Obama Administration Appeals Ruling on Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels

The Obama Administration has appealed a ruling by a U.S. judge that tobacco companies do not have to put graphic warning labels on cigarette packages to show the dangers of smoking.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon granted tobacco companies a temporary injunction that blocked the requirement for the new labels.

According to Reuters, the case ultimately could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In early November, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said it is likely the companies will win a lawsuit that claims the labels violate First Amendment protections for commercial speech. He said the labels do not have to be put on cigarette packages until the lawsuit is resolved, which could take years.

In September, tobacco manufacturers asked Judge Leon to impose a temporary injunction to block the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) requirement that cigarette packs carry graphic images of the consequences of smoking, including diseased lungs and rotting teeth. The FDA wants the disturbing pictures to cover at least half of the front and back of a cigarette package by October 2012. The FDA also said the images must take up to at least 20 percent of each cigarette ad.

The new cigarette labels are a result of the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which gave the FDA authority to regulate the content, marketing and sale of tobacco products.

6 Responses to Obama Administration Appeals Ruling on Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels

  1. sheila | November 30, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    How stupid. Labelling will not stop smoking! Kids will collect the covers like baseball cards! And, SUPER stupid of Obama to be wasting time on this! His pushing NRT for J&J is going to cost him the election.

  2. Caley | November 30, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    If cigarette companies had to list all 599 ingredients on the package there would be no room for images of any kind. There are radioactive substances, kerosene, known carcinogens, and many other substances in a cigarette.

  3. kathryn | November 30, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    As a lifelong Democrat who has never voted for another party in a Presidential election, you can be certain that I will not vote Democrat in this election. I supported and worked for Obama in the last election. I could never support him again. This is one of the reasons: a candidate who promised democracy which includes free speech regardless of the individual or corporation that holds sacred the policy of free speech in America. Shame on Obama for being held captive by the pharmaceutical industry and anti-smoking organizations supported by it. Sometimes political correctness at any price is just a sham. This is one of those times.

    • trueblue38 | December 1, 2011 at 1:01 pm

      As Smokers, we certainly get our backs up when we perceive our “smoking rights” to be violated or infringed upon-regardless of our political party. This just proves to me how powerful of an addiction nicotine addiction is. I know it took me several times to quit. This is my second (and hopefully last) attempt; I am coming up on 3 years this time.
      I understand and appreciate both sides of the arguments. Personally, I think the notion that labelling cigarettes violates “free speech” is completely absurd!
      And to @Kathryn, you claim to have lifelong “democratic party ideals” so much so that you have never voted any other party in a presidential election, and yet, because of some ridiculous labelling on your precious cigarettes now you are going to vote GOP. Really???? Because we all know that a vote for any party other than Democrat means a GOP vote.
      May I remind you that it is the GOP that is in Big Pharma’s pocket and not the Obama administration. And also, labelling does not take away any one’s (that is of legal smoking age) right to purchase or to smoke. What are you really afraid of? That maybe you will have to be reminded that everytime you light up you risk your health? Well, as smokers we already know that, don’t we? I include myself because when I was actively smoking, I knew the risks and continued to smoke.
      I am somewhat who is grateful for product labelling and the FDA and Clean Water, etc. Because of these governemnt regulations we know what we are putting in our bodies (for better or worse) and I will never support a canidate that wants to take away my health safety to benefit big business, such as Big Tobacco comapanies. Also another HUGE supporter of GOP canidates; why do you think that is? (such as most of the GOP canidates. ) Oh, and also the GOP is not as a rule real big supporters of “free speech” except when it is convienant for them. MMMM, sounds familiar.

  4. Carol | December 3, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    The anti-smokers commit flagrant scientific fraud by ignoring more than 50 studies which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least 1/4 of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers’ studies are all based on lifestyle questionnaires, so they’re cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And they commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.


    For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.

  5. Pingback: New Labels To Warn Smokers! | Internet-Scam-Busters.Com

Leave a Reply

Please read our comment policy and guidelines before you submit a comment. Your email address will not be published. Thank you for visiting Join Together.

Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>