TOBACCO2 pm rjr

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see main and tag</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">capt 816
</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">omg  Philip Morris  32 tags 3 rows 3/22</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">an ah 1 23</font></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In Washington, D.C. smoking is banned from office buildings. But that

rule doesn’t apply to the U.S. Capitol Building, where House Republicans

have lifted a ban on smoking in that branch of Congress. </font></span></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Fox

News’ Tucker Carlson and other far-right pundits have been quick to

applaud the move. Sounding a lot like the late radio host <a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-rush-limbaugh-smoking-effects-cancer-diagnosis-20200203-4ma66mowazektovzh7hg2aynhq-story.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked">Rush Limbaugh</a>, Carlson told viewers, “Nicotine frees your mind, and THC makes you compliant and passive.</span>”</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In a <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republicans-smoking-congress/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked">scathing article published by The Nation</a>

</b>on January 23, journalist Joan Walsh slams House Republicans and their

supporters for promoting something as unhealthy as smoking and argues

that they are “killing” their “own voters.”</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>READ MORE:</strong> <a href="https://www.alternet.org/tucker-carlson-house-republican-tobacco/" target="_self" class="rm-stats-tracked">'The smell of freedom': Tucker Carlson and House Republican defend tobacco smoking inside the Capitol</a></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I

honestly thought it was fake news,” Walsh writes. “Just after Kevin

McCarthy became House speaker, giving away his power to right-wing

antagonists the first week in January, I read about Congress members

smoking on the GOP side of the aisle. Just a projection from my liberal

allies of Republicans’ intent to erode public health, I assumed. Funny

GIF to come. But it was true. Rep. Tom Cole was smoking cigars in his

office. Others were reportedly smoking cigarettes in other places.”</font></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Walsh

notes that “House lawmakers’ private offices aren’t governed by” either

the District of Columbia’s anti-smoking ordinance” or “a Bill Clinton

executive order” that “prohibits smoking in federal buildings that are

under the authority of the executive branch.”</font></span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Under McCarthy,

smoking is allowed not just in members’ offices, but in public areas

too,” Walsh explains. “Now comes more carcinogenic propaganda from

right-wing losers. Last week, Fox’s Tucker Carlson began preaching a

return to smoking as a return to American values. Tobacco is so much

more American than increasingly legal and available weed, he told his

stoned-on-lies audience.”</font></span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Fox News, Carlson made cigarette smoking a culture war issue, telling viewers that liberals “hate nicotine” but “love THC.”</font></span></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>READ MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/09/you-gaslighting-cartoon-kellyanne-conway-brutally-mocked-for-conflating-opioid-deaths-with-marijuana" target="_self" class="rm-stats-tracked"><strong>‘You gaslighting cartoon’: Kellyanne Conway brutally mocked for conflating opioid deaths with marijuana</strong></a></font></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Walsh

comments, “I shouldn’t be surprised at Carlson’s tribute to tobacco….

Republicans have long opposed anti-smoking measures, at least partly out

of fealty to Big Tobacco. Former GOP Speaker John <b>Boehner became

infamous for handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the House

floor in 1995</b>. As Indiana governor, Mike Pence railed against tobacco

restrictions and insisted ‘smoking doesn’t kill.’ But the recent

pro-smoking crusade seems to be inspired more by culture war imperatives

than by defending the tobacco industry.”</font></span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The journalist points

out that Limbaugh spent decades vigorously defending cigarette smoking

on his radio show — before dying of lung cancer in 2021.</font></span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Killing your own voters seems like a bad electoral strategy,” Walsh writes. “<a href="https://www.salon.com/2023/01/13/getting-lung-cancer-to-own-the-libs-want-to-make-smoking-great-again/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" class="rm-stats-tracked">Salon’s Amanda Marcotte</a>

