Annenberg Classroom - Speak Outs - Can the government force cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels?

Home • Speak Outs • Can the government force cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels?

Speak Outs

Speak Out

Can the government force cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels?

By John Vettese, Student Voices staff writer

Usually when you hear about free speech violations, the issue involves individuals being prevented from expressing themselves.

But it works the other way around, too.

Your right to free speech can be violated if you’re forced to express yourself in a way you don’t want to. This fall, a U.S. District Court judge sided with a group of five tobacco companies in ruling that the Food and Drug Administration violated their right to free speech by forcing them to place graphic warning labels on cigarette packs.

In an attempt to curb smoking, Congress voted in 2009 to have the FDA create new warning labels. On cigarette packs, they were supposed to cover the top half of the box, front and back; in advertisements, they were supposed to take up 20 percent of the ad space; and for both, they were supposed to contain graphics displaying the consequences of smoking, from rotting teeth to a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a hole in his throat, to diseased lungs and dead bodies.

However, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said in his ruling that just because Congress ordered the labels, “doing so does not enable this requirement to somehow automatically pass constitutional muster.”

Leon ruled that the FDA requirements “unconstitutionally compel speech” and granted an injunction in the tobacco companies’ suit against the FDA. Initially the companies were required to begin placing the graphic warning labels in September of 2012; now, they hope the injunction will delay them until the constitutionality of the requirement is determined.

What do you think?

Can the government force cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels? Does the requirement violate their right to free speech? If you were on the Supreme Court, how would you decide this case? Join the discussion!

Join the Discussion

Your First Name:
Your Teacher/School:
Your City/State:
Your Comment: limited to 2000 characters including spaces

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs

Comments

5/11/2012
porterville,ca

salinna
smith/monache
i think they do have a right to force them to run graphic warning labels. Since mostly everyone knows there bad for them. Honestly i knew one guy who has cancer for smoking so much. So they should warn what the affects are but everyone learns while there in school. Thus, educating those who didnt have education.

5/11/2012
Porterville, CA

Andres
Mr.Smith/Monache
the US government should be able to force cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels on their products to help get more people aware of the risk their getting to for using their product. I think it does violate their freedom of speech but their has to be some guidelines that the government can take to help prevent people from smoking because its their health that is at risk. I would have probably voted as it being constitutional

5/10/2012
Porterville/ CA

Minerva
Smith/Monache
No, the government can’t force a company to do anything. Yes, it’s obvious that smoking too many cigarette smoking causes diseases, cancers, and medical conditions. But shouldn’t the people that smoke know that anyways? They buy their casual pack a day and know the consequences of smoking too much. Posting graphic pictures on a pack isn’t going to make people to not smoke it’s just going to show how the government tries to make the bad things stop but are unsuccessful.

5/10/2012
Porterville CA

Anthony
Smith/Monache
Yes I do believe the government has the right to force cigarette companies to run warning labels. If cigarettes can cause cancer then people should see what happens when they purchase cigarettes. I would decide the case by knowing what cigarettes can do to a person and i believe other people should know to.

5/3/2012
Porterville/CA

Mario
Smith/Monache
I feel that a warning label SHOULD be present and enforced by the government. Products like these lead to severe side effects and even death. Many people don't know what they are getting themselves into since the packaging is a work of propaganda in order for you to buy their products. In a way, it does violate their first amendment right however, it would be the government protecting our future generations

3/23/2012
13611

Joe
Miss Colby, Belleville Henderson
No they shouldn't. ?Tabacco ad's don't make kids smoke. When your a teenager you want to rebel what adults say. So making a big deal about how tabacco is bad isn't helping us. We want to know its bad and what its like to smoke or chew. So instead schools should quit making a big deal out of smoking. If i wanna increase my chances of mouth and lung cancer then let me do it, just don't allow the government to pay for my treatment.

3/7/2012
Benson Arizona

jordan douglas
Mr. Sorensen Benson High School
i believe that they shouldn't force them to put warning labels on the packs. if someone wants to mess up their health by smoking then let them.

2/27/2012
Benson/AZ

Robert
Sorensen/Benson High School
Absolutely not. If parents can't teach their children that cigarettes are dangerous or bad for their health then it isn't the cigarette company's fault, its the fault of the parents and the kids' curiousity. Why should the company be at fault for bad parenting or bad decisions? let the company do what they need to in order to make sales, they don't try and tell you how to run your business or company. Why should we conduct ways to run theirs?

