news-record.com

NEWS

Major cigarette makers sue over new tobacco law

Monday, August 31, 2009
(Updated 4:58 pm)

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Two of the three largest U.S. tobacco companies filed suit against federal authorities Monday, claiming a law that gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration new authority over tobacco violates their right to free speech.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., maker of Camel cigarettes, and Lorillard Inc., which sells Newport menthol brand, filed the federal lawsuit with several other tobacco companies.

Part of the bill, passed in June, covers cigarette marketing.

The lawsuit doesn't challenge the decision to give the FDA authority over tobacco products. But the tobacco makers claim provisions of the law "severely restrict the few remaining channels we have to communicate with adult tobacco consumers," Martin L. Holton III, senior vice president and general counsel for Reynolds, said in a statement.

The companies say they are prohibited from using "color lettering, trademarks, logos or any other imagery in most advertisements, including virtually all point-of-sale and direct-mail advertisements," according to the 46-page complaint.

The law also prohibits tobacco companies from "making truthful statements about their products in scientific, public policy and political debates," the companies claim in their complaint.

Reynolds spokesman David Howard said the company doesn't oppose the whole law, just portions of it.

FDA spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

Joining in the suit filed U.S. District Court in Bowling Green, Ky., are: National Tobacco Co., Discount Tobacco City & Lottery Inc., and Kentucky-based Commonwealth Brands, which is owned by Britain's Imperial Tobacco Group PLC.

The makers name the FDA, the government and individual officials as defendants in the lawsuit, which seeks to put portions of the law on hold while the case is heard.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act allows the FDA to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover any carton images with large graphic warnings.

The law doesn't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency will be able to regulate what goes into tobacco products, make public those ingredients and prohibit certain marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.

Richmond-based Altria Group Inc., parent company of the nation's largest tobacco maker, Philip Morris USA, supported the bill, saying the company backs tough but fair regulation.

Altria's chief rivals — No. 2 Reynolds American Inc., parent company of R.J. Reynolds, and No. 3 Lorillard, both based in North Carolina — opposed the bill, saying FDA restrictions on new products would lock in Altria's share of the market. Richmond, Va.-based Altria's brands include Marlboro, which held a 41.2 percent share of the U.S. cigarette market in the second quarter, according to data from Information Resources Inc.

Altria spokesman David Sylvia said the company has not yet reviewed the lawsuit and would not comment.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Norm*

August 31, 2009 - 5:26 pm EDT

The enlightened view might be that this law could increase tobacco company profits. Reducing the cost of advertising would certainly save them a bundle. Color adverts and catchy slogans don't change the quality of the experience do they? What we know thus far is the quality of the ingredients are absolutely safe for people to enjoy and do not have addictive or cancer causing effects, so why not have full disclosure of what those ingredients are? My hope is that all of those people who have an economic stake in the production and sale of tobacco will see the benefits of informing the consumers of the quality materials that cigarettes are made of and this in itself will increase tobacco sales.

kikablue

August 31, 2009 - 6:31 pm EDT

It seems like to many government agencys are trying to play BIG BROTHER, it's time to let people make up their own darn minds. Government wants to rule then rule your ownselves thats where 99.9% of the screwups are. Leave the people alone, WE are tha ones that vote you in office, it's the Voters that can take YOU OUT OF OFFICE.

Panacea

August 31, 2009 - 7:38 pm EDT

Fine. Make up your own mind.

That doesn't give the tobacco companies the right to lie to you, or anyone else.

Smoking is a deadly habit. I don't see where their free speech is being infringed. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to lie.

Doug Johnson

August 31, 2009 - 6:39 pm EDT

In my view its time to clean house!
Both parties!