calls it ‘getting lung cancer to own the libs.’ Sadly, Republicans are

mostly giving their base voters what they think they want.”</font></span></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>READ MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/04/tobacco-giant-exploiting-murders-profit" target="self" class="rm-stats-tracked"><strong>Tobacco giant exploiting murders of George Floyd and Eric Garner for profit: report</strong></a></font></p></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">intercept</font></div><div><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-shortcode-type="dropcap" class="dropcap" andale="Andale" mono="Mono" monospace="monospace" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" font-size="font-size" em="em" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" float="float" left="left" margin-bottom="margin-bottom" px="px" margin-top="margin-top" margin-right="margin-right" box-shadow="box-shadow" white="white" style="box-sizing: border-box;">T</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: 0.1em; box-shadow: white 0px 1px 0px, rgb(17, 17, 17) 0px 4px 0px; text-transform: uppercase;">HE TOBACCO INDUSTRY</span> pioneered tactics to fight regulations by manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that cigarettes kill. So it should be no surprise to encounter a strategy among defenders of the e-cigarette that also centers around doubt. If we don’t know for certain that a product is safe, we might urge caution. <b>Sense About Science has argued the opposite: so long as we don’t know the product is unsafe, medical professionals have no business urging regulation.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">E-cigarettes</span> turn chemical solutions into a nicotine-filled mist, which consumers ingest without the added harm of tobacco tar. When the devices hit the American market in 2007, sales <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160305163645/http:/www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Documents/Media/State%20Health-e-cig%20report.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">quickly took off</a>. Tobacco companies increasingly dominate the industry, which is projected to <a href="http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/j9kj2j/global" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">be worth $54 billion</a> by 2025. A <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6514a1.htm?s_cid=mm6514a1_w" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">recent national survey</a> found a <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6514a1.htm#F1_down" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">sharp rise in e-cigarette smoking</a> among high school students — from 1.5 percent in 2011 to 16 percent last year.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The skyrocketing popularity of e-cigarettes among young people worries public health experts because so <a href="http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/19/1972.full#sec-5" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">little is known about the devices’ safety</a>. E-cigarettes are too new for scientists to have assessed their long-term health risks. British and American scientific bodies have reacted to this paucity of evidence with different views of the relative dangers.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Last year, Public Health England joined other British public health organizations in encouraging smokers to use e-cigarettes as an aid in quitting tobacco. The Royal College of Physicians effectively endorsed this view in April, when it argued against regulating a product that could help smokers quit.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But American public health officials worry that nicotine, which is as addictive as heroin and cocaine, will hook young smokers and cause lasting harm to their still-developing brains. Nicotine is linked to immunosuppression as well as cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal disorders. There is evidence that it interferes with chemotherapies and may even play a role in cancer. Researchers are just beginning to study whether the more than <a href="http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10185/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">7,000 flavoring chemicals</a>, which typically aren’t disclosed on e-cigarettes, are safe when inhaled.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Back in 2012, the British Medical Association <a href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:glhEvxG1mAIJ:https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/word%2520files/news%2520views%2520analysis/press%2520briefings%2520new/bmabrief_smoking.docx+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">called for a ban on the devices in public</a> in order to “ensure their use does not undermine smoking prevention and cessation by reinforcing the normalcy of cigarette use.</b>” BMA reaffirmed this judgment as recently as this past June, despite the opposing position of the Royal College of Physicians. Sense About Science reacted to BMA’s call for a ban by asking the association to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140426234128/http:/www.senseaboutscience.org/news.php/364/whats-the-evidence-for-banning-electronic-cigarettes" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">produce evidence</a> that e-cigarettes caused harm. “This move towards heavy regulation appears to be driven by the fear that e-cigs might be harmful or act as a gateway to conventional tobacco — despite little or no evidence for either claim,” the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140426234128/http:/www.senseaboutscience.org/news.php/364/whats-the-evidence-for-banning-electronic-cigarettes" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">organization argued</a> on its website in 2013, two years before Public Health England endorsed e-cigarettes as a tool to quit smoking. Such regulations, Sense About Science stated, could do more harm than good by inhibiting access to products that may help reduce harm from smoking tobacco cigarettes.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Although Sense About Science has demanded evidence that e-cigarettes cause harm, it seems poised to cast doubt on the evidence when it turns up</b>. In August, the organization challenged the relevance of research presented that month at a cardiology conference showing that nicotine in e-cigarettes can stiffen arteries, an early indication of heart disease. Sense About Science’s <a href="http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/response-to-stories-suggesting-that-vaping-is-as-bad-for-the-heart-as-cigarettes/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none;">expert dismissively compared</a> the effects of nicotine documented in the research to those of “watching a thriller or a football match.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; letter-spacing: 0.01em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here in the United States, just this past May, the Food and Drug Administration moved to regulate e-cigarettes, including banning sales to those 18 and under. The CDC, too, takes the health risks of nicotine seriously. Last fall, the centers called for strategies to reduce the use of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. “The potential long-term benefits and risks associated with e-cigarette use are not currently known,” the <b>CDC reported. “What is known is that nicotine exposure at a young age may cause lasting harm to brain development, promote nicotine addiction, and lead to sustained tobacco use.”</b></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/the-extraordinary-way-red-states-are-steamrolling-blue-cities" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/the-extraordinary-way-red-states-are-steamrolling-blue-cities</a></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The extraordinary way red states are steamrolling blue cities</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Written by Maresa Strano, Lydia Bean / Washington Monthly December 4, 2019</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Florida Legislature is strongly opposed to gun control. Even in the aftermath of the shooting in Parkland, state legislators opposed strict restrictions on the sale and use of firearms. But there’s another kind of control that they do believe in: the control of gun control.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 1987, Florida passed a bill that prohibits localities from enacting their own gun ordinances. This was an act of “preemption”—the name for when a higher level of government, like a state, withdraws or limits the authority of a lower level government, like a city or town.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For a while, the bill was not fully enforced. Cities like Miami and Tallahassee created and maintained additional gun regulations, designed to minimize violence in their more urban communities. But that, like so much about America’s political landscape, changed in 2011. That year, the legislature passed an updated version of the law, backed by the National Rifle Association, that imposed harshpenalties on local officials who enacted or enforced gun ordinances, including a $5,000 fine and up to $100,000in damages.