1/20/2012
Rudyard, Montana

Brandi
Mrs. Campbell/North Star
The Government should be able to put the graphic labels on the packages. Smoking is killing thousands of people every day and the media has been trying for years to advertise that it’s a bad thing. It has had an effect of some people but smoking is still a problem. The only way to get to the people who still smoke and tell them what they are doing to their body is through the source. People are less likely to buy something that has a picture of a dead person, or a lung that’s black then to but something with just a normal label, that they have been already seeing for years. Maybe right now that government can’t put it directly on the box of cigarettes, but if they can have free advertising and they can control what they put on the boxes, why can’t the government do that, but in a different way. Going through the actually companies isn’t working right now, what they need to do is go through the stores to advertise a giant poster or something right where they are selling the cigarettes, use the money they would for changing the boxes, to put the stores to have the posters. Obviously the store would be losing money id people stopped buying the cigarettes but if paying the stores to advertise would stop people from dying, then it’s worth it.

1/9/2012
Montgomery/Tx

V.Godinez
Metzger/Montgomery High School
In my opinion I don't think the government should force tobacco companies to put graphic images or statements on their packets. What if a little kid finds an empty pack with a graphic image on it. Many parents would be upset if their kids were exposed to that at a young age. People who smoke already know the risks they are taking. There are also groups out there showing the risks and what can happen when you smoke. It would be unconstitutional because it ignores the tobacco campanies 1st amendment which is freedom of speech, and the tobacco company obviously does not want to express what the government is making them express.

1/8/2012
montgomery, tx

T Coibion
metzger/ montgomery high
Putting a graphic warning label on cigarette containers may be a violation of the first amendments right to freedom of speech but it is a neccessary violation. Control over cigarette packaging is critical to tobacco control efforts. Cigarette packs are effective mediums for broadcasting messages about the harmful impact of tobacco use. Research shows that effective warning labels increase knowledge about risks associated with smoking and can influence future decisions about smoking. Large and graphic warning labels can motivate smokers to quit, discourage nonsmokers from starting, and keep ex-smokers from starting again.

1/5/2012
montgomery tx

melton p
metzger/MHS
honistly i agree with putting graphic warnings out for the people to see but i do have to disagree with making companies put those pictures on pack it is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. Yes i agree people need to better informed on the effects that smoking has on the human body but not by fourcing the companies to include it on every pack. i wold have to say that i would have to support the companies on this one

1/5/2012
Montgomery tx

p. Haub
metzger/ Montgomery high
I agree with the idea of putting graphic posters up and things like that but the thing I disagree with is they are telling the companies what to do this is clear violation of the 1st amendment right of free speech I agree in favor of the companies I would fight this to.

1/5/2012
Montgomery, Tx

JarrodG
Metzger/MHS
I believe that the government should be able to force cigarette companies to put graphic warnings on the cartons of cigarettes because it might keep people from smoking them because of the effects of them. The government should be able to force them to because the people who want to smoke or are smoking need to understand what they are doing and how the actions that they are taking are going to seriously hurt them in the future. I don’t think it violates the right to freedom of speech because they need to make sure that the people buying cigarettes know what the out come will be. Likely the labels won’t do any good but if it stops one person from smoking then it might do some good. If I was on the Supreme Court I would be on the side of making them put labels to warm the people of the outcomes of smoking.

1/5/2012
montgomery/ tx

C. Mejia
Metzger/Montgomery High School
I believe it is unconstitutional for the government to require the Tobacco companies to put statements and graphic images of what smoking can do to you. In my opinion people who smoke already know the concequences that come from smoking. There is no reason for us to give them more information, because they have already made the decision to consume tobacco. Consumers may not even pay attention to the images or statements that are on the packages so in the end its a total waste of money. I really think this is a violation of their right to freedom of speech.

1/4/2012
Montgomery tx

1/3/2012
Montgomery/Texas

Priscilla F.
Metzger/Montgomery High School
During the past few years the government has been on the issue for stressing the dangers and serious consenqences about smoking. First they have used the media to inform users of the illnesses one can get from the "cancer sticks" by displaying graphic pictures in billboards and magazines. Next they tell the cigarette companies to print on the packages to say that smocking can be cancerous. Now the government is pushing the issue into a dangerous place by violating the first amendment by putting the pictures on the packets. Many are aware that they are risking their lives and have been told countless times of the dangers. The pictures could make some people think twice about quitting, but not all. They will think "That could never happen to me" and continue to smoke knowing the possible outcome.

