We all know that smoking is bad, but are the ads on cigarette packets a violation of first amendment rights?

In this article, it is reported that five tobacco companies (Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, Commonwealth Brands, Liggett Group, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco) have sued the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) because of their new law that forces these companies to place "graphic health warnings" on their cigarette packets. Because the government plans on using these companies to promote their anti-smoking messages, the companies argue that this is a violation of their constitutional right to free speech. In their complaint, the companies say the new labels "would illegally force them to make consumers 'depressed, discouraged, and afraid' to buy their products.' The government can require warnings which are straightforward and essentially uncontroversial, but they can't require a cigarette pack to serve as a mini-billboard for the government's anti-smoking campaign,' Floyd Abrams, a lawyer representing the cigarette makers, said in a statement. He added that the new labels would violate the companies' free-speech rights under the first amendment to the constitution" (BBC). In June, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that the new labels would discourage young people from smoking and would give adult smokers a reason to quit. More than 220,000 people in the US are expected to be diagnosed with lung cancer in 2011 (American Cancer Society) and tobacco use is estimated to be responsible for 443,000 deaths in the US each year (BBC).

This law suit questions what constitutes as first amendment rights and can they be sacrificed for the greater good? Speaking of which, what is the greater good? Should the government be allowed to say what they feel is good for the people; do they really know best? These different perceptions on what is reasonable to warn the general public are being debated here. Also, the definition of first amendment rights is being questioned. The tobacco companies still have their voice, they can advertize; however, they are being forced to put an ad that they don't want on their cigarette packets. Does this really take away their freedom of speech? Next to the anti-smoking ads, why don’t the tobacco companies place their own ads for smoking?Wouldn’t that be freedom of speech? To dig deeper into this, what is harmful? Everyone will die one day, and sickness comes and goes, everyone has had some sort of health problem before. Why do certain “harmful” situations carry a larger weight in discussion? Is this a language issue or a perception issue? Since everyone has to die someday, do actions that lead to death faster draw the line? Should these sorts of unhealthy issues be publically advertised no matter who suffers financially?

In think that the issue here is freedom of expression versus the well being of individuals in society. It relates to different perceptions of what is reasonable in informing the public versus individual gain. In this case, it would seem as if excess knowledge on a subject is not necessary. If it is well known that something is harmful, additional reminders do not need to be placed. However, since people don't always do what is best for them, they may need an extra nudge. The government may feel obliged to place certain reminders for the wellbeing of society. In this way, the government can say that they did not leave their citizens ignorant; individuals are aware of the harm that they are causing for themselves.

Personally, I think that since a lot of information is well known (such as smoking is bad for you) excess information does not need to be placed if it sacrifices someone else's gain. With this issue here, I think that the FDA does not need to place these anti-smoking ads on cigarette packets because they are only sold to those who are at least 18 or above. This means that individuals who buy cigarettes know the harm that they cause. Additionally, there are so many other things that are harmful, that people don't publically advertise. For example, why hasn't the FDA placed pictures of fat people on packages of potato chips? Isn't junk food known to be unhealthy? Since it is common sense, they don't need to do this. Therefore, although the FDA means well by placing these ads, it would seem unnecessary because then they would have to put “graphic health warnings” for everything!

This issue can be related with Porn's Fine Lines because the issue here is freedom of expression versus the good of society. The good of society would be to block/filter/warn individuals of the harm certain aspects may bring, in this case it is child pornographic images, and in the case above it is smoking. What we can see is that both of these are looked down upon in society. If society already warns people about these then why does the government need to? Perhaps their regulation ensures wellbeing of individuals, but at what point does it become too much? At what point are we deprived of our freedom?