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Three years later, two gun-rights organizations sued the city of Tallahassee, its mayor, and several city commissioners for not purging a pair of inherited ordinances that outlawed firing guns in public parks, one of which had been on the books since 1957</span>. Because the law also forbids the use of public funds in gun ordinance cases, the defendants (including eventual Democratic gubernatorial nominee Andrew Gillum) had to secure pro-bono legal representation. <b>This summer, a circuit court judge struck down the fine, and Governor Ron DeSantis, who narrowly bested Gillum for the office in 2018, appealed the decision.</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">The escalation of state preemption laws is happening everywhere. For the last decade, preemption has spread to all states and across virtually every salient policy area—from environmental and labor protections to immigration and housing rights. The vast majority of preemption bills stem from special interests and industry groups with anti-regulatory agendas.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>These laws are extraordinarily damaging to our society. They result in increased racial and gender inequality. They correlate with lower life expectancy. They inhibit citizens from meaningfully engaging in politics. Like gerrymandering and dark money, we should consider preemption to be a serious threat to democracy.</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style=""><font style="" size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The seeds of modern preemption were planted in the 1980s, when the </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">tobacco industry</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> began to push for state laws barring tobacco taxes and smoke-free ordinances</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. Over the next two decades, other industry groups and special interests adopted big tobacco’s strategy. During the crime wave of the 1990s, for example, the </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">National Rifle Association aggressively lobbied states to stop American cities from enacting local firearms regulations.</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The tobacco industry and the NRA are members of the modern conservative coalition, comprised of industry groups and trade associations, small-government libertarians, and social conservatives. These groups were the first to recognize state preemption as a powerful mechanism to rein in progressive cities and spread conservative policies. To wield it effectively, however, they had to gain control of state governments. In 2010, as the Republican Party swept into power in statehouses across the country, conservatives gained newfound ability to preempt localities.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As a result, the last decade has seen an unprecedented swell in the number of preemption bills introduced and passed by state legislatures. As of 2019, twenty-five states have passed laws preempting local minimum wage ordinances (up from ten states in 2010). Twenty-three states have banned ordinances requiring paid sick days (up from one state in 2010). Between 2014 and 2019, an astounding forty-four states removed or prevented employment and labor protections for Uber and Lyft drivers.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Some of these laws are notorious. North Carolina’s House Bill 2, or “the Bathroom Bill,” famously mandated that individuals use the bathroom corresponding to the gender assigned to them at birth. A direct attack on the transgender community, HB 2 was passed to stop the City of Charlotte from increasing its anti-discrimination protections. The same bill also explicitly preempted local regulation of employment standards, such as increasing the minimum wage and mandatory paid sick days.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But other preemption bills have targeted issues that, to the average American, appear to have no political salience. These include regulations of wireless alarm systems, Styrofoam products, milk and frozen desserts, and even beekeeping. Sixteen states have preempted local regulation of residential fire sprinklers in the last decade.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why sprinklers? By 2009, a national, nonpartisan grassroots movement led by members of the fire service had successfully fought to get nearly 400 localities to require that new residential buildings have fire sprinklers. In response, the National Association of Home Builders, the group that represents large developers, turned to preemption. The developers saw such ordinances as pricey nuisances and, determined to avoid any additional profit loss (however negligible), successfully pressured many state legislatures to thwart the firefighter’s movement.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The increase in volume, sweep, and frequency of preemption laws is hardly driven by grassroots concerns. Instead, it reflects a pattern in which industries have used preemption to promote their putatively pro-business, anti-regulation agendas with no regard for public health and safety, nor the public will. They have found happy advocates in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization bankrolled by industry lobbyists that drafts conservative state legislation and shares it across the nation.ALEC provides the templates for many of the preemption bills circulating today. A recent report from the Local Solutions Support Center and State Innovation Exchange noted thataboutone in five of the over 1,000 ALEC bills introduced each year are signed into law.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Still, this is not an exclusively red state problem. In Democratic strongholds like California, special interests use preemption just as aggressively to hamper local policy innovations. Last year, the California Legislature passed a bill prohibiting local governments from imposing taxes on sugary drinks. The decision undercut local lawmakers, who had passed soda taxes in a variety of jurisdictions to curb type 2 diabetes and obesity and to raise funds for schools and other public services.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why would California’s democratic-controlled legislature pass such a regressive law? In short, they were blackmailed. To gain leverage over an unsympathetic legislature, the beverage industry mounted a lavishly funded ballot initiative campaign that would have changed the vote threshold for localities to approve tax increases from fifty-one percent to two-thirds. If passed, the resulting logjams would have hindered funding for vital public services, including fire, transit, and law enforcement. When beverage companies offered to scrap the initiative in exchange for the preemption bill, legislators accepted.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Old preemption gave deference to judicial determination. It respected citizen initiative and the role of local governance. It allowed municipalities to work with states in pursuit of the right regional policies. That has all vanished. Now, preemption “is being used as a blunt instrument to destroy local democracy,” said Mark Pertschuk, director of Grassroots Change and Preemption Watch.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In many states, aggressive preemption is dismantling any illusion of cooperation between state and local government. In 2016, Arizona passed Senate Bill 1487, known as “the mother of all local preemption bills,” which allows the state to strip funding from localities that pass any regulations that deviate from state law. Texas’ 2017 law banning sanctuary cities, like Florida’s law banning gun control, threatened officials who “adopt, enforce, or endorse” a sanctuary city policy with fines of up to $25,500 per day and removal from office (the law has since been struck down).</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Punishing local officials and governments for flouting preemption may seem harsh, but fair. In most cases, localities are still treated as creatures of the state. They cannot violate its laws. But preemption laws have produced a“chilling effect” on local policymaking and innovation, particularly in large, diverse cities in red states, where local action and creative problem solving is needed most. As Andrew Gillum told the New York Times: “It is intended to put everyone across this state and across this country where these efforts are taking place on notice: Don’t come near it…And if you do, we’ll come after you personally, we’ll come after your government, we’ll come after the very survivability of your community by cutting off resources to you.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Such an aggressive approach to preemption might still be justified if preemption were advancing the public’s interest. Defenders argue that is indeed the case: preemption is necessary to prevent regulatory patchworks, which hinder economic prosperity.“A statewide company has to follow so many different ordinances that they end up choosing to leave those communities due to lack of uniformity,” said one Georgia lawmaker.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>But what preemption is being used for shows such arguments are, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, patently untrue. The Arizona legislature’s decision to preempt Tempe’s ordinance regulating<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> dark money in local politics </span>has no real relationship to economic growth.