U.S. Seeks to Alter Anti-Tabacco Treaty

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Templar
When Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor became the majority on the court.

There is alot of speculation that the current Nike case before the Supreme Court will effectively abolish the category of commercial speech.

Is that a SNAFU or a FUBAR?

[David Floyd]

I hope the US doesn't sign this. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Free Speech? When did advertising become free speech?

Since always. While Templar would like to blame five current justices on the bench, the idea that commerical speech is just as valid as any other speech is a well held belief.

And silly me, I thought tobacco was a legal substance. If these countries think it is so bad, why don't they ban it? Oh right, because they don't want to ban it, but want to play nanny

[gsmoove23]

Imagine, wanting to cut things out like marketing to kids.

[DarthVeda]

What will the tobacco companies do when it becomes impossible to sell their goods in america anymore? They need that world market full of suckers...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imagine, wanting to cut things out like marketing to kids.

Because increasing tobacco taxes and increasing warning stickers mean 'marketing to kids'. And all advertising for tobacco doesn't target kids. For the life of me, I can't see where the Marlboro Man was aimed at kids.

Furthermore, like I said, if you want to play nanny, just ban the things. But, of course that will never happen.

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting. How would that work in a country with socialised health care, like Canada? Smoking adds a great burden to our health care system.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Oh come on Proteus.

You don't expect any country to ratify a treaty that is problematic with it's constitution.

Notice the US doesn't ask to completely disregard the treaty, but rather to change things which are deemed unconstitutional according to their stadards.

Of course it is difficult to sign treaties which conflict with the constitution of yourt country.

But the big Problem is:

What worth does an international treaty have, if every signing country asks for the right to disregard or alter Articles which it doesn´t like?

What worth would for example an Treaty about a Ban on atomic Tests have if major signing Powers such as USA, Russia or France would insist on the right to make atomic Tests if they see the need to do it, regardless of one of the Articles which says that atomic tests are completely banned?
I would see it as "slightly" unfair if every country had to follow every single Article of this Treaty except of the USA, France and Russia, which don´t need to.


So, if the question is wether the Treaty on Tobacco should contain certain concessions towards the USA or the USA won´t sign it, I´d say they should do it without the USA.
Any concession towards a single country (which gives a single signing country special rights in the treaty, that other countries don´t have) would water down the treaty.

[CerberusIV]

Do you perceive the USA being out of step with the rest of the world on this one or the rest of the world being out of step with the USA?

This is about the tobacco industry influencing politicians, not about the US constitution. If the reservation clause is included the treaty is meaningless. If it isn't then either the US signs or it doesn't - either way the rest of the world enforces the treaty!

What is the problem with the treaty vs. the Constitution anyway? What happens to US companies overseas depends on local law, not US law. Domestically the US government can set taxes as it wishes. The sticking point is going to be the size of health warnings and restricting advertising. Requiring a product to carry health or safety warnings isn't new. As for free speech - if that includes an absolute right to advertise a product known to cause harm to people who use it or are exposed to it then maybe it is time the US thought again about how far free speech should go.

How much have the US tobacco companies contributed to the Republican party in the last few years anyway?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Great, so we can restrict advertising in our own country,

Not that much, many of the restrictions NEGOTIATED to settle a lawsuit with other sources of liability could not be constituionally imposed by statute.

[Shi Huangdi]

Proteus: International Politics is not a democracy. The United States of America is a soverign nation and has the right to sign or not sign any treaty that it wants. Right now we find the treaty unacceptable, you can negotiate with us or not include us in the treaty.

Personally though, I hope we stay away from this. Government should not be in the business of protecting us from our own stupidity.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Personally though, I hope we stay away from this. Government should not be in the business of protecting us from our own stupidity.

And who is going to protect you from other people's stupidity?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Free Speech? When did advertising become free speech?

Since always. While Templar would like to blame five current justices on the bench, the idea that commerical speech is just as valid as any other speech is a well held belief.

Commercial speech has not traditionally enjoyed equal status with other types of speech. The Supreme Court in Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 US 52 (1942) that the constitution does not protect purely commercial speech (i.e. advertising). This absolute denial of constitutional protection was later weakened by the Warren Court, but the distinction has remained until now. Again, the current Nike case will likely see the distinction eliminated.

And silly me, I thought tobacco was a legal substance. If these countries think it is so bad, why don't they ban it? Oh right, because they don't want to ban it, but want to play nanny

Tobacco, and other drugs, should be legal. People will always want to get high/drunk/what-have-you. Besides, going to jail for getting high is ridiculous. On the other hand, advertising is something else.

You may have noticed that most products do not engage in "tombstone" advertising - that is, a plain just the facts about the product ad. Most ads are calculated to affect the psychology of the victim (I mean 'consumer'). Most psycology majors I knew in school ended up on Madison Avenue after all.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Imagine, wanting to cut things out like marketing to kids.

We're talking about consenting adults here gsmoove. I defy you to show me one country which has/will sign this treaty which doesn't already outlaw the sale or advertising of tabacco to children

[Dinner]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Interesting. How would that work in a country with socialised health care, like Canada? Smoking adds a great burden to our health care system.

If you folks got suckered into socialized health care then you signed on the bottom line and are on the hook to pay his bills. The choice now is between honoring that commitment or surpressing the people's freedom of choice.