• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

1st Amendment & Corporations

RiverOfIce said:
Ok, we need to back up here. Protected speech is between you and the government. Remember the congress part here. The consistution was not created to step in between you and another person in a bar fight.

If you lie to the government, it is not protected speech. It is a criminal act, unlike on a state level which it is now a case by case basis. ...
Click to expand...

I think we are starting to get on the same wavelength, see Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 - YouTube from another thread. Never talk with a law enforcement official, but aren't all public officials suppose to uphold the law ? Free speech, as long as you run it pass your $600.00 per hour lawyer ?

Your employer may not be able to criminally prosecute you for speech, but you can be fired for it, even when doing so on your own time and dime. Since the American economy is highly concentrated, your alternate income producing activities is limited.

In short, freedom of speech is limited to the wealthy and those that support the status quo.
 
Tommy78 said:
Why do people insist on trying to tell people what to do? Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, you don't need to see some label on the package that will never be read to know this.
Click to expand...

Everyone EDUCATED knows they are bad for you. I agree. This, perhaps, is a form of education. I don't smoke, but if I did, and there was a very detailed image of a rotting lung, man cut open from throat to bellybutton, etc. I might think twice about buying that pack of smokes. FWIW, this isn't telling anyone (other than cigarette companies) what to do. This isn't banning the sale of cigarettes. This is getting people to see, graphically, what these drugs do to you.

This isn't necessarily to say that I agree with it. It is what it is. The box doesn't actually say "do not buy me" though...

Just a thought here, but if what they are doing now is a violation of the first amendment, how are the surgeon general's warnings, which have been required for decades, not also a violation?
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Cigarettes, when used solely as directed are physiological addictive and cause serious health consequences and have no other purpose then that of a delivery system for an addictive drug. A cheeseburger is food.
Click to expand...

So is the caffeine in sodas.
 
lordofthereef said:
Perhaps we should look into that too, then. That said, caffeine is far less addicting than nicotine.
Click to expand...

Haven't read any studies that conclude caffeine is addictive, doesn't mean they don't exist, but the delivery system for caffeine does provide H20, a benefit that may outweigh the terrible taste. ;)
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Haven't read any studies that conclude caffeine is addictive, doesn't mean they don't exist, but the delivery system for caffeine does provide H20, a benefit that may outweigh the terrible taste. ;)
Click to expand...
Caffeine Withdrawal Symptoms, Treatment, Overdose, Health Effects, Facts and Addiction by MedicineNet.com

It certainly is addictive, but to a lesser extent than nicotine. As mentioned, this stuff also isn't killing people. Well, I guess 4Loko was which was caffeine packed alcohol, but they banned that in many places and subsequently tweaked the formula.
 
lordofthereef said:
I don't smoke, but if I did, and there was a very detailed image of a rotting lung, man cut open from throat to bellybutton, etc. I might think twice about buying that pack of smokes.
Click to expand...

No. you wouldn't think twice. You're not a smoker, you have no idea what you're talking about. Smokers know exactly what they're doing and choose to do so of their own free will. Having someone against smoking trying to shove warnings and pictures in your face is not going to do a damn bit of good. Just let people live and do what they feel like doing. It's not anyone's business anyway.
 
lordofthereef said:
... It certainly is addictive, ...
Click to expand...

From the source provided, "I don't know if we need to classify caffeine as addictive or something that you can be dependent on."

Then again, what is addiction ? "The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) has released a new definition of addiction highlighting that addiction is a chronic brain disorder and not simply a behavioral problem involving too much alcohol, drugs, gambling or sex. This the first time ASAM has taken an official position that addiction is not solely related to problematic substance use."

New definition of addiction: Addiction is a chronic brain disease, not just bad behavior or bad choices
 
Caffeine is addictive, but isn't really harmful. That's the big difference. You can drink a cup of coffee or a soft drink every day of your life, but it won't have any serious health effects.
 
tommy_ed said:
... EVERYBODY knows cigarettes are harmful. ...
Click to expand...