</b> It does not cut red tape. And today’s preemption is making life economically worse for the vulnerable. Nationwide, preemption presents one of the greatest barriers to raising wages and living standards for low-wage workers. More than 60 percent of U.S. workers now live in states where minimum wage ordinances are preempted, and more than 40 percent of workers live in states where paid sick time ordinances are preempted. In 2000, those percentages were less than 2 percent and 0 percent, respectively.</font></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-is-helping-big-tobacco-hook-a-new-generation-of-smokers-112911">https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-is-helping-big-tobacco-hook-a-new-generation-of-smokers-112911</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Big Tobacco is increasingly using social media to find new ways to hook young people on smoking, circumventing decades of laws restricting the marketing of traditional cigarettes to minors.</b></font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In major cities around the world such as Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, Jakarta and Milan, tobacco companies have been holding extravagant events with names like “K_Player” and “RedMoveNow” that were designed to connect with young people. Often featuring alcohol, live music and attractive hosts, these lavish events spare no expense as they seek find new buyers for their tobacco products.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The problem? Those party-goers are carefully targeted young influencers, who are encouraged to share photos of their glamorous tobacco-sponsored adventures with friends and followers on<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> social media using appealing hashtags like #iamonthemove, #decideyourflow and #mydaynow. And although the influencers are over 18, their social media followers can be much younger.</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This exploitation of social media’s organic reach is one of the findings from a global research project I’ve been working on since 2016 with more than a dozen different scholars. The anti-smoking advocacy group Tobacco-Free Kids noticed a lot of photos of young people with cigarettes turning up in their online scans of global social media and asked me to look into it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">My own research focuses on how to rigorously research online culture using natural observational techniques, something that this study definitely required.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">My team’s task was to monitor, report upon and analyze the programs behind the hashtagged social media posts of young people smoking. What we learned about tobacco company’s current advertising surprised us.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tobacco ads were much bigger in 1996 – literally.  AP Photo/Mark Lennihan</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Skirting marketing restrictions</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tobacco companies have always had a knack for finding creative ways to skirt regulations intended to curb marketing to young people.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 1971, the U.S. Congress banned tobacco ads from television and radio. In response, companies invested heavily in outdoor advertising and magazines. In 1997, the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement banned tobacco on outdoor and billboard ads. In response, tobacco money flowed into sponsorships of sports, music and other events. These type of event sponsorships were banned, with some exceptions, in 2010, at the same time wider restrictions on youth marketing were also introduced.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">No matter the medium, the messaging was often the same: find ways to reach new and young potential smokers. As documents from the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library reveal, tobacco executives have long believed that the continued survival and success of their companies depends on one thing: convincing young people to buy their products.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2005, the World Health Organization banned tobacco advertising in 168 signatory countries. By 2010, the U.S. had closed a lot of Big Tobacco’s favorite advertising and tobacco loopholes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With conventional media mostly off-limits, what was Big Tobacco to do? Like the Marlboro Man, the unregulated Wild West of social media rode to the rescue.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The perfect marketing medium</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Social media fits Big Tobacco’s advertising needs to a tee.</b></font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">At least 88 percent of American youth say they use social media apps like Facebook and Instagram regularly, and the technologies are notoriously difficult to regulate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With Tobacco-Free Kids’ financial support, I assembled a growing team of researchers to investigate. Our work is ongoing.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">My team collected a plethora of social media data and also conducted interviews with a range of tobacco brand ambassadors, party attendees, influencers and industry insiders from around the world. What we found was an astoundingly effective use of social media by a range of different tobacco companies to connect with the next generation of potential cigarette smokers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While tobacco companies were careful to abide by the letter of the law – the influencers involved in these posts were all of legal smoking age in their countries – social media has a public setting that makes it an effective and largely unregulated form of broadcast.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Legally, anyone age 13 or over can have an Instagram or Facebook account.</b> Our “netnography” – a type of qualitative social media inquiry that focuses on cultural contexts, social structures and deeper meanings – only looked at public posts, images that any 13-year-old with an account could see.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Training camps and pop-up parties</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our investigation uncovered a range of promotional activities and a web of public relations and advertising agencies that cleverly leveraged the strengths of social media to keep tobacco advertising under the radar of existing regulation.</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">We found tobacco companies in countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines recruiting “nano-influencers” of just 2,000-3,000 followers on Facebook and Instagram and encouraging them to post about their tobacco-sponsored adventures.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In Indonesia, we found brand ambassador training camps that lasted two full weeks and were run by the domestic tobacco company Gudang Garam. At these camps, young nano-influencers were paid generous fees, taught about cigarette brands images and then provided lessons about how to better maintain their social media feeds.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Public relations agencies in Uruguay taught their influencers how to take pictures of cigarette packages in ways that best accentuated their brands, offering tips on lighting, hashtags and the best time to post them for maximum impact.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Some companies used Facebook pages to recruit young people to attend their parties.</b> After answering a few questions on the Facebook page, for example, responders were enrolled in a mailing list resulting in invitations to cool pop-up “parties and edgier events.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">At those parties, young people were greeted by attractive attendants who offered them cigarettes and encouraged them to pose with floor designs modeled after cigarette brand logos. After snapping pictures, they were encouraged to post them on their social media feed using the party’s decisiveness and action-oriented hashtags. The result was unquestionably a new form of cigarette promotion.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These activities clearly violate the spirit of the existing agreements not to indirectly advertise to young people. You can call it stealth, undercover or guerrilla marketing if you wish. Whatever its name, this is 21st-century cigarette advertising that reaches millions of young people around the world.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Exploiting social media</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our research has not only helped shine a light on Big Tobacco’s unchecked use of social media, it has also informed a recent petition to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission requesting it to investigate and enforce these novel forms of cigarette advertising.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Although it might be difficult for governments to keep on top of media in these rapidly changing times, they must do so if they hope to prevent global smoking rates and their consequent health problems from rising once again. Indeed, with leadership change in the Food and Drug Administration, new and tighter regulations on tobacco and vaping in the United States are already being cast into doubt.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Social media provide an incredible advance in communications that democratize communications in unprecedented ways.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, that openness is easy to exploit by marketers with dubious motives.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">teddy 2007?  opposed by alford </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">2/15/2007--Introduced.</span></font><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the regulation of tobacco products by the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the Food and Drug Administration, including through disclosure, annual registration, inspection, recordkeeping, and user fee requirements.</font></p><p><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sets forth criteria by which tobacco products are deemed adulterated or misbranded.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Allows the Secretary to require prior approval of all label statements.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Allows the Secretary to restrict the sale or distribution of tobacco products, including advertising and promotion, if the Secretary determines that such regulation would be appropriate for the protection of the public health. Prohibits such regulations from: (1) limiting product sales or distribution to authorization of a practitioner licensed to prescribe medical products; (2) prohibiting product sales in face-to-face transactions by a specific category of retail outlets; or (3) <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">establishing a minimum age greater than 18 years of age for product purchases.</span></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Prohibits cigarettes from containing any artificial or natural flavor </span>(other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, cinnamon, or coffee.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Requires the Secretary to establish tobacco product standards to protect the public health, but reserves to Congress the power to ban any tobacco products or reduce the nicotine level to zero.</font></p><p><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Allows the Secretary to take specified actions, including public notification and recall, against unreasonably harmful products.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Requires premarket approval of all new tobacco products.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sets forth standards for the sale of modified risk tobacco products.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) judicial review; (2) coordination with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC); (3) congressional review of regulations; and (4) state and local authority.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Requires the Secretary to establish a Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.</font></p><p><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amends the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act to change cigarette warning label and advertising requirements.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amends the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 to change smokeless tobacco warning label and advertising requirements.</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <b>Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act</b>, (<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://legislink.org/us/pl-111-31" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">Pub.L. 111–31</a>, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/1256" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">H.R. 1256</a>) is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States#Federal_law" title="Law of the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">federal statute</a> in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">United States</a> that was signed into law by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States" title="President of the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">President</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama" title="Barack Obama" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Barack Obama</a> on June 22, 2009. The Act gives the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration" title="Food and Drug Administration" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Food and Drug Administration</a> the power to regulate the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry" title="Tobacco industry" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">tobacco industry</a>. A signature element of the law imposes new warnings and labels on tobacco packaging and their advertisements, with the goal of discouraging minors and young adults from smoking. The Act also bans flavored cigarettes, places limits on the advertising of tobacco products to minors and requires tobacco companies to seek FDA approval for new tobacco products.</font></p><div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 7px; display: table; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><div id="toctitle" style="direction: ltr; text-align: center;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border: medium none; display: inline; line-height: 1.3; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Contents</font></font></font></font></h2> <span class="toctoggle" style="-webkit-user-select: none;"> [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#" id="togglelink" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">hide</a>] </span></div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#Origins_and_proposal" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Origins and proposal</span></a></font></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#Legislative_history" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Legislative history</span></a></font></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#Provisions" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">Provisions</span></a></font></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#Reception_and_impact" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="tocnumber">4</span> <span class="toctext">Reception and impact</span></a></font><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#Lawsuits_and_constitutionality" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="tocnumber">4.1</span> <span class="toctext">Lawsuits and constitutionality</span></a></font></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#International_litigation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="tocnumber">4.2</span> <span class="toctext">International litigation</span></a></font></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#See_also" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="tocnumber">5</span> <span class="toctext">See also</span></a></font></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#References" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="tocnumber">6</span> <span class="toctext">References</span></a></font></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#External_links" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;"><span class="tocnumber">7</span> <span class="toctext">External links</span></a></font></li></ul></div><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Origins_and_proposal">Origins and proposal</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act&action=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: Origins and proposal" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;">]</span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On March 21, 2000, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Supreme Court</a> in <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_v.Brown%26_Williamson_Tobacco_Corp." title="FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp." style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.</a></i> held that based on their reading of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Food,Drug,and_Cosmetic_Act" title="Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act</a>, particularly when considering "Congress’ subsequent tobacco-specific legislation," that Congress had not given the FDA the authority to<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_tobacco_by_the_U.S.Food_and_Drug_Administration" title="Regulation of tobacco by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">regulate tobacco products</a> as customarily marketed.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[1]</a></sup> Thus the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was introduced to respond to the decision, which had held that the Clinton administration's FDA had "overreached" its Congressionally delegated authority, thus giving the FDA the authority the Court determined it had lacked.<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-2" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[2]</a></sup></font></p><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Legislative_history">Legislative history</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act&action=edit&section=2" title="Edit section: Legislative history" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;">]</span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The bill passed the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="United States House of Representatives" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">United States House of Representatives</a> on April 2, 2009, by a vote of 298 to 112.