Supreme Court overturns state?s ban on tobacco ads

[bonkers325]

A state may not impose its own advertising restrictions on tobacco beyond the broad federal law that bans cigarette ads on television and requires warning labels on packages, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Link

 

[yakko]

WOOHOO!!!!

 

[bonkers325]

<< WOOHOO!!!! >>



i guess u smoke

 

[GoldenBear]

BOOOO!!!

 

[Paulson]

Do they just keep getting more unpractical as they get older or what?

I say we need to get a few &quot;newer&quot; younger people in the supreme court. Having all old farts might not be the grandest idea.

 

[snakesnfrogs]

finally some sense in a tobacco case.

 

[yakko]

<<

<< WOOHOO!!!! >>



i guess u smoke >>

Wrong! But thank you for playing anyway.

 

[bonkers325]

<<

<<

<< WOOHOO!!!! >>



i guess u smoke >>

Wrong! But thank you for playing anyway. >>



hehe

 

[Cyberian]

<< Do they just keep getting more unpractical as they get older or what?

I say we need to get a few &quot;newer&quot; younger people in the supreme court. Having all old farts might not be the grandest idea. >>



Age does not seem to be a relevant issue here.

Cigarettes are bad.
Cigarettes are legal.
Legal products should be allowed to be advertised.
The Supreme Court does not make laws.
When you get old enough to vote, vote for candidates that will change the laws.

 

[Ferocious]

What would you expect from the court that appointed our current President.

*states rights* except when it interferes with party donors.

 

[RaoulDuke]

<< Do they just keep getting more unpractical as they get older or what?

I say we need to get a few &quot;newer&quot; younger people in the supreme court. Having all old farts might not be the grandest idea. >>



then marijuana would be legal, and it would own.

 

[pulpp]

good, enough fo blaming everything on tobacco BS, instead of taking responsibility for your own actions.

 

[Robert01]

Wish they could ban those stupid &quot;Truth&quot; ads. And no, I don't smoke either.

 

[DanceMan]

<< Do they just keep getting more unpractical as they get older or what?

I say we need to get a few &quot;newer&quot; younger people in the supreme court. Having all old farts might not be the grandest idea. >>



Well, I'm actually going to agree with their ruling here, for once.

I suspect they ruled based on the &quot;Supremacy&quot; part of the constitution (or Bill of Rights). This means that no state law can supercede federal law. Since tobacco is one of the vices controlled by the Fed Gov, then it probably falls under that ruling (I'm not a lawyer).

As for states rights, I believe states can only make laws in the absence of federal regulations that specify otherwise.

This isn't always bad. Without things like the supremacy clause, a state could do something like ban gun ownership. It exists to prevent the confusion of interstate commerce and travel. Imagine a magazine publisher having to print two versions of magazines, one with smoking ads, and one without.

And no, I'm not a smoker. Just an interested citizen!

DanceMan