Efforts to impose a de-facto prohibition on the sale of tobacco products took a fortunate hit recently when a federal judge struck down a Worcester ordinance banning storefront signs that advertise the availability of specific cigarette brands.
Nobody questions the ill effects of tobacco, which are loudly proclaimed everywhere from TV to the very packaging in which those products are offered for sale. But it remains a legal commodity, and some still choose to smoke or chew it despite knowing it can lead to one's early demise.
An effort to ban it outright, as happened with alcohol in the early part of the last century, would likely have similarly disastrous results and make the current carnage surrounding illegal drug sales pale by comparison.
So some have chosen to get around an actual ban by making it as difficult as possible to sell or consume tobacco.
In North Andover, for instance, the Board of Health is considering a law — already in effect in some two dozen Bay State communities — that would prohibit local pharmacies from carrying tobacco products on their shelves. Should such bans become commonplace, look for chocolate bars and other kinds of candy to become the next target for the self-appointed lifestyle police.
But according to U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock of Ipswich, Worcester's advertising ban went too far. In fact, he found it a violation of the First Amendment.
"The broad sweep of the ordinance suggests that the defendants did not consider how to tailor the restrictions so as not unduly to burden the plaintiffs' free speech rights and the rights of adults to truthful information about tobacco products," Woodlock wrote in his decision.
The city has not yet decided whether it will appeal, but we would hope a higher court does not find that the effort to discourage tobacco sales trumps Americans' right to speak their minds.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий