Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

U.S. Supreme Court Hears 'Light' Cigarettes Case
October 7, 2008

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week over whether tobacco companies can be sued under state law for deceptively advertising "light" cigarettes, Reuters reported Oct. 6.

Attorneys representing Philip Morris USA argued that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act bars lawsuits like the one filed by three longtime smokers in Maine, who claimed that tobacco firms used unfair and deceptive acts or practices in advertising cigarettes as "light" or having "lowered tar and nicotine."

Attorney Theodore Olson, arguing on behalf of Philip Morris, said Congress had declared one national source of regulation for advertising of cigarettes and health claims, adding that if states can set separate standards then "national advertising becomes impossible." Attorneys representing the smokers argued that the law adopted by Congress was not intended to give cigarette makers immunity to make false statements.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts noted that federal law specifically covered what companies can say about a product's safety and health status, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed concern that a ruling in favor of the tobacco companies might also bar state attorneys general from filing lawsuits.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has long allowed the use of "light" and "low tar" in advertising cigarettes, which prompted criticism from Justice Samuel Alito, who said the agency was responsible for creating the problem and had "misled everyone who has bought these cigarettes for a long time."

A ruling on the case is expected early in 2009.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:
(Comments now appear first to last)

Posted by Linda Mullis on 08 Oct 08 10:56 AM EDT
I feel the advertising is very misleading. I smoked 3 packs a day of NOW an advertised low tar and nicotine cigarette for years and am now paying for it with COPD and on inhalers for breathing. All because I thought that NOW's were a better alternative.

Your Turn! Post a public comment (guidelines):

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for everyone, please:

  1. Keep it clean, courteous, brief, and on-topic. Comments are for discussion of the above article, not general rants or manifestos. Serial comments intended to circumvent the 250-word limit may be deleted.

  2. Do not post promotional web links, personal information or requests for assistance (get help).

  3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercial posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.