Question

In 1999, in an effort to reduce smoking by children, the attorney general of Massachusetts issued comprehensive regulations governing the advertising and sale of tobacco products. Among other things, the regulations banned cigarette advertisements within one thousand feet of any elementary school, secondary school, or public playground and required retailers to post any advertising in their stores at least five feet off the floor, out of the immediate sight of young children. A group of tobacco manufacturers and retailers filed suit against the state, claiming that the regulations were preempted by the federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) of 1965, as amended. That act sets uniform labeling requirements and bans broadcast advertising for cigarettes. Ultimately, the case reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that the federal law on cigarette ads preempted the cigarette advertising restrictions adopted by Massachusetts. The only portion of the Massachusetts regulatory package to survive was the requirement that retailers had to place tobacco products in an area accessible only by the sales staff. In view of these facts, consider the following questions. 1. Some argue that having a national standard for tobacco regulation is more important than allowing states to set their own standards for tobacco regulation. Do you agree? Why or why not? 2. According to the Court in this case, the federal law does not restrict the ability of state and local governments to adopt general zoning restrictions that apply to cigarettes, as long as those restrictions are "on equal terms with other products." How would you argue in support of this reasoning? How would you argue against it?

Answer 1

1.

Yes.

The damage caused by cigarette usage or tobacco smoking is the same irrespective of the state or the type of people that lives there. It is a proven fact that smoking and use of tobacco products is a hazard. Naturally this means that the situations such as this needs to be regulated on a federal level. Consider any disease or illness and draw an analogy to this. In case there is an outbreak of disease, the supreme authority on this topic in USA is the CDC. This is a federal agency because the people of the country are at stake irrespective of the state where they are in. Similarly we need to consider the hazard of tobacco a common problem for the country (or globally) rather than thinking only locally (state wise). This is why I agree that national/federal law needs to be effective rather than state laws.

2.

In order argue for or against the subject “does not restrict state and local government” we need to consider the FCLAA.

Argument for the support lies in the fact that FCLAA mentions two key declarations. They are to inform the public about the risk and hazard of smoking. The second one is that tobacco business must be protected as long as they adhere to the Act. Thus considering that the focus of FCLAA is solely towards warning the public and letting them decide if they want to smoke or not, we can argue that the federal law does not restrict the state from forming their own.

Argument may be made against the subject because of the court ruling. The fact that FCLAA was formed in 1969 implies that the situation was different and the Act is not adequate for the current times. This requires amendment and the fact that the focus is solely on information and not prohibition is similar to giving free run to the tobacco companies and retailers. Thus this limits the state’s ability to draft laws and pass them due to the preemption of the FCLAA.