In June, the FDA issued a mandate that requires tobacco companies to put large graphic photos on 50% of their cigarette packs that show and portray that smoking kills smokers and their babies. The FDA published a statement about this mandate on their website stating, "The introduction of these warnings is expected to have a significant public health impact by decreasing the number of smokers, resulting in lives saved, increased life expectancy and lower medical costs". Based on this statement and on the tobacco companies' negative reaction to the mandate, the conclusion can be made that the images have the possibility to seriously hinder sales for the companies.
This February, 5 American tobacco manufactures decided to fight back and take a stand for their first amendment right. Therefore, they are suing the FDA. Reputable news sources, such as CNN, believe that these tobacco manufactures put up a good case. Even U.S. District Judge Richard Leon thinks they have a chance.
But is the FDA really violating these drug companies' freedom of speech?
Personally, I don't buy it. To me, these images just seem like a visual of the side effects to smoking tobacco. Every other drug company has to include side effects on their labels even if it hurts their business, so why should tobacco companies be exempt? Also, I'm aware that 50% of packaging is a large portion, but I truly think that the government has good intentions.
My thoughts are that as long as the government is keeping less health harmful drugs illegal, such as marijuana, that tobacco should not be legal as well. I think tobacco companies are lucky that they even get to sell their deadly products to consumers.
You can learn more about this heated debate here here!
-Chrisanthy S
This February, 5 American tobacco manufactures decided to fight back and take a stand for their first amendment right. Therefore, they are suing the FDA. Reputable news sources, such as CNN, believe that these tobacco manufactures put up a good case. Even U.S. District Judge Richard Leon thinks they have a chance.
But is the FDA really violating these drug companies' freedom of speech?
Personally, I don't buy it. To me, these images just seem like a visual of the side effects to smoking tobacco. Every other drug company has to include side effects on their labels even if it hurts their business, so why should tobacco companies be exempt? Also, I'm aware that 50% of packaging is a large portion, but I truly think that the government has good intentions.
My thoughts are that as long as the government is keeping less health harmful drugs illegal, such as marijuana, that tobacco should not be legal as well. I think tobacco companies are lucky that they even get to sell their deadly products to consumers.
You can learn more about this heated debate here here!
-Chrisanthy S
Interesting post Chrisanthy. This reminds me of how Canada approaches the warning messages on cigarette cartons. As you can see on this link i posted below, the pictures and messages associated with cancer scare the heck out of me, and I do not even smoke. The pictures are quite graphic, and depict extreme cases of the side affects associated with smoking cigarettes. Clearly Canada has seen some positive outcomes with this kind of tobacco advertising, and I think that the FDA is right to do the same.http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/Canada-warnings.htm
ReplyDeleteI also thought your post was interesting Chrisanthy! On the one hand, I do think the cigarette companies have a point that they have the freedom of speech and all that goes along with it. That's very important as Americans, but on the other hand, I think when dealing with a product that has notoriously had such a fluctuating image in the last hundred years, and is as dangerous as cigarettes, we have the right to know the truth, and the freedom to make informed decisions.
ReplyDelete