DaveW

August 31, 2009 - 8:43 pm EDT

I cannot wait until January 2nd.

maytain

August 31, 2009 - 9:06 pm EDT

yea january 2nd. what a great day when Businesses lose their freedom of choice. to have a smokeing section or not. the consumer has a choice if they want to go to that bar or not. why not let the the owner deciced if he wants to include a smokeing section or not. me myself plain on walking into my fav spot i usually go to and lighting up that day.

maytain

August 31, 2009 - 9:08 pm EDT

to add its not only the smokeing thing. the government is slowing takeing over all. we have no say anymore.

Norm*

August 31, 2009 - 9:15 pm EDT

I'm all for people doing what they want as long as the don't foul the air I have to breathe. I also don't mind the whole "culling the herd" thing that smoking does as long as the smokers aren't sharing the health insurance company as I am. But not knowing what you're buying 'cause they won't fess up just bothers me.

maytain

August 31, 2009 - 9:33 pm EDT

we smokers know smokeing is bad but we do it. been that way for years. but in return for health insurance non smokers pay way less then smokers. so i pay for my right to smoke with taxes and almost $200 a month more for insurance

maytain

August 31, 2009 - 9:35 pm EDT

and again that brings up the point of takeing smokeing out of bars and Restaurant. you have that choice not to go to a curtain place. that owner just lost his choice thou

joyn49

August 31, 2009 - 10:04 pm EDT

I'm a former smoker and wish everyone could quit, but people certainly have the right to smoke. I especially think it's ludicrous that alcohol manufacturers can SATURATE the media with ads, and alcohol costs the taxpayer just as much in lives and health care as tobacco.You wouldn't believe some of the alcohol related patients I had as a health care worker. Cirrhosis is NOT PRETTY> GET REAL people, the government is all for the ones that kick in the most money. THERE WILL BE NO MORE LOBBYISTS IN WASHINGTON. ROFLMAO.

davis

August 31, 2009 - 10:03 pm EDT

Our country is becoming more and more communistic with our government telling us what we can and cannot do and taking God out of our schools and slowly out of our government. But that is another issue. The following issue ties in with what our government is trying to do to the tobacco industry.
Had our local government made the smoking ban across the board it would not have made people lose even more faith in our system. But the country clubs are exempt and bars that do not serve food and do not allow children, are exempt from the smoking ban. I know of not one bar that allows children in them. They had to mention food and children because of the ban our government imposed on our restaurants. What's up with that?
Lets keep the wealthy content and the drunks happy. Oh yes that's right, our state makes big bucks on drunks. Does this give the state the right to allow the drunks to smoke in the bars and drink their alcohol and continue causing deaths? If they would ban smoking across the board our country clubs would be no more and the bars would eventually die out.
This ban is not logical nor is it fair. It certainly is not the American way to ban something that is legal and to tell the cigarette company how to market their product.

joyn49

August 31, 2009 - 10:07 pm EDT

Won't let us smoke but let China kill us with drywall. LMAO

Froggie

September 1, 2009 - 2:10 pm EDT

I believe only country clubs and the elks club are exempt from the smoking ban. All bars, whether they serve food or not, have to be smoke free Jan. 1.

CarolinaBorn

September 1, 2009 - 4:56 pm EDT

The reason we have the govt taking over such policies is because citizens cry to the govt when there is something they dont like. I think I will call the state legislature and let them know that I like Mcdonalds but its not healthy for me. Being that I am a whiney American, I want to eat there but the govt needs to make it healthy for me.

This is the same thing going on in NC. People want to go to a restaurant and eat but not smell smoke. Dont worry that the owner has rights and has chosen to allow smoking, AFTER he has evaluated how HE wants to run his business and what will make him the most money. There are places that cater to non smokers, its part of their business plan. Imagine all the money put into designing the many restaurants that have a seperate smoking section.....all for not now.

If you dont like the smoke then chose to patronize another establishment, dont have your will forced on the owner because you dont like it. Same with eating at Mcdonalds. So dont blame the govt as much as the whiney people who wanted to impose their views on hard working restaurant owners who made their choice to allowe a legal activity in their business.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search