1/3/2012
Irving/TX

Austin M.
Bradley/Nimitz
As with any dangerous substance, the government naturally has the right to make companies put warning labels on them. However, they government should not be able to force a company to put things like graphic pictures on their products. By doing this, the government is going against amendments that were placed for the freedom of the american people. the whole thing is kind of ironic because the sole purpose of the pictures id to keep deter people from using a product that is perfectly legal. Instead of using graphic pictures, maybe the government should force the big tobacco companies to stop putting harsh and dangerous chemicals/pesticides in their tobacco.

1/2/2012
Montgomery, TX

Jami deR.
Metzger/MHS
I won't ever pick up smoking, not because of some nasty pictures on the side of a box, but because of what my parents and school tell about what it does to you. The government shouldn't be allowed to force tabacco companies to put graphic labels on the boxes because it violates their right to free speech, by not allowing the companies to fully advertise their products in their own way. If a person has been smoking since the day he turned 18 I highly doubt the graphic picture will stop them from smoking.

1/2/2012
Montgomery, Texas

Andrea D.
Metzger/Montgomery High School
In all honesty, I believe the government should not force tobacco companies into displaying graphic warning labels. We, as people, are well aware of the dangers smoking can cause to our bodies. There are television broadcasts and even posters displaying these graphics of the harm cigarettes can do. But obviously, those who are still smoking choose to do so by free will even though being well informed on the matter. Forcing the tobacco companies to print these graphics on their packs does violate their right to free speech. If I were a member of the Supreme Court, I would decide against this case due to the fact society knows more than enough to tell themselves to stay away from cigarettes. It'd be a waste to showcase graphics on the cigarette pack if it's going to be ignored and eventually thrown away.

1/2/2012
Montgomery

R Page
Metzger
In my opinion, the government does not have the right to put warning labels on cigarettes. People who smoke are well aware of the consequences and dangers of smoking and so putting warning labels on the cigarette packs would be pointless. The company should have the right to put what they want on their own product. Smokers know their risks of smoking and it does not stop them from continuing to smoke. It does violate the right of free speech and if were on the supreme court I would be against putting warning labels on the cigarette packs.

1/1/2012
Montgomery

A. LaBaume
Metzger/Montgomery High School
I believe that each company has the right to make decisions based on how they want their products portrayed. Consequently, an individual also has the right to make the decision as to being or becoming a smoker. These decisions are determined not with what a cigarette company has displayed on their boxes, but with knowledge learned about these products. Yes, everyone knows cigarettes are addicting and unhealthy but smokers take their own risks. Therefore, No I do not believe the Government should be able to deny the rights of free speech such as the ones granted to all companies by forcing graphic warning labels.

1/1/2012
Montgmery/TX

Seth
Metzger/Montgomery High
The Goverment does not right to force the tobacco companies to put out labels or say something they do not agree with. Most consumers do know the effects of tobacco already and freely choose to keep smoking. The rules making the companies put graphic images on their packages is an attack on the right of speech provided by the First Amendment. I agree with the court ruling it was constitutionally backed up.

12/31/2011
Montgomery/TX

Nick Lacourse
Metzger/Montgomery
I believe that after evaluating the article, the government has no right to force cigarette companies to put these graphic, but true, pictures on their cigarette packets. The government is violating the cigarette companies First Amendment of Freedom of Speech. In this case it's not so much vocal but written words of which still fall under the Freedom of Speech rights of these companies.

12/30/2011
Montgomery

Keegan
Metzger/Montgomery
I believe that the government should not have the right to force the tobacco companies to put graphic images on the cigarette packs. Just because they sell tobacco products doesn't mean that their rights should be violated. The companies cant be treated differently than any other person. The images are costing the companies money by taking up ad space on packs and commercials.

12/29/2011
Irving/Tx

Tahira A.
Bradley/Nimitz
Even though I am non-smoker and loathe the fact that people smoke cigars, I personally do not believe that the government has the right to force companies to run graphic warning labels on Cigarettes. By doing this, the government is going against amendments that were placed for the freedom of the american people. Companies have the same rights as any individual in the United States. Having these graphics exposed on the boxes are extremely inappropriate. The article talks about the FDA wanting companies to have graphic pictures, such as dead bodies, on their boxes. Cigarette boxes are sold in gas stations and other stores where the general public is allowed. Therefore, children of all ages will be exposed to these graphic pictures. I strongly believe that this is not right, if the government can expose children to such disturbing images, then why have ratings on movies? Why shouldn't they be exposed to the graphics of an R- rated action movie? Also, you have to be 18 years or older to buy a box of cigarettes in the U.S. which means that the individuals purchasing the cigarettes are adults and most likely has gone through some form of education where they were taught about the dangerous side effects of smoking. Therefore, that person is fully aware that smoking is hazardous to their health, yet they still chose to make the purchase. Its a personal choice that they have made and does not want to change. The government can not control the choices an individual makes.

