Nobody would deny that smoking is unhealthy. Yet, when FDA goes to these lengths, and sets this precedent, who's next? Alcohol? Will labels be required that show diseased livers and/or deformed babies? High-fat foods? Labels requiring photos of diseased hearts? How many of our products would be required to devote 1/2 their packages to photos of corpses? Big brother is going to take care of us ...
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called them frank and honest warnings about the dangers of smoking.Another label has a picture of a healthy pair of lungs beside a yellow and black pair with a warning that smoking causes fatal lung disease.The lawsuit said the images were manipulated to be especially emotional. The tobacco companies said the corpse photo is actually an actor with a fake scar, while the healthy lungs were sanitized to make the diseased organ look worse. What? FDA engaging in "false advertising"?I can understand not giving out free samples, but preventing the sponsorship of social events? forbidding branded merchandise? I can hardly wait till FDA uses this to prevent branded merchandise for McDonalds and Dunkin' Donuts.The free speech lawsuit is a different action than a suit by several of the same companies over the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The law, which took affect two years ago, cleared the way for the more graphic warning labels, but also allowed the FDA to limit nicotine. The law also banned tobacco companies from sponsoring athletic or social events and prevented them from giving away free samples or branded merchandise.
They could try making smoking products illegal, but they know that Prohibition never worked.