Graphic Warnings on Cigarette Labels - Research Paper Example

Big Tobacco Sues Feds over Graphic Warning on Cigarette No: Roll No: Big Tobacco Sues Feds over Graphic Warnings on Cigarette Labels Cigarettes are the most heavily promoted consumer product in the US. Hence, there is a big question mark why people love to smoke tobacco despite “tobacco is injurious to health.” Perhaps there is a strong believe that it reflects fashion of the age and style of a personality. The tobacco is playing key role in generating revenues for the state. This is evident from this quote written by Akehurst (1981) "As an instrument of financial policy tobacco is unique. It is not clear why this should be, but the tradition is now well established. In fact tobacco has two distinct functions, one as a consumable article and the other as a revenue earner, which at times appears to secure conflicting official treatment" (Breed, 2011). To counter this thought that tobacco is injurious to health, major cigarette manufacturing companies spent millions of dollars. They found anti smoking campaign by the government just to malign the minds of the people since scientific research yet to establish the actual cause of death of a person. Any law or ordinance that prohibits the sale of cigarettes at this stage is unjustified. It backs the American jurisprudence a man or woman is “innocent until proven guilty” (Breed, 2011). Yet Scientists have to prove that tobacco smoke or any of its constituents in cigarette cause human disease. So far, the research and studies conducted to find out the real cause of death/damages on human body, comes to the conclusion that tobacco cannot be blamed as a solo reason for the death of a person but the weak immune system that vary from individual to individual effects the human body (Breed, 2011). The strong defense of the tobacco manufacturing companies is that they are contributing a lot in shape of taxes to the national exchequers imposed by the concerned state on tobacco products. Further this industry employees a large number of employees. In case of industry, failure there could be two pronged losses: a) loss of taxes that collects by the states b) unemployment. Any effort to undermine the industry would have devastating impact on the jobs of more than 400,000 workers associated with tobacco industry besides losing of jobs of another 300,000 employees of its allied industries. As far as revenue generation through sale of this product is concerned, smokers are contributing approximately ten billion dollars a year, which reflects the sizeable chunk towards total revenue of the United States of America (Breed, 2011). The biased advertisement comprised of pictures of those smokers who have become isolated and not involved in social activities. In the good olden days actors, sports heroes, doctors etc. were the important part of healthy advertising campaign. This is the obvious difference between the then advertisements and the present day advertisements. Further, business promotional activities enhanced its scope to the events i.e. sponsoring art exhibits, sporting events, fine musical and rock musical concerts (Breed, 2011). In this respect, one unique way to advertise the product is Marlboro in the Superman II movie. The benefit of advertising by this way, in fact influence the minds of the smokers/non-smokers to use the brand which hero of the mentioned film is used. There are so many other brands in which famous persons of film and television were / are engaged to advertise the brands aims at wooing the customers to select advertised product (Breed, 2011). No doubt tobacco industry has the right to sell their products which by all means a legal product but in a restrictive way. The main restriction imposed on the manufacturers is that it will not sell to the minors who are below the age of 18. Further, they will not advertise the products in school /college publications or in the campuses. It requires that all models who advertise tobacco should be over 25 years of age. Moreover, the advertising material does not contain cigarette as pastime leading to success, sexual attraction for opposite sex or to become a prominent figure in the society (Breed, 2011). Prior to anti smoking laws for the minors the advertising company worked for the minors who just entered into the age of 14 to enjoy the pleasure of smoking. There was a time when cigarette-smoking promoters used to sell their products in the busy commercial streets of American States just to attract the passerby to purchase their brand of cigarette. Even the minors had the opportunity to get free packs from the sellers (Breed, 2011). At that time, special brand was the prestige of known figures and the elite class. The cigarette manufacturing companies located in England frequently focused their legend Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill who used to smoke cigars daily and live up to the age of ninety-one. That sort of campaign reminds to the smokers and the non-smokers alike that smoking has nothing to do with the health problem and does not harm the one’s life expectancy (Breed, 2011). Defendants arguments in the competent court of law in relation to cigarette smoking can be categorized into mentioned segments: (a) no scientific proof available that indicates cigarette smoking causes lung cancer (b) plaintiff did not have lung cancer as claimed in the petition by the plaintiff (c) type of lung cancer had no relation with cigarette smoking (d) tobacco products cannot be blamed as the sole reason of cancer (e) defendants cigarettes brand(s) may have played a role in the plaintiffs illness or death, but the other risk factors should also be taken into account to fix the defendants responsibility and (f) the defendants cigarettes may have been a factor in the plaintiffs illness or death, but the plaintiff should have knowledge about the good / bad effects while choosing the brand. The smokers cannot be absolved from their responsibilities. It transpired from the above that smoking is not a proven cause of lung cancer as propagated in print and electronic media (Milberger, et. al, 2006). The major companies who filed petitions against the state who usurped their rights of free speech on account of graphic warning on cigarettes packs with the instructions of tobacco control authority. In the recent past, the FDA has approved nine fresh graphic warnings on cigarette packs. Out of which one carries a picture of a dead body with its chest sewed up with these words “Smoking can kill you.” In another picture a healthy pair of lungs beside a yellow and black pair, that carries a message “smoking cause fatal lung disease” (Janna, 2011). It is interesting to note that the cigarette manufacturers who have to spend millions of dollars against their own products by inscribing the mentioned sentences. This has never happened in the history of US that for a lawful product, producers