12/14/2011
Irving/TX

Juan M
Bradley/Nimitz
Personally I'm against cigarette smoking i the first place, but I believe that the government does not have the right to force cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels. The media and schools already educate the public about the short and long term affects of smoking. And adding all the labels on the cigarettes would most likely not effect the person who purchased the cigarettes. If they would want to show awareness they should what they do today, which is advertisements, educational videos for the students in school, and interest groups. I believe that adding graphic warnings on to the labels is a violation of free speech for the cigarette companies. If I was in the supreme court I would disagree and just keep spreading awareness of cigarette smoking through advertisements

12/14/2011
irving/ Texas

Caterine Cruz
Bradley/ Nimitz
The government has a right to put warning signs on the cigarette boxes. This is helping people stay safe. Also help teens so they do not smoke since they aren't suppose too. It might be against the first amendment but its for the good of people. Smoking can really hurt people in many ways. They are even hurting other around them causing others to have second hand smoking.. So i agree with what the government is doing, i know its not right but its for the good of people. If I were in the supreme court I would rule the same thing. Make cigarette companies put labels on there product. This is informing people what they are doing is bad.

12/14/2011
Dallas/Texas

Lauren
Bradley/ nimitz
No, because they are not supplying money to the cigarette companies to put the warning labels on each pack of cigarettes. So, therefore they can not make them get it. And plus it will probably lower there customer rates.

12/14/2011
montgomery/texas

Roger r.
metzger/montgomery high school
I dont believe that the government should force the cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels. yes everyone knows that cigarttes are harmful and addicting. they also already warn you of the affects. and the right of free speech would be violated if they are forced to do it

12/12/2011
Montgomery Tx

C. Harrington
Metzger/Montgomery High School
I think the govt is whack. These cigarette compines have their own freedom of speech just like we do. The govt is violating their rights by forcing them to put pictures of the consequences of smoking. On the pack, it already says it is dangerous. so why do they need the pictures forced by the govt. No matter what people are going to smoke whether pictures are on the box or not. thats what they need to understand.

12/11/2011
Irving, TX

Ali
Bradley/Nimitz
As much as I abhor smoking, the government should not be able to force tobacco companies to place graphic warning labels on their products. Doing so would violate the companies' freedom of speech. Of course, like any other drug, warnings should be available for any person who buys a pack of cigarettes, but these graphic warning labels cross the line. Having images of dead people on tobacco products would probably have the wanted effect, but there is just something very wrong about the government enforcing something that would leave legal companies completely out of business. If the government is so against tobacco and if they think it is so terrible, they should just make it illegal.

12/11/2011
Montgomery, TX

Cole R.
Metzer/Montgomery HS
I don't believe the government should force cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels. The public is well aware of the risks of smoking cigarettes and the ads would cost the companies more money to print raising the prices of the product. I don't think the warning labels would prevent people from smoking either. Also, the requirement would be violating the companies right to free speech. The companies are independent enterprises, and should possess the same rights as individual people. If the companies were funded by the government that would be different, but they are not. If i were a member of the Supreme Court i would not support the idea. As I said before the ads would not prevent people from smoking so they would be needless a expense.

12/11/2011
Montgomery Tx

T. Fountain
Metzger/ Montgomery High School
I believe that the government should not force cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels. I do not agree with smoking, but companies already post on the product the dangers of smoking cigarettes. I am pretty sure that the people who do smoke and buy the product are aware of the causes and what it does, knowing that it could give you lung cancer the people continue to buy them. Personally i do not think that it violates free speech, but if I was on the Supreme Court i would not force the companies to put graphic warnings, the warning they have on the boxes now are good enough it is up to the people to actually read them.

12/9/2011
Irving/Tx

India B.
Bradley/Nimitz
Constitutionally, it does violate free speech to require the companies to run graphic ads. We all complain so often that our rights are being violated, but when something we don't like comes up, we try to suppress it. We can't have it both ways. If we want free speech, everyone gets it too. As a judge I would have to say that the law is unconstitutional. Personally, I'm all for the graphic ads, but to be fair, they shouldn't be forced to run them. They should be required to print warnings about he effects of smoking, but they should not have to print gruesome graphic ads.