<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a></sup> The House bill had 178 cosponsors<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-4" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[4]</a></sup> and the companion legislation in the Senate, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/982" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">S. 982</a> had 57 cosponsors.<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[5]</a></sup> On May 20, 2009, the Senate <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Health,Education,Labor,and_Pensions" title="Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions</a>ordered the Senate bill to be reported favorably with amendments on a 15-8 vote.<sup id="cite_ref-Rushing_6-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-Rushing-6" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[6]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Capitol Hill newspaper <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hill(newspaper)" title="The Hill (newspaper)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">The Hill</a></i> reported on May 25, 2009, that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Majority_Leader" title="Senate Majority Leader" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Senate Majority Leader</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid" title="Harry Reid" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Reid</a> planned to move on the bill during the month of June 2009; however it noted that Senators <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Burr" title="Richard Burr" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Burr</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Hagan" title="Kay Hagan" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Hagan</a> of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina" title="North Carolina" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">North Carolina</a> were proposing alternative legislation.<sup id="cite_ref-Rushing_6-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-Rushing-6" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[6]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On June 2, the Senate voted 84-11 to proceed to consideration of the House bill.<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-7" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a></sup> On June 8, the Senate voted 61-30 on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture" title="Cloture" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">cloture</a> on amendments to the Senate bill. The "Senate bill requires that cigarette health warning labels be large enough to make up 50 percent of the front and rear panels of the package and that the word “warning” appear in capital letters."<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a></sup> On June 11, the Senate passed H.R. 1256 by a vote of 79-17, with 3 Senators not voting.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[9]</a></sup> Passage of the legislation came a week later than was originally scheduled.<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[10]</a></sup> The Senate's version of the bill was approved by the House on June 12, by a bipartisan vote of 307-97.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[11]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Media accounts noted that the opposition in the Senate was largely from tobacco farming states, particularly Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, with the only Democrat in opposition being <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Hagan" title="Kay Hagan" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Kay Hagan</a>, from North Carolina. Notable exceptions were Virginia Senators <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb" title="Jim Webb" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Jim Webb</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner" title="Mark Warner" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Mark Warner</a> who supported the measure, despite the state's connection to the tobacco industry.<sup id="cite_ref-12" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[12]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was signed into law on June 22, 2009, by President <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama" title="Barack Obama" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Barack Obama</a>.</font></p><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Provisions">Provisions</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act&action=edit&section=3" title="Edit section: Provisions" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;">]</span></span></font></h2><ul style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" a="A" csvg="Csvg" http="http" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" ccircle="Ccircle" cx="cx" cy="cy" r="r" fill="fill" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Creates the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Tobacco_Products" title="Center for Tobacco Products" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Center for Tobacco Products</a>, a tobacco control center within the FDA and gives the FDA authority to regulate the content, marketing and sale of tobacco products.</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Requires tobacco companies and importers to reveal all product ingredients and seek FDA approval for any new tobacco products.</span></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Allows the FDA to change tobacco product content.</span></font><ul style="list-style-type: disc; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(data:image/svg+xml,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%20encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%0A%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20version%3D%221.1%22%20width%3D%225%22%20height%3D%2213%22%3E%0A%3Ccircle%20cx%3D%222.5%22%20cy%3D%229.5%22%20r%3D%222.5%22%20fill%3D%22%2300528c%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E%0A);"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> ban on flavoring </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">applies to any product meeting the definition of a "cigarette" according to section 3(1) of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. This includes any tobacco that comes rolled in paper or a non-tobacco substance, and added to this definition in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is any tobacco with the purpose to be rolled such as rolling tobacco.</span></font></li></ul></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Calls for new rules to prevent sales except through direct, face-to-face exchanges between a retailer and a consumer.</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Limits advertising that could attract young smokers.</span></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Requires cigarette warning labels to cover 50 percent of the front and rear of each pack, with the word <i>warning</i> in capital letters.</span></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Requires FDA approval for the use of expressions such as "light, "mild" or "low" that give the impression that a particular tobacco product poses less of a health risk.</span><sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-13" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[13]</a></sup></font></li></ul><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The bill makes no provisions that ban the import of the banned items for personal consumption, only for "sale or distribution". (Division A Title II Section 201) <sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-14" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[14]</a></sup></font></p><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Reception_and_impact">Reception and impact</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Reception and impact" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;">]</span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Passing of the law was supported by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Cancer_Society" title="American Cancer Society" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">American Cancer Society</a>, whose CEO noted in a press release that "[t]his bill forces Big Tobacco to disclose the poisons in its products and has the power to finally break the dangerous chain of addiction for generations to come."<sup id="cite_ref-ACS_15-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-ACS-15" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[15]</a></sup> The ACS press release also noted that the legislation would "require cigarette companies to disclose all ingredients used in cigarettes and to stop using words like 'light' and 'ultra-light' to give the impression that some tobacco products have a lower health risk." The legislation also garnered support from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Heart_Association" title="American Heart Association" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">American Heart Association</a>, whose CEO noted that the bill "provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults." <sup id="cite_ref-16" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-16" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[16]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The law was criticized by some as ineffectual, with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_health" title="Community health" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">community health</a> sciences professor Michael Siegel stating that it "creates the appearance of regulation without allowing actual regulation." Critics argue that without the authority to eliminate nicotine completely, the reduction of nicotine levels in cigarettes may result in compensation by existing smokers, increasing their cigarette smoke inhalation to consume a level of nicotine which will satisfy their cravings.