March 20, 2013 - CigarettesReviews.com | CigarettesReviews.com

Daily Archives: March 20, 2013

Cigarette Warning-Label Ruling won’t be appealed by U.S.

The U.S.A Justice Department won’t ask the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that struck down rules requiring graphic health warnings on cigarette packs.

imagesAttorney General Eric Holder, in a letter to Congress on March 15, said the Food and Drug Administration will create new rules to first amendment concerns raised by the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision that found the requirements violated free speech rights of tobacco companies.

“If a Court of Appeal had to postpone the new FDA regulations at a later date, will not be able to claim the full Supreme Court review at that time,” Holder said.

The FDA has been accused in 2011 R.J. Reynolds, a unit of Reynolds American Inc (RAI), Lorillard Tobacco Co, Commonwealth Brands Inc, Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co, the company argued that the mandates on cigarette packs, cartons and ads, passed as part of Family Smoking Prevention and Control it violated the First Amendment because the government is using “threats and fear” to motivate people to stop using the legitimate product.

Tracheotomy hole

The Government argued that the nine images chosen agency for placement on the packaging and advertising of the true image requires Congress to show the negative health consequences of smoking. One image was a man with cigarette smoke coming from a tracheotomy hole in his throat. The other was a corpse with a chest guard on autopsy table.

Schedule should cover the top half of the front and back of cigarette packages and 20 percent of printed advertising.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled on August 24 that the visual images, along with a phone number 1-800-QUIT-NOW, are “provocative attempt evoke emotion” and “intimidate consumers” stop buying the products of companies.

Department request that the full appeals court to reconsider the decision was rejected in December.

Brian Hatchell, spokesman for Reynolds, and Robert Bannon, a spokesman for Lorillard, did not respond to phone calls and e-mails seeking comment on the letter to the owner.

The fact is, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 11-5332, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Washington).