are required to use their own packaging for advertising and conveying emotionally charged government messages for adults / non-adults smokers to shun their smoking habits (Janna, 2011). This issue has been highlighted in the lawsuit filed in the federal court of Washington against the impugned directives of the state. The lawsuit alleges that one-sided warning campaign did not convey the factual position to allow people to make their own decision. The users should speak to their minds while choosing their favorite brands rather than emotionally charging people against the industry who generously contributes to the national exchequer (Janna, 2011). A Cigarette pack that contains graphic warnings becomes a controversial issue for health/manufacturing sectors. The other day US judge interrupted the government’s attempt to publish graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. He is of the view that such ordinance or law is the violation of freedom of speech that enshrined in the constitution. Government insistence on publishing the material, which creates stir amongst the smokers according to Judge Richard Leon, is “an anti smoking drive” (Writ, 2011). The Lorillard, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Commonwealth Brands, Inc., Liggett Group LLC, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company have filed a joint petition against the government directives in an effort to stop US FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services from approving the said proposal in 2012 (Writ, 2011). First amendment to the US Constitution speaks for itself the success of the tobacco companies concerning guarantees of freedom of speech, religion and assembly that have bestowed upon by the constitution. Constitutionally, the rights and protection of free speech of an individual is guaranteed. The said amendment has also provided protection to consumer against “compelled commercial speech” as ruled out by the said judge (Writ, 2011). The court while wrap up the petition held “plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of their position that these mandatory graphic images unconstitutionally deprived of freedom of speech and that they will suffer irreparable harm. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is granted accordingly.” (Writ, 2011) In accordance with the decision of Cuomo administration which was announced in the month of July about possible crack down on tax dodgers who sells tax-free cigarettes to their customers. The new policy has two dominant effects: firstly, wholesalers who made hey while the sun shines by selling tax-free cigarettes would be on a tight rope. Secondly, the decision in question will give boost to tobacco sales in the years to come (Precious, 2011). Smokers have been rushed to the far cheaper Indian brand cigarettes because Cuomo administration announced enforcement of tax collection on major brand cigarettes. Now smoke shops are no longer in a position to sell major brands instead they are dumping inferior brands to sell thus affecting the sales of reputable brands. This is just to keep themselves out of the access of the law enforcers. J.C. Seneca owner of six nations manufacturing considered it "good success”. As per the statement of J.C. Seneca, he sold around 20 million cigarettes within a month to smokers, which highlight sizeable increase in tobacco smoking by the American people. The Buffalo as a wholesaler not very long ago was supplying 6 million cigarettes to smokers (Precious, 2011). With the imposition of tax on native cigarette manufacturing companies, the Indian brand of cigarette finds its inroads in the American market. On the other hand, large size of companies is losing customers because of cheap Indian brands. They are using creative marketing to create a niche in the market. The Cuomo administration kept mum on the issue, which relates to taxing Indian brand tobacco (Precious, 2011). The total tax collection for cigarettes fell from July through September this year. A comparison of current and previous sale reveals declining trend. According to the state tax collection agency, total tax collection in respect of cigarettes shows visible decrease in the third quarter of the year i.e. from 429 USD to 427USD. State officials cautioned about figurative jugglery in numbers a year ago, when wholesalers and retailers compelled to pay higher taxes for all its inventories since the states excise tax was raised July 1, 2010, to $4 (Precious, 2011). It is presumed that sales of Indian brands have gained grounds in the US tobacco industry. Due to increase Indian brands, the owner of Irving tobacco employing 175 people in addition to the existing workers for his cigarette manufacturing plant. The state is losing billion dollars a year to Indian sales. The other possibility of losing billion dollars is the increases in prices of native brands that compel people to keep away from smoking (Precious, 2011). The cigarette manufacturers are in agreement that smoking may be a nuisance but nuisance in not the health hazard. Before arriving at a decisive conclusion by the investigators, the anti smoking drive amounts to putting a cart before the horse which may cause irreparable damages to the tobacco industry that has direct bearing on the national exchequer in terms of taxes. Further, analysis of the tobacco industry of the United States of America indicates two-way threats to this industry a) anti smoking drive, which carries frightening sentences and pictures that forcing people to keep an arm’s distance with the tobacco smoking b) native brands are replacing with the Indian brands since cheap and available at an affordable rate. Until and unless mentioned issues are handled by the American cigarette manufacturing companies, the chances of generating sizeable revenue would be an elusive dream. References Breed, Larry. (2011). Strategies of the Tobacco Industry. Retrieved on November 15, 2011 from http://www.tobacco.org/resources/history/strategieslb.html Janna. (2011). Big Tobacco Sues Feds Over Graphic Warnings on Packaging. Retrieved on November 15, 2011 from http://rivergrandrapids.com/big-tobacco-sues-feds-over-graphic-warnings-on-packaging/ Milberger, S., Davis, Ronald M., Douglas, Clifford E., Beasley, John K., Burns, D., Houston, T. and Shopland, D. (2006). Tobacco manufacturers defence against plaintiffs claims of cancer causation: throwing mud at the wall and hoping some of it will stick. Tob Control 15 (4). Also available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563590/ Precious, Tom. (2011). Watching a Policy go in Smoke. Retrieved on November 15, 2011 from http://www.buffalonews.com/city/capital-connection/albany/article615290.ece Writ, Art. (2011). Graphing Warnings on Cigarettes, Blocked By US Court. Retrieved on November 15, 2011 from http://www.healblog.net/health-news/graphing-warnings-on-cigarettes-blocked-by-us-court/ Read More