12/6/2011
Irving/TX

Angelica R
Bradley/ NImitz
I don't think that the government can force someone to do something they don't want. I understand that smoking is bad for you and I don't agree with the use of cigarettes, but they don't have the right to force the company to put the warning labels. I think it does violate their free speech if they don't want to put it they shouldn't have to. It's their choice to speak or do certain things and their choice to use their freedom of speech. I would find this case unconstitutional because it is violating their form of freedom of speech.

12/5/2011
Irving/Texas

shelby
Bradley/Nimitz
In my own opinion the government should not be allowed to for ANYBODY to do something they don't want to do, especially if it is going to violate their rights. It violates people's rights by saying they must say what the government wants, to me that kind of sounds like a dictator? If i was in the Supreme Court , and this case came to me i would too side with the tobacco companies, if you want to tell everybody something can cause them harm then you might as make almost everything in the us have a warning label.

12/2/2011
Irving/TX

Derek
Bradley/NImitz
I believe the federal government does not have the right to force any company, let alone cigarette companies, to run any kind of label. Though I am against cigarette smoking just as much as pretty much anyone else, that doesn't mean that we can throw out the Constitution. What the FDA is trying to do violates the First Amendment regardless of whether it is moral or not. If I were on the Supreme Court I would rule against the FDA and tell them there are other ways to prevent smoking, like educating potential smokers; because, in the end it's the individual's choice to smoke. If we can keep people from wanting to buy cigarettes, this whole controversy is eliminated.

12/2/2011
Irving/ Texas

Jesse
Bradley/ Nimitz
The government's up most responsibility is to protect its citizens, therefor it has the right to help protect its people by requiring for cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels on its products. Its not a secret that cigarettes are bad for you, and can cause serious implications on your health. The government for years have tried to campaign people to stop smoking with ads, banning cigarette commercials, and raising the prices of them. So, another step into helping protect the American society from doing something that could potentially kill them is a duty that they have to do.

12/1/2011
montana

kieffer
mrs cambell
i think its a good idea prople need to quit smoking but it dose need violate there rights as a company nd the government should not be able to do that

11/27/2011
Irving, Tx

Jose R.
Bradley/Nimitz
In legal terms, the government does have the right to force cigarette companies to place warning labels on their products. They have the right to choose what they want to express and how they want to express it. That doesn't mean its the ethical thing to do. Cigarette should think about morals and ethics and be willing to place these graphic warning labels by their own will. It might not be as attractive or graphic as the government wants them to be but they should take some kind of principal. The requirement does violate their right to free speech. If I was in the Supreme Court, I would try to find a median. Negotiate with the companies and see if together we can come up with a solution both sides can accept. It can involve maybe changing up the requirement but also try to persuade them to think about their ethical value for the people.

11/27/2011
Irving/Texas

Joan
Bradley/Nimitz
Placing graphic images on cigarette packs are just too gory. What if a child walks pass a cigarette section in a store and sees those graphic images? This child will definitely be scarred for the rest of his life. People have been taught throughout their lives that smoking is bad and yet they are still smoking. This clearly shows that they do not care. Seeing graphic images on cigarette packs will not change their minds about smoking; they are just too addicted to stop. This definitely violate the tobacco companies' right to freedom of speech. They should not be forced to do something they do not wish to do. If I was on the Supreme Court, I think I would have decided on this case the same way they did this fall. Those tobacco companies, as well as people and other places, should not be forced to do what they do not want to do.

11/26/2011
Irving/Texas

Jerin
Bradley/Nimitz
The government has every right to force cigarette companies to display graphic images with their products. Everyone knows that cigarettes are bad and everyone knows that no cigarette company looks after the well being of society. So, it just makes sense to allow government agencies to do something like this. As long as the government is warning the people about the effects of cigarettes and the intentions of cigarette companies, it is in no way violating the companies' freedom of speech. Plus, those companies have no right to talk about violation of freedom of speech when they themselves are violating the freedom of the people to live happy and healthy lives.