<sup id="cite_ref-Siegel_17-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-Siegel-17" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[17]</a></sup> The Tobacco Control Act has been called "the Marlboro Protection Act" because it grandfathered in tobacco products marketed before 2007, while erecting nearly impassable financial and regulatory barriers for the introduction of competing products to the US market.<sup id="cite_ref-18" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-18" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[18]</a></sup> These marketing restrictions enacted by the bill make it more difficult to promote safer smokeless alternatives to cigarettes. The restrictions have been disputed on the grounds of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech" title="Free speech" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">free speech</a>, with some stating that the legislation violates the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-WSJ_19-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-WSJ-19" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[19]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The bill bans flavored cigarettes, including <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kretek" title="Kretek" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">cloves</a>, cinnamon, candy, and fruit flavors, with a special exception for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menthol_cigarette" title="Menthol cigarette" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">menthol cigarettes</a>. Because <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_USA" title="Philip Morris USA" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Philip Morris</a> is the largest producer of cigarettes in the United States and the bill would have the effect of eliminating potential competition, the bill has been nicknamed the <i>Marlboro Monopoly Act of 2009</i>.<sup id="cite_ref-20" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-20" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[20]</a></sup> Philip Morris strongly supports FDA regulation.<sup id="cite_ref-21" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-21" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[21]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-22" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[22]</a></sup> The exemption was reportedly influenced by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus" title="Congressional Black Caucus" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Congressional Black Caucus</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-Siegel_17-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-Siegel-17" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[17]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-WSJ_19-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-WSJ-19" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[19]</a></sup> The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Products_Scientific_Advisory_Committee" title="Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee</a> provisioned under the bill is to submit a recommendation on menthol cigarettes to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Services" title="United States Secretary of Health and Human Services" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">United States Secretary of Health and Human Services</a> no later than one year after its establishment.</font></p><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Lawsuits_and_constitutionality">Lawsuits and constitutionality</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act&action=edit&section=5" title="Edit section: Lawsuits and constitutionality" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;">]</span></span></font></h3><ul style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" a="A" csvg="Csvg" http="http" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" ccircle="Ccircle" cx="cx" cy="cy" r="r" fill="fill" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px" background-color="background-color" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On August 31, 2009, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Brands" title="Commonwealth Brands" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Commonwealth Brands</a> filed suit (Commonwealth Brands, Inc. v. United States) against the United States and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration" title="Food and Drug Administration" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Food and Drug Administration</a>. Alleging that the advertising restrictions embodied in the FSPTCA unconstitutionally infringe on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">First Amendment</a>. These provisions include: restricting advertising to black-and-white text; restricting tobacco companies from advertising “light” cigarettes; prohibiting advertising within 1,000 feet of areas where children congregate; banning event sponsorship by tobacco companies; and prohibiting free sample distribution of cigarettes.<sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-23" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[23]</a></sup></font></li></ul><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In June 2011, the FDA released nine new warning signs containing both graphic text and images that should be included on all cigarette packaging and advertisement by September 2012.<sup id="cite_ref-24" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-24" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[24]</a></sup> The textual warnings state: "WARNING: Cigarettes are addictive. WARNING: Tobacco smoke can harm your children. WARNING: Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease. WARNING: Cigarettes cause cancer. WARNING: Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease. WARNING: Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby. WARNING: Smoking can kill you. WARNING: Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in nonsmokers. WARNING: Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health."<sup id="cite_ref-25" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-25" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[25]</a></sup> Each warning is to be paired with one of the following colored images: a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat; a plume of cigarette smoke enveloping an infant receiving a kiss from his or her mother; a pair of diseased lungs next to a pair of healthy lungs; a diseased mouth afflicted with what appears to be cancerous lesions; a man breathing into an oxygen mask; a bare-chested male cadaver lying on a table, and featuring what appears to be post-autopsy chest staples down the middle of his torso; a woman weeping uncontrollably; or a man wearing a t-shirt that features a "no smoking" symbol and the words "I Quit."<sup id="cite_ref-26" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-26" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[26]</a></sup> Four tobacco companies responded to the mandate by filing a legal challenge in August.</font></p><ul style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" a="A" csvg="Csvg" http="http" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" ccircle="Ccircle" cx="cx" cy="cy" r="r" fill="fill" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP vs U.S. Food and Drug Admin., the plaintiffs argued that flavored rolling papers, as utilized in the process of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roll-your-own" title="Roll-your-own" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">roll-your-own</a>-tobacco cigarettes, did not qualify as tobacco products under the FSPTCA <sup id="cite_ref-lawlib_27-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-lawlib-27" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[27]</a></sup></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Lorillard Inc. filed lawsuit in the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.District_Court_for_the_District_of_Columbia" title="U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and was joined by </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.J.Reynolds_Tobacco" title="R.J. Reynolds Tobacco" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">R.J. Reynolds Tobacco</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Co., Commonwealth Brands Inc. and Liggett Group LLC, challenging the constitutionality of the FSPTCA,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> regarding free speech in advertising claims </span><sup id="cite_ref-28" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-28" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[28]</a></sup></font></li></ul><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: 22.4px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The constitutionality of the provision requiring graphic warnings on cigarette packs has been questioned with tobacco companies and others saying that the new warnings violated the first amendment by going beyond being informational and </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">require manufactures of a legal product to "engage in anti-smoking advocacy" on the government's behalf.