Tobacco Case Essay example

2774 Words Jan 29th, 2013 12 Pages
1.
In the Central Hudson Case, Judge Powell summarized that this case presents the question whether a regulation of the Public Service Commission of the State of New York violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it completely bans promotional advertising by an electrical utility, 447 U.S. 557, which is closely related to the tobacco cases. Several opinions presented by Judge Powell can apply in these cases.
First, in applying the First Amendment to this area, Judge Powell rejected the “highly paternalistic” view that government has complete power to suppress or regulate commercial speech.
Second, the Judge also believed that if the communication is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity, the government’s power
…show more content…
b) In view of the potential damage to health caused by smoking, no one can doubt the importance of warning people of the health risk. Therefore, the governmental interest is substantial. c) For the relationship between the governmental interest and the advertising regulation, FDA’s concern over the health issue does not provide a constitutionally adequate reason for forcing companies to use labels featuring “a man breathing smoke out of a tracheotomy hole in his neck and a mouth punctured with what appear to be cancerous lesions.” d) FDA’s regulation of putting labels on tobacco’s packaging is legitimate, yet the health concern, as important as it is, cannot justify some regulations enforced by FDA, such as the packaging images mentioned above. In addition, “no showing has been made that a more limited enforcement on the packaging would not serve adequately the governmental interests.” In fact, as suggested by Judge Leon, there are alternative ways to convey the health risks of smoking without violating the First Amendment.

2) Discount v. United States of America (KY case) e) The tobacco commercials are generally legitimate and protected by the First Amendment. f) The government’s interests in preventing juvenile smoking and warning the general public are substantial. g) According to district court, the ban of modified risk tobacco products (see 1:09-CV-117-M) does provide

Related Documents