Do large graphic warnngs stop smoking?

BIG TOBACCO bested the federal government again this week after a federal judge ruled that graphic warning labels on cigarette packs violate the companies' right to free speech. "The government's interest in advocating a message cannot and does not outweigh plaintiff's First Amendment right to not be the government's messenger," US District Judge Richard Leon wrote. So the disturbing images slated to top the packs this September won't appear anytime soon, unfortunately. The government is already appealing an earlier ruling by the same judge that temporarily blocked the requirement, and two years ago another US District Court judge in Kentucky upheld the warnings, so a tobacco company win is far from certain. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, passed in 2009, is the most vigorous anti-smoking legislation to come out of Congress in years. Part of its requirement is for cigarette packs to carry one of nine written warnings, as well as startling images of smoking's effects, that cover half of the pack on both sides. We agree free speech must be carefully guarded. The government should not be able to plaster its opinion on every product it pleases. However, the dangers and addictive quality of smoking have been known for decades. And the tobacco companies have paid out huge settlements to states for the health expenses incurred from taking care of smokers, as well as for what the states alleged were deceptive and fraudulent practices. Studies show that larger, graphic warnings stop people from smoking. The current warning labels are small, and after years of the same design and wording, the public overlooks them. Thirty-five countries around the world require large, graphic smoking warnings, including Canada, Norway, Spain and Argentina. Uruguay demands that 80 percent of the pack be taken up with anti-smoking warnings. As the US Food and Drug Administration has argued in the past, the importance of getting out the message on the dangers of smoking is a public good that trumps the companies' First Amendment rights to cigarette package art. The tobacco companies have their right to judicial redress. We hope the courts find otherwise.