<sup id="cite_ref-29" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-29" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[29]</a></sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.J.Reynolds" title="R.J. Reynolds" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">R.J. Reynolds</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorillard" title="Lorillard" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Lorillard</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liggett_Group" title="Liggett Group" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Liggett Group</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Brands" title="Commonwealth Brands" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Commonwealth Brands</a>, filed a lawsuit against the FDA in August 2011.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> It should be noted that </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria" title="Altria" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Altria</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> did not take any legal action. On November 7, 2011, US district judge </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J.Leon" title="Richard J. Leon" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Richard Leon</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> granted a temporary injunction postponing the implementation of the new warnings, ruling that "It is abundantly clear from viewing these images that the emotional response they were crafted to induce is calculated to provoke the viewer to quit, or never to start smoking - an objective wholly apart from disseminating purely factual and uncontroversial information."</span><sup id="cite_ref-30" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-30" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[30]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> The Court of Appeals for the </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">D.C. Circuit upheld the District Court’s opinion that the labels were unconstitutional, analyzing the labels under the Central Hudson standard.</span><sup id="cite_ref-31" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-31" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[31]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Before the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling, a divided panel for the <b>Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Act </b>in the case of Discount Tobacco City & Lottery v. FDA.</span><sup id="cite_ref-32" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-32" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[32]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> On April 22, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the law, declining to hear the challenge against it.</span><sup id="cite_ref-33" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#cite_note-33" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[33]</a></sup></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6/15</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">MONTREAL (AP) — A judge has awarded more than $15 billion Canadian (US$12 billion) to Quebec smokers in a case that pitted them against three giant tobacco companies. The case is believed to be the biggest <b>class-action lawsuit </b>ever seen in Canada.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Superior Court Justice Brian Riordan said in his decision released late Monday that by choosing not to inform health authorities or the public directly of what they knew, the companies chose profits over the health of their customers.</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4/15</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">By Phil Mattera, <a href="http://dirtdiggersdigest.org/archives/4723" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Dirt Diggers Digest</a></em></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At the headquarters of Reynolds American (parent of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco) in North Carolina and the Virginia headquarters of Altria (parent of Philip Morris USA) time is apparently running backwards. The two companies just <a href="http://fortune.com/2015/04/14/tobacco-co-sue-fda-over-label-approvals/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">filed</a> a lawsuit in DC federal court that reads like it was written in 1995, not 2015.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The target of the suit (15-CV-00544) is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which the companies apparently have forgotten was given <a href="http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm298595.htm" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">authority</a> by Congress in 2009 to regulate tobacco marketing, including the introduction of new products. That law came after years of vociferous opposition by Big Tobacco.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What has the companies up in arms is an FDA <a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM436468.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">guidance document</a> issued in March concerning review requirements for packaging changes. The agency takes the position that certain modifications in background color, logo and descriptors can be significant enough to trigger the stricter rules regarding new products.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Presenting themselves as victims of government overreach, the companies argue that their First Amendment rights are being violated: "FDA's unlawful actions already have harmed Plaintiffs and threaten greater harms in the future by restricting Plaintiffs' ability to modify their product labels without FDA preauthorization and by chilling and restricting protected speech."</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Although the case does not involve the federal warning labels that have been required for decades, it makes the puzzling argument that the FDA guidelines also violate the industry's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While it is not unusual for big business to assert free speech rights to oppose regulations, this position is particularly galling when it comes from the tobacco industry. These are the companies, after all, that for decades concealed and denied the hazards of smoking, asserting it was their right to "believe" their products were non-addictive and did not cause cancer despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Their dishonest claims were made all the more fraudulent when documents came to light indicating that firms such as Brown & Williamson (now part of Reynolds American) <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/07/us/tobacco-company-was-silent-on-hazards.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">knew</a> about the dangers at least as far back as the early 1960s.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The issue of control over tobacco packaging was already fought, and the industry lost. In 2006 a federal court, finding that the industry had caused "an immeasurable amount of suffering,"<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/washington/18tobacco.html?_r=0" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">ordered</a> it stop labeling cigarettes with designations such as low tar, light and natural that gave the misleading impression that they were safe.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tobacco companies began using techniques such as package coloring to get around the restriction. In 2010 a <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/business/19smoke.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">article</a> on the practice quoted Prof. Gregory Connolly of the Harvard School of Public Health as saying the industry was "circumventing the law." He added: "They're using color coding to perpetuate one of the biggest public health myths into the next century."</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At the heart of the new case is the tension between public policies designed to discourage tobacco use and the continued existence of an industry which has to attract customers to survive. The industry's lawsuit, with its assertion of free speech rights, proceeds from the assumption that producing and selling tobacco products is a legitimate activity. A more appropriate premise might be that tobacco is a public health menace that should be controlled as tightly as possible until the last smoker has kicked the habit and the companies can shut down.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Big Tobacco would do well to stop wrapping itself in the Bill of Rights and acknowledge that it is lucky it is still allowed to sell its deadly products at all.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">(Note: This piece draws from my new Corporate Rap Sheets on <a href="http://corp-research.org/reynolds_american" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Reynolds American</a> and <a href="http://corp-research.org/altria_pmi" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Altria</a>.)</em></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div>