Tobacco Sales

Suppose you just made eighteen and you head to a local CVS to purchase a pack of cigarettes. Soon after arriving, the clerk tells you that the pharmacy is no longer able to sell tobacco. Stunned by the clerks response, you decide to investigate the situation.
September 25, 2008: Phillip Morris lawsuitPhillip Morris, the largest tobacco company, is suing the city of San Francisco because of a law banning the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The matter that really stirs up this case is that the city is only trying to apply the ban of cigarettes to stand-alone pharmacies. Due to these circumstances, Phillip Morris saw the ban as a violation of its free-expression right to sell its product.
During the court date, the company stated: “The U.S Supreme Court has established that tobacco companies have rights to the First Amendment to communicate with adult consumers who had an interest in receiving the products information.
June 2001: Lorillard Tobacco Co v. ReillyLorillard felt that he was entitled to his commercial speech rights, therefore he was against Massachusetts regulations on tobacco. In this case, the idea that advertisements for tobacco must be restricted for the safety of minors. But the question is, what about alcohol and fatty foods? It was said that tobacco companies are entitled to the protection of the first amendment, as well as other purveyors of other harmful products. In the Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly case: the state agreed, by all means to prevent underage tobacco use, but the state made the sale and use of tobacco use by adults legal activity.
July 2008: San Francisco banThe battle between the states regulations against tobacco products and the big tobacco companies still stands today. San Francisco established a law banning people who get their prescription filled to be offered to buy tobacco products. This ban is suppose to take effect on October 1, 2008. Walgreens is challenging this ban because they consider it discriminatory because it doesn’t apply to grocery stores, such as Jewels.
The states argue that the selling of tobacco products should have restrictions because it could affect minors. The argument is legit by all means. So they came up with ideas to restrict tobacco products. For example, advertisements had to 1000 ft away from any public school, and tobacco sold in stores couldn’t be displayed, but held behind the counter so that the product would be out of reach to minors. The Public health Cigarette Smoking Act 1969, also held regulations because it required warning signs on all cigarette packages.
The controversial topic about tobacco products played a part in the media, in the film, “Thank You For Smoking.” The film, played by a tobacco lobbyist, Nick Naylor had to promote cigarette smoking and tobacco products during the time health hazards activity became very aware to the public. The message in this film took a more libertarian approach by letting the public make a decision to smoke. The story line to this film is relevant to the first amendment because it allows tobacco companies to have rights, but it restricted them by placing the warning sign on their products. Nick Naylor’s campaign was to let the people decide. But the public, who disagreed with tobacco selling, took a more neoliberal approach by wanting the government to step up to restrict tobacco.
The selling of tobacco will always have a big deal in society because it is a controversial topic. One side argues to let adults decide, while the other side argues that tobacco is a danger to the world. The question is who decides? The government, or the people? In this case the people have a freedom to decide. And the government has the ability to restrict. Let the adult decide! The Phillip Morris co, along with many other tobacco companies only want their right to sell their product because it goes against the Commerce Clause, Supremacy clause, the First and Fourteenth amendment. By right government has no right to band anything protected under the First Amendment.