# Do the new tobacco warnings violate 1st Amendment rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2011, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003 "2011-08-17T06:58:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 49
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/49 "2011-08-17T19:01:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > NotreDame05’s point is correct: we can’t analyze this question by merely pointing out the Commerce Clause. > > FinnAgain didn’t mean to say that we could, even though he did. Retraction of your spurious claim yet? Perhaps coupled with an acknowledgement that not only did I not, ever, say that we can “merely point to the CC” but, in fact, [from my very first post in the thread, I pointed out that one of the issues at play was precedent?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14148315&postcount=11) Maybe even an acknowledgement that not only did I do so, clearly and unambiguously but for Notre to claim otherwise weakens his argument significantly, and that for him to deliberately cherrypick my post to exclude my explicit mention of precedent further weakens his argument as a reliable, trustworthy narrative? Maybe even that your repetition of his fiction as fact puts your argument in the same category as his, as even a cursory glance at my actual first post in the thread clearly shows that I mentioned precedent clearly and your snarky “FinnAgain didn’t mean to say that we could, even though he did” is not only counterfactual, but counterproductive to honest discussion? Or, ya know: > [@Bricker](#): > > What he intended to say was that we could regulate warning labels because we’ve been doing it forever. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > How does that not fall under the interstate commerce clause? You’re free to say whatever you want as per the 1st amendment, but if you sell a product then you can have that product regulated by the federal government.\* I see no essential difference, in any case, between the Surgeon General’s warning labels and disgusting graphics. Sure, the graphics are grosser, but **we’ve already accepted the precedent that the government can and will tell cig companies to put big ol’ notices on their product that they will fucking murder you**. > > Seems a rather picayune quibble over degree and not kind\*. And: > [@Bricker](#): > > Can the government, in an effort to fight childhood obesity, require that Paula Deen’s new book “Delicious Meals for Kids,” be sold only in a plain brown wrapper bearing the warning, “Eating These Recipies Risks Becoming This,” together with that same obese kid image? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Can the government, in an effort to inform consumers of the danger of a product, require that Phillip Morris’ new flavor “Delicious Menthol Lights,” be sold only in packets that bear the warning, " SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy?" > > Gotchaya! round of Lawyerball in progress > [@FinnAgain](#): > > What, if any, have your objections been to half a century of warning labels placed on cigarette packs? > What, if anything, do you see as the substantive difference now that does not boil down to “well… it’s a picture?” --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003)._