You know teenagers, they think they are immortal.
"The average age of first use of tobacco products in 1999 among all persons who ever used in their lifetime was 15.4 for cigarettes, 20.5 for cigars, and 16.7 for smokeless tobacco across all age groups."

Highlights of Tobacco Use in America: Findings from the 1999 NHSDA

I'm guess this figure has improved since the 70's & 80's, as there wasn't much enforcement for under age use.

It appears some are more prone to addiction than others.

Vulnerability to nicotine addiction appears to have a genetic basis, study suggests
 
RiverOfIce said:
... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ...
Click to expand...
Inserted quote imbedded in post.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Brings up an interesting point. At this point, from what I've read there are four separate tort actions. Suppose the courts determine the four plaintiffs are a class and combine, would this be a violation, if one or more plaintiffs objects, to the plaintiffs rights of association ?
 
Crude said:
Are you sure?
Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics: U.S. Obesity Trends | DNPAO | CDC

Like all things government, once you start where does it end?
Click to expand...

Soda is not the single cause of obesity. People aren't obese because of soda. They are obese because of all the other crap they eat alongside soda. Look ata person that drinks a 24 pack a week (or more). They probably aren't eating healthy veggies and chicken breast alongside it. They are eating Domino's, KFC, and burger king every night. If not that, then high fat, high sodium frozen meals. You don't need to do anything alongside the cigarette. You use that one product and years down the road suffer the consequences.

But to be fair, I think there needs to be more labeling than simple nutrition facts tucked conveniently on the side of a box, or on the bottom left, in ultra small font. We could probably benefit from seeing glaring numbers like caloric content, sugar content, and fat content on the fronts of these packages. Why? Because people are not educated. I have noticed that some companies seem to be doing this (I assume by choice); candy bars, cans of soda, etc. have quick nutrition info. right on the front of the package. Many of them are actually the ones we widely consider "junk food".
 
lordofthereef said:
Soda is not the single cause of obesity..... You don't need to do anything alongside the cigarette.
Click to expand...

i don't think anyone is arguing that cigarettes arent harmful. I'm simply saying it's not good for the government to be able to require a company to put something on their label that discourages people from buying their product.
raising awareness is one thing, health warnings are another, but this is unacceptable. this would be like requiring mcdonald's to put pictures of fat people on their products, or requiring cars to have large graphics on the side of them displaying mangled bodies in twisted car wrecks.

lordofthereef said:
I have noticed that some companies seem to be doing this (I assume by choice); candy bars, cans of soda, etc. have quick nutrition info. right on the front of the package. Many of them are actually the ones we widely consider "junk food".
Click to expand...

this is not the same thing. cigarette packages already have warnings all over them. how many snickers bars have a picture of a dead diabetic person on the front?
 
OutofDate1980 said:
You know teenagers, they think they are immortal.
"The average age of first use of tobacco products in 1999 among all persons who ever used in their lifetime was 15.4 for cigarettes, 20.5 for cigars, and 16.7 for smokeless tobacco across all age groups."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512104216.htm
Click to expand...


thats all fine and dandy, but i don't see how it pertains to our discussion. yes, nicoteen is addictive. do you think kids don't already know that it's harmful and addictive? schools do a pretty good job these days of informing kids the dangers of smoking. do you think putting dead people on the pack will make them think they're any less cool? do you think they'll feel any less immortal? no. they are teenagers. it's been this way throughout all of history ;)
 
Throughout history, societies have struggled with how to deal with children and childhood. In the United States and elsewhere, a broad-based
 
tommy_ed said:
... do you think putting dead people on the pack will make them think they're any less cool? ...
Click to expand...

I take it you contend the graphic warnings are ineffective ? You may have a point. Do you wish to elaborate ?

As I mentioned in the OP, I believe the plaintiffs have a good case. Not that I support their position, but with the current make up and past decisions of the current Supreme Court, I believe they will prevail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom