Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association - Essay Example

ROWE In the case of Rowe vs. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, the main issue was about the sale of tobacco products to minors. In terms ofprecedent for the case, stated related cases include Morales, in which the state argument to set aside regulations is assumed to be in line with the situation where, “efforts to prevent minors from obtaining cigarettes is unpersuasive in light of other legislative alternatives available to the State. Regardless, given Morales’ holding that federal law pre-empts state consumer-protection laws, federal law must also pre-empt Maine’s efforts directly to regulate carrier services” (Rowe, 2010).

The case is also about the appropriateness of Maine’s Tobacco Delivery Law.The Tobacco Delivery Law puts safety requirements on all transportation of tobacco products. The law requires that stores which carry these products must use a delivery system that does not give any tobacco products to unlicensed stores or let them fall into the hands of minors (those under 18 years old). Based on this law, The New Hampshire Motor Transport Association filed suit, noting that the Tobacco Delivery Law was counteracted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).

“The preemption provision of the FAAAA prohibits state from enacting laws "related to" the prices, routes, or services of air and motor carriers. The Association argued that the Tobacco Delivery Law placed such a burden on the delivery procedures of carriers that significantly affected their prices and services” (Brief, 2010). Faced with this argument, those working for the state countered that the FAAAA was originally at cross purposes with the Tobacco Delivery Law, and that the purposes of the Tobacco Delivery Law generally were focused on regulating based on a threat to the harm of society.

In US District Court, the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association prevailed in its argument, and on appeal, this organization also prevailed in its argument again. “The First Circuit held that a police power exception to the general rule of preemption would be far too broad and was not intended by Congress. Maine could validly ban all unlicensed tobacco products within its borders, but the FAAAA prohibited the state from implementing this goal by imposing requirements on carriers that significantly alter their delivery procedures” (Rowe, 2010).

Therefore, in the case, it was found that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 does not overshadow a state law that uses the states law enforcement officers’ power to ensure tobacco is not sold to minors or unlicensed stores. The power of Maine’s state law to be superimposed by federal law was established in the case. This case also brings up issues of smoking in society. If one asks ten people who smoke if they plan on, or have thought about, quitting, a majority appears.

Quitting smoking, however, is not so easy. In fact, many smokers are lapsed quitters. This is because nicotine is a physical, not just psychological, addiction. Generally, when one is talking about addiction, it refers to a limited set of specifics that define the addiction, but the idea of the addictive personality is to see who may be predisposed to be addicted to various activities or things, including smoking. Addiction is also increasingly accepted and tolerated in society so that many activities and things which may have not been considered addictive in the past, such as food, exercise, work, and relationships, are now also accepted increasingly as valid addictions.

Smoking has long been recognized as an addiction; its harmful properties are a more recent discovery.REFERENCECase Brief-- Rowe (2010). http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_457 Rowe v New Hampshire Motor Transport Assoc (2010). http://www.law.cornell.edu… (2010). http://www.findlaw.com