11/26/2011
Irving/TX

Sherin
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion, what the FDA is doing is totally acceptable, as this would prevent a lot of deaths. But then, there are people who never look, or rather bother to care about the graphics displayed on the packet, and they smoke anyway. I compliment the FDA in taking steps to promote awareness to the public on the hazards of smoking. But the people know the hazards of smoking even without telling them. The article implies that the tobacco companies were forbidden the right to free speech. This may be true, but the government is taking extra steps/measures to save the life of the next person who may see these images.

11/26/2011
Irving, Tx

Karla V.
Bradley/Nimitz
I don't think that the government can force them, but they do have the right to make them put those labels. By having the government do that, it shows that the government does care about the people and their health. The people have the right to know the horrible consequences that smoking brings to all smokers in the world. This does violate their right to free speech, but the tobacco companies might take advantage and not put anything at all on their cartons. They might start placing other things instead of promoting the harmful effects. If I was in the Supreme Court, I would have said that the labels don't have to be too graphic but that they do need to show the effects of tobacco smoking.

11/24/2011
Irving/TX

Nam
Ms.Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the government is violating free speech for the cigarette companies. However, the government is also known for banning television commercial ran by the cigarette companies in the 1900s. In a way, I think doing so was for a great cause because people are heavily influence by the media. Forcing the cigarette companies to put graphic warnings when I think about it, is no different from banned commercials. I believe that putting labels on the boxes will inform what the people are risking when they are using the product. If I was in the supreme court, I'd try to balance it between the two parties to make an agreement.

11/19/2011
Irving/TX

Fatema J
Bradley/Nimitz
The government is doing everything to help people from suffering. They have the power to stop or ban anything that would cause harm to the individuals and it is for their own good. Many people die of smoking today and the government has to take action in order to prevent this. By making cigarettes companies to run warning labels is definitely a good step for the warnings would discourage smoking at one point. The government is trying to save lives and if he wouldn't take an action over the on going deaths, then who will?

11/19/2011
Irving/Texas

Jennifer N.
Bradley/Nimitz
The government has no right to force cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels. But I do believe that cigarette companies should have warning labels. If I were on the Supreme Court, I too would force companies to put graphics on product because I've witnessed first-hand what tobacco products do to someone. It isn't pretty. The FDA are on the right mind set with the labels, but-when speaking constitutionally- you can't force someone's free speech rights. With the technological advances, people are more well informed and aware of what tobacco products do.

11/18/2011
Irving/Tx

Lindsey J.
Bradley/Nimitz
I don't think that the government has the right to say what is put on cigarette boxes. They don't directly run those companies there fore it is not their decision what they want to advertise or decorate their boxes with. They have a good idea, with younger people espeically maybe trying smoking for the first time if they saw those graphic and disturbing pictures on the cartons they might be more connvinced that it was bad but fr older people that have been smoking for a long time I dont think it would have any affect on them considering they already know the consiquences of smoking.

11/18/2011
Rudyard/Montana

Taylor
Mrs. Campbell/North Star
What are some things that people die from? Heart attacks, collapsed lungs, emphysema, and cancer. What do all of those things have in common? They can all happen if you smoke. So why not warn people of these dangers? In 2009, Congress voted to have FDA create new warning labels to place on cigarette packets; however U.S. District Judge Richard Leon that the FDA requirements “unconstitutionally compel speech.” But the government has the power! Does the government want the population to decrease because of something that they could have fixed? No! When people go to buy those cigarettes, maybe they will think again when they see the graphic pictures and warning labels on the pack.

11/18/2011
Irving/TX

Rocio
Bradley
The government literally has no right to tell the cigarette company what to put on their product. I like the idea of them trying to raise awareness or trying to warn the potential consumers of the devastating effects; however, a dead body on a carton is just too graphic. Smokers KNOW what harm they are exposing their bodies to, and they know the risks they're running, i'm sure it will annoy them to see the graphic warning labels on a product they love to buy. In the end, the tobacco company has the right to put whatever they want on their product box without interferance from the government.

11/18/2011
Irving/Tx

Azaria
Bradley/Nimitz
The FDA is trying to save lives by showing people just how dangerous smoking is. If people were more aware of the consequences of smoking, then maybe people would smoke less. Although it may hurt the businesses that make and sell cigarettes, isn't saving the lives of countless human beings more important? The companies could always buy into another enterprise using the money they have made by killing people, although indirectly, and continue to keep their wealth. The people who develop caner and other problems associated with smoking may not be able to keep their life styles. So overall the companies would actually be luckier than those who smoke the cigarettes they sell. If I had to choose between saving lives and make rich men richer, I would choose to save lives, even if it did force the companies to say something that they didn't want to.

11/18/2011
Montgomery Tx

T Taliaferro
Metzger/ Montgomery High School
We should do everything within reason to discourage smoking including running graphic warning labelss

11/18/2011
Irving/TX

Luz V.
Bradley/Nimitz
The government can not force the tobacco companies to print specific graphic labels. As the producer, the tobacco company has the right to decide what they show or not show on their product. Cigarettes are a proven health hazard to more than just the smoker, and the FDA has the right idea in trying to curb the practice, but the companies have the constitution on their side. In the end, it will be up to the companies what they print on their cigarette cartons.

11/17/2011
Irving/TX

Sara
Bradley/Nimitz
Congress should be able to require warning labels on the boxes of cigarettes. They don't necessarily have to be with diagrams, but just warnings about the product. Since this is a product that is a health hazard people should know that they are using. So, in a sense, putting warning labels aren't exactly violating freedom of speech. Trying to hide what your product is made of because you think it will lower profitability is risking lives. If I were to be on the Supreme Court I would vote in favor of the FDA. I think it is a smart thing to put what is in your tobacco. Whether the individuals choose to read it or not in on them. At least the companies can say that they show what they are providing.

11/17/2011
Irving, TX

Diana C
Bradley/ Nimitz
Constitutionally speaking, the government can not force them to print graphic labels on cigarette packs. It's consider violating their right to free speech. The companies have the right to say or print whatever they like on their products. Nobody can force them to do something they don't want and or something they don't want to say. On the other hand, it would be great if they would start printing this kinds of images to save thousands of lives. Many people are not really award of what cigarettes can do, and this would help increases awareness of the damages it can do. At the same time, we would see a decreases in the sale of cigarettes which would really affect the companies that make them. If I was the judge of this case I would require it even though they wouldn't follow the requirements because it's unconstitutional.

11/17/2011
Irving/Texas

Carmen
Bradley/Nimitz
To me, I do not think they should be able to force the companies to put the labels on the boxes. No matter what, people are going to do what they want and if that involves smoking cigarettes, then they are going to do it. Just like people all know that drugs kill, but for some reason there a ton of people that do it anyways. A disgusting warning label will not do anything to a person that is hooked on cigarettes. I am not a smoker myself and I see what they are trying to accomplish by putting these labels on the cigarette boxes, but if we really want to solve the problem, we should just get rid of cigarettes all together.

11/16/2011
Irving/Texas

Kirstin F.
Bradley/Nimitz
I do not think the government can force them to put graphic warning labels on because that will take away from their ad which will be taking about their freedom of speech. I would personally side with the cigarette companies. There are already warning labels on cigarettes and obviously that is not stopping people from smoking so, putting pictures on the package probably won't hinder anyone form picking up a cigarette. If people are going to smoke they are doing it because they want to. Most Americans in our society these days honestly don't even read the labels on anything so adding pictures would be a waste of money.

11/16/2011
Irving,Tx

Rosa L
Bradley/Nimitz
The government can't force the tobacco companies to run theses images, they have done enough by printing the warning. Having the cigarette companies display graphic labels on the box violates their free speech. A grown adult should know the consequences to smoking and are old enough to make those decisions. Throughout school children are told time and time again of the effects of smoking on the body. There are many images of the effects of smoking on the internet. The Supreme Court made the right decision in the case having graphic images won't stop a smoker. It will be until the smoker wants to quit that they make their decision.

11/15/2011
Irving/Tx

Vanessa B.
Bradley/Nimitz
It is not right for the government to try and force the cigarette companies to put warning labels on their products. Yes, smoking is a horrible habit, but people already know the consequences for smoking. It is their choice whether to sacrifice their life and possibly a loved one for just smoking around them. If your old enough to smoke then you are old enough to know what might just happen to your body. Some people act like children when they are 18 and up, but they should not need a picture on the cigarette box reminding them. It is their fault if they really do not know the health issues they are asking for.

11/15/2011
Irving/TX

Tambra B.
Bradley/Nimitz
The government doesn't have the right to tell private industry and individual people what to say. I understand that people need to be informed and educated about what can happen to them, but the federal government does not have the right to tell a person or company what to say. If the FDA wants people to be educated, they need to have schools educate people as they reach ages old enough to buy cigarettes, not just when they're young. If the FDA wants better warning labels on cigarettes, they need to get the companies to agree. But the government cannot compel speech from an individual, and therefore it cannot compel speech from a corporation, and so the law is unconstitutional.

