Skip to comments.
Justices turn away tobacco companies' appeal about ads
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16517 ^
| 2 21 06
| associated press
Posted on 02/21/2006 12:28:39 PM PST by freepatriot32
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court today refused to hear an appeal by two North Carolina-based tobacco companies who claimed California's tough anti-smoking ads smeared their reputations.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., now Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc., and Lorillard Tobacco Co. of Greensboro, N.C., had asked the justices to overturn a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that rejected the companies' claims that their First Amendment rights were violated by California's ad campaign.
California uses part of an 87-cent tax on every package of cigarettes to fund health education that includes a campaign to discourage smoking.
The ads included a scene where cigarettes rained down on children playing in a schoolyard as a voice, purportedly of a tobacco executive, announced, "We have to sell cigarettes to your kids. We need half a million new smokers a year just to stay in business ... It's nothing personal. You understand."
The companies objected to the state using revenue from taxes on cigarettes, effectively forcing the tobacco industry to pay to vilify itself.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: about; ads; appeal; away; companies; govwatch; justices; libertarians; lorillard; nannystate; pufflist; rjreynolds; ruling; scotus; tobacco; turn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: SheLion; Gabz; Wolfie
2
posted on
02/21/2006 12:29:07 PM PST
by
freepatriot32
(Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
To: albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; ...

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
3
posted on
02/21/2006 12:31:21 PM PST
by
freepatriot32
(Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
To: freepatriot32; The Foolkiller; Just another Joe; Madame Dufarge; Cantiloper; metesky; kattracks; ...
4
posted on
02/21/2006 12:31:31 PM PST
by
SheLion
(Trying to make a life in the BLUE state of Maine!)
To: freepatriot32
Bah!
The state can do whatever they have the force to kick your azz into doing.
They'll make you pay for your own azz kicking too.
5
posted on
02/21/2006 12:31:52 PM PST
by
Just another Joe
(Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: freepatriot32
In the last 100 years we have let the government buy our birthright with our own tax money.
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown
btw, this is nothing new, everytime conservatives send mail via the post office and send their kids to school they are donating money to the democratic party.
6
posted on
02/21/2006 12:45:36 PM PST
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/israel_palestine_conflict.htm)
To: everyone
The fact that tobacco companies have been forced to pay for messages that vilify them is totalitarian. A Supreme Court that isn't interested in their case is a Supreme Court that is A LONG WAY from true constitutionalism.
Alito and the rest are a band-aid. Better than nothing, but we will need several more constitutionalists on the court -- some of whom are bolder than they apparently are.
7
posted on
02/21/2006 12:57:58 PM PST
by
California Patriot
("That's not Charlie the Tuna out there. It's Jaws.")
To: freepatriot32
And to think, the original intent was to pay for direct medical costs due to smoking.
8
posted on
02/21/2006 1:07:36 PM PST
by
Old Professer
(Fix the problem, not the blame!)
To: freepatriot32
While I agree it it unAmerican to force the tobacco companies to pay for their own slander, I can't buy the argument that these ads are 'tough'. I have never smoked and dislike people smoking around me, but when one of those 'truth' or other anti-smoking ad comes on TV I get irritated. Often times I'll change the channel and always I feel like buying a pack of smokes just to spite the really annoying people in the ads. We actually did buy some Phillip Morris stock in protest. Adds that are preachy and try to force behavior change are not effective.
9
posted on
02/21/2006 1:28:11 PM PST
by
YoungCurmudgeon
(I slept and dreamed that life was beauty. I woke to find that life is duty.)
How about the Rob Reiner clowns are using part of this tobacco tax money to fund the propaganda drive for the current ballot initiative to create "free" preschool for all?
To: freepatriot32
I cant believed they refused to hear this case in light of the religious tea ruling they made earlier today I'm with you.........
11
posted on
02/21/2006 3:33:39 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Smoke gnatzies: small minds buzzing in you business........SWAT'EM)
To: freepatriot32; Just another Joe; CSM; lockjaw02; Publius6961; elkfersupper; nopardons; metesky; ...
The companies objected to the state using revenue from taxes on cigarettes, effectively forcing the tobacco industry to pay to vilify itself. That line is probably what did them in.........the companies don't pay cigarette taxes, smokers do.
12
posted on
02/21/2006 3:59:46 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Smoke gnatzies: small minds buzzing in you business........SWAT'EM)
To: California Patriot; Gabz; SheLion
That's why I hate the SCOTUS, and have for years-the worthless bastards don't want to rule on anything controversial anymore, so they just refuse it.
To: Gabz
the companies don't pay cigarette taxes, smokers do. Then the smokers should file the law suit instead. ;*)
14
posted on
02/21/2006 7:13:37 PM PST
by
Just A Nobody
(NEVER AGAIN - Support our troops. I *LOVE* my attitude problem! Beware the Enemedia.)
To: Justanobody
The companies have the money to do so - the smokers don't.........
15
posted on
02/21/2006 7:30:24 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Smoke gnatzies: small minds buzzing in you business........SWAT'EM)
To: freepatriot32
I can't wait until campaign season when politicians spout their usual drek about protecting the Constitution and how "free" we are. I always get a big chuckle when our nannies tell us how big our pen is.
They have been assaulting the other Amendments for almost a century. I don't see why anyone expected that the first would be safe.
16
posted on
02/21/2006 7:34:19 PM PST
by
mysterio
To: Gabz
I meant the entire 25% of the population that are smokers. That would be what...75 million people? Every one pitch in $1.00. ;*)
17
posted on
02/21/2006 7:44:12 PM PST
by
Just A Nobody
(NEVER AGAIN - Support our troops. I *LOVE* my attitude problem! Beware the Enemedia.)
To: Justanobody
18
posted on
02/21/2006 7:46:57 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Smoke gnatzies: small minds buzzing in you business........SWAT'EM)
To: YoungCurmudgeon
Kind of like the Rob Reiner episode of South Park where an anti-smoking group comes to SP and after they perform at an assembly the kids go smoke cigarettes so they aren't like the anti-smoking people.
19
posted on
02/21/2006 7:47:11 PM PST
by
Mr. Blonde
(You know, Happy Time Harry, just being around you kinda makes me want to die.)
To: SheLion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson