cannot compel gas stations to post flammability and other health warnings?
How about the used oil warning?
How about the BATFE's approval of EVERY alcoholic beverage label?

This is just another example of overreaching... the 1st wasn't invented to protect income. It was to keep the standing government from suppressing your words on how to run the government.

I suggest that the risks of tobacco consumption remain the same no matter who is in office.

We put health warnings on other products, too, such as saccharine.

Why not put warning labels on bread and other wheat based products, since wheat is an addictive substance?

If the evidence points to certain harmful effects of cigarette smoking, I think it simply falls to being honest about what you're selling .. if your intent is to cover up the harmful effects of your product, that's a kind of fraud. Just be honest about what you're selling, and let customers make up their own minds.

If someone wants to sell you a car and they're aware of (and are covering up information about) material defects that could endanger your life as a purchaser, I don't think it would be a 1st Amendment issue to say they should be required to disclose those faults to the purchaser. Is the smoking issue different?

Acctually a Fox news affiliate in Florida argued before the state supreme court that they had a 1st amendment right to lie to their viewers.

They won.
I think it is like Lobsters fraud analogy, but how is it any different?

See what I did there Patrick? In addition to adding info, I gave my opinion on it so others would not make assumptions about whether or not I dis/agreed.