11/15/2011
Irving/TX

Michael P.
Bradley/Nimitz
Cigarette companies should definitely be required to post warning labels on their products. They should be required to do this to ensure safety of users of their product. A prime example of why this should be necessary is over the counter medicine. Over the counter medicine have warning labels explaining the effects of their products and the dangers of using them in certain situations. Cigarettes pose a threat to users and that threat should be broadcast ed for users to see. This in no way is a violation of free speech . It is the best interest of the U.S to inform the public when a product may be hurtful to their well-being. Free speech has limitations and this is an example of the limitations that should be implemented to ensure safety.

11/15/2011
Irving/Texas

Aubrey McKinzie
Bradley/Nimitz
This is a necessary violation. Cigarettes kill people everyday. People need to know that if they use this product they will be harmed. Smoking companies, while protected by the constitution, needs to accept this or change the ingredients. If I were on the supreme court, I would find in favor of the FDA.

11/14/2011
Irving, TX

Cynthia G
Bradley/Nimitz
The government does have the right to force cigarette companies to to run graphic warning labels because they are there for health reasons. Smoking period is harmful to anyone whether they are actually smoking the cigarette or inhaling its fumes. As everything in the world is to have a caution or warning label, why should anything be different for cigarettes just because it has a picture on it. They should be put there to remind the person of all the harmful effects that they have on them, every time they pull it out to smoke one. I do not believe that this is violating their right to free speech because they still have the rest of the package to put whatever they want on it, and they can purchase advertisements. Any product that is being sold should be sold, should have a warning label on it just for the safety of the buyers and since cigarettes have long term affects then the long term effects should be shown in pictures.

11/14/2011
Benson, AZ

Cody
Mr. Sorenson/ Benson High School
I believe that the warning labels are good enough as they stand. By wanting to add to them by placing graphic images could result into a big catastrophe. What I mean by this is that if the cigarette company places a graphic image of a body that has died of cancer they are violating some family's privacy rights. This then would result into a big lawsuit starting with the cigarette company leading up to the government. Therefore it should just be left alone.

11/14/2011
Benson, AZ

Cody
Mr. Sorenson/Benson High School
To most people this sounds like a great requirement that cigarette companies should have to follow. But if you look into further details about that graphic image you then find out that it is some other family's loss. And by showing that image the cigarette companies are violating privacy rights of the family that has lost that certain person which will result in a big lawsuit starting with the cigarette company and moving up the chain to the government. So it is best just to leave the warnings were they are now.

11/14/2011
Benson/AZ

Sabrina
Mr.Sorenson/Benson High
I do not believe that cigarette companies should be forced to run graphic labels because even though I do agree that smoking is not a good or healthy habit, it is the individual's choice to smoke and to realize all the consequences and risks that smoking involves. The warning label should be enough.

11/14/2011
Benson

James
Mr. Sorensen/Benson High
While it may not be the constitutionally correct thing to put these labels on boxes, it may be the morally correct thing to do

11/14/2011
Benson, AZ

Kyle
Mr. Sorenson/Benson High School
Frankly, I find this to be a reasonable requirement. We all know that cigarette smoking is bad, but how many of us actually understand the effects of smoking on people? A lot of people don't get just how bad smoking is on your health, so maybe this will work as a way to deter people from it.

11/14/2011
Benson, AZ

11/14/2011
Irving/Texas

Marcus A.
Helen Bradley/Nimitz High School
Smoking will kill you. Plain and simple. Although this disturbing fact has been known for many decades now, people continuously endanger not only their lives but those of others in the environment. Therefore, the government should unquestionably have the authority to force cigarette companies to run graphic warning labels. We need to be aware of what we consume and the effects we bestow upon ourselves. Pictures of decayed teeth and rotten lungs may steer society away from this detrimental habit, for sometimes we rely on visual representations to believe anything. This requirement, however, is not a violation of cigarette companies' right to free speech as long as the state legislature complies with the federal government. The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution applies to individual citizens, freeing them from invasion of other unlisted rights. The Tenth Amendment pertains to the same principle, although such freedom is subject to the states. If I were on the Supreme Court, I would by all means allow the plan to carry on. People hardly pay attention to advertisements on small packages anyway. And if they do, then maybe, just maybe, we might get the hint that our habits must change if we want to sustain the perpetuation of the human race. If we want to end the 1 in 5 deaths related to smoking, we must take baby steps. Informative ads on cigarette packages may just be the beginning.