Court: NY can't scare smokers with gross images

The FDA unveiled nine new graphic picture warnings for cigarette packs that anti-smoking advocates are hailing as a dramatic change. CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano reports. / CDC

(AP) NEW YORK - An appeals court says New York City cannot try to scare smokers by requiring grotesque images of diseased lungs and decaying gums at stores that sell cigarettes. It says the federal government gets to decide how to warn people about the dangers of smoking tobacco.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued its ruling Tuesday. It rejected a 2009 city Board of Health resolution requiring tobacco retailers to display signs bearing graphic images showing the adverse health effects of smoking.

Public to be hit with graphic anti-smoking ads
Watch: Former smokers speak up in graphic CDC video ads

The appeals court says the resolution is pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, enacted by Congress in 1965.

Richmond, Va.-based cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA says it's pleased with the court's ruling. The city's health department says the ruling is likely to reduce the number of smokers who quit.

27 Photos

27 cigarette warning labels nixed by the FDA

[DavidKoch]

I dont smoke, and never have, I do not want to be subjected to more graphic and frankly SICK ads showing people who abused themselves so much there throats teeth, legs, cancerous legions etc...It sickens me and ruins my evening meal, I enjoy watching TV while dining, I cant do that anymore because when these Ads show I lose my lunch. Ive got a great Idea, Lets end all wars by showing the dead burnt blown to bits bodies of our soldiers. Lets end all tooth decay by showing the enlarged giant diseased teeth....these ads SUCK and so does the CDC for attempting to scare people away from Smoking, WONT HAPPEN, If folks are willing to stand in freezing temps outside in Alaska to smoke, STOP THE SCARE TACTICS, Its sickening Gross and sigusting, an affront to my TV viewing, I guess Ill have to miss the other advertisers who count on me spening money, but I wont be watching TV at dinner any longer, THE CDC SUCKS

[ugacrew]

Very seriously. My aunt's husband has is suffering from terminal cancer as we speak. He is now on oxygen to help him copy with his breathing problems. She told us just recently that he continues to smoke. Many will want to criticize him for this. I say it is indicative of the power of the addiction.

Despite this, and despite people protesting the rise in insurance premiums they blame on Obamacare, there are no protests on those manufacturers the fuel terminal illnesses by selling known addictive carcinogens!

Really, people protest abortions. Why not protest the deliberately mass distribution of of addictive and toxic carcinogens that not only affect the user but the nonusers in their proximity, babies included.

[markag55]

Agreed! I smoked cigarettes for 27 years until I came to my senses. Yes, you're correct...it's an addiction...no law can be so strict as to call for the total END of tobacco. Let our federal government champion the eradication of this needless addiction.

[bradkt1]

There is nothing worse than zealots...in this case anti-smoking zealots. People know that smoiking is bad for you. I was a smoker for 40 years and I quit. Fine.

I do not need to have my sensibilities assaulted by gross images mandated by local government zealots.

[matt6052]

The images don't really impact those already addicted. It's easy to find images of heroin addicts pouring the drug into huge, open wounds in their arms and legs too. Grotesque photos won't stop those who are hooked. The terrible images can help deter others who are not already addicted from trying tobacco.

The ruling will not likely reduce the number of people who quit.

There's also a first amendment question at stake because the government is requiring the display of advertising-type communication on a controversial topic in a place of business. Other nanny-state postings are technical-looking nutritional guidelines and various legal regulations like minimum wage, maximum occupancy, and routine hand washing.

[ugacrew]

If ugly pictures could cure smoking addiction, few if any would be addicted....duh! Raising the costs of cigarettes doesn't cure the addiction either....but, if the government were to target the one firing the bullets in the first place or the "manufacturer," we might get somewhere. Nah, too much money involved.

[nojoy01]

How many tax $$ went down the tubes on this court fight, so far?

[MegaProcrastination]

Probably not as many as are brought in by the "sin" tax charged on cigarettes.

[lesserof2evil]

Judges can be bought just like politicians.

[SUZAMBA]

What a waste of money, spend it else where, something positive!

[Jaylah54200]

It's stupid anyway. No smoker is unaware that smoking is hazardous to health.