Tobacco Ad Restrictions Overturned

Yesterday a federal judge in Kentucky overturned two speech restrictions imposed by the law that authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products. U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. agreed with R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies that Congress violated the First Amendment by trying to ban color and pictures from outdoor ads, indoor ads (except those in adult-only businesses), and print ads carried by publications with significant underage readerships. He also overturned a provision that prohibits tobacco companies from telling consumers their products are regulated by the FDA, lest that fact mislead people into believing that cigarettes are any safer than they used to be.

Last June I asked, "How Long Will the New Tobacco Ad Restrictions Last?" The answer is either "about six months" or "they will never take effect," since they never did. I discussed the first rule of FDA regulation (You Do Not Talk About FDA Regulation) here and here.

[via The Rest of the Story]

Comments

[Jack Thread]

A devastating collection of clips in which candidate Obama promises over and over again that health-care negotiations will be televised on C-SPAN:

http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-.....otiations/

[TMZ]

Clips, schmips. We're too cynical at this point to care, Mr. Thread.
Now, if you have a tape of him cheating on Michelle...

[wylie]

Screw that. I want the tape of Michelle cheating on HIM.

With Sarah Palin.

*fingers crossed*

[Jennifer]

I wouldn't be surprised to learn the REAL reason behind the lifting of the bans is that cash-strapped states desperately need the revenue from overtaxed cigarettes.

On a related topic, we've had radio commercials here in Connecticut asking people to play the lottery because the money goes to the state budget, so "Everybody wins!" The stench of desperation amuses me.

[TickleStick]

So if I drive from Pennsylvania to play the lottery in Connecticut and don't win, can I sue your state for false advertising?

[Jennifer]

No, your reward is the warm, fuzzy feeling you get from knowing you helped fund the cushy pension of the narcotics task force guy who spent 20 dedicated years terrorising pot-smoking college students.

[TickleStick]

No, that warm, fuzzy feeling is the narcotics kicking in.

[Some Guy]

Betcha the Supremes overturn.

[Stine]

Methinks you're right.

I don't see how the court could let this ruling stand, yet still uphold regulations against television advertising of cigarettes.

[cmace]

If tobacco is the drug they say it is, it should be controlled by the DEA.

[Hacha Cha]

does this mean the whole law was overturned or just portions of the law? any chance flavored cigarETTES will be coming back on store shelves?

[Robert]

This is very big because the FFDCA also prohibits medical devices from being labeled, truthfully, as being licensed by FDA or as having passed any tests required for such licensing. I think that provision applies to at least some other products regulated by FDA too, but I forgot which. I assume that provision is now a dead letter in that circuit.