Judge Says New York City Can't Force Cigarette Sellers to Scare Away Their Customers

Jacob Sullum | December 30, 2010

Yesterday a federal judge ruled that New York City may not force tobacco sellers to put up anti-smoking posters. In response to a lawsuit filed by retailers and tobacco companies, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff agreed that the poster mandate, which city's health department approved at the end of last year, conflicts with the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965. That law, which required warning labels on cigarette packages (later extended to print ads), simultaneously barred states and municipalities from imposing any "requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health...with respect to the advertising or promotion of cigarettes." A rule that forces cigarette retailers to discourage customers from buying their merchandise, Rakoff concluded, is such a requirement. "Even merchants of morbidity are entitled to the full protection of the law," he wrote, "for our sake as well as theirs." Since Rakoff decided the case on statutory grounds, he did not need to address the plaintiffs' arguments that the poster rule violates their First Amendment rights by commandeering valuable point-of-sale advertising space and compelling retailers to engage in speech with which they disagree.

I discussed the challenge to the poster mandate in October.

[via The Rest of the Story]

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Rhywun|12.30.10 @ 2:10PM|#

Ah, Canada... and they say California is a bellwether. And of course the only "critic" of the policy they could bother to quote wants to ban smoking altogether. I wonder if they/we will ever reach a point where even non-smokers get tired of being bombarded with images of disease at every turn.

|12.30.10 @ 11:24AM|#

Bloomberg need to go, pronto. I still don't understand how he got a third term. Even Rudy didn't go for that, and think of Rudy's ego.

|12.30.10 @ 11:41AM|#

Didn't Bloomberg advocate for term limits which limited Rudy to two, and then Bloomberg advocated for the removal of term limits once he bought his way to City Hall?

Somebody Had To Say It|12.30.10 @ 12:36PM|#

You know who else reneged on his promises?

|12.30.10 @ 4:42PM|#

""Bloomberg advocated for the removal of term limits once he bought his way to City Hall"""

If I remember correctly Bloomberg agreed with term limits until his second term was about up.

|12.30.10 @ 12:17PM|#

Will this ruling also invalidate California's Prop 99 (1988), a measure which imposed a $.25 per pack surcharge on cigarettes to pay for anti-smoking ad campaigns? It's time that law fell.

Maximum Flow Control|12.30.10 @ 12:24PM|#

Bloomvez will be jailing his opponents come next election

Some other guy|12.30.10 @ 12:49PM|#

Meanwhile, the Canadian Government released new, more graphic warning labels for cigarette packages this morning.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/sto.....nings.html

|12.30.10 @ 10:39PM|#

What's next? Making a porno shop put up pictures of people dying of AIDS or syphillis right outside their doors? Maybe even a PSA by Christine O'Donnell about the evils of masturbation.

fsdkfj|1.17.11 @ 3:25AM|#

sport shoes

Reason.com