Rules and Functions of Law
Law 421
26 January 2015

Abstract My research paper is based off of my readings and research of the case briefing arguing the results of the law suit between Cipollone V. Liggett. This paper will provide knowledge of the case as well as answers to questions. Court ruling are very important in predicting the outcome of future similar cases, they also give inside on how the legal system develops their ---. One of the most well-known law suits against Big Tabaco manufactures was brought on by a women that had smoked tobacco in the form of cigarettes for a duration of over 42 years. In her law suit she argued that the manufactures of the cigarette companies did not accurately provide risk of smoking and promoted false ---- through ADs. After that case was aquited, Cippollone then appealed her case in the U.S Supreme Court. Based on the question on the congress’s preemption power, given the supreme courts language the preemption was narrow. The manufacture company had no intention to expose the truth about the dangerous effects of smoking Tabaco, rather they promoting the use of Tabaco as appealing and alluring therefor the consumers believed that the advertisements were true based on the companies ,,,, Neither the Tabaco company or their manufactures fell that it is their responsibility to assure the consumers of their stability of their health condition after already stating the health warning on their advertisements. The Supreme Court does not bar New Jersey or any other states form filing Law suits against Tabaco and manufacture companied for false advertising and promotion. Due to federally mandated laws requiring tobacco companies to warn consumers of the health hazards,, consumers are no permitted to files suits for insufficient advertising. However, consumers are still allowed to file charges based off of unreliable or deceitful annoucments in their advertising or alleging the company deliberately collude to deceive consumers. If the Tabaco Company promoted their warning signs that came across as not harmful or misleading then the consumer may have rights to file suites against the company. I believe there is a thin line between what is mandatory of the company to disclose regarding health issues and what the consumers are expecting to hear. As a result of the companies trying to send the health warnings with as little concern and significates as possible leaves an opening for consumers to miss the importance of the message. “The only current federal preemption in tobacco control is contained in the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act” (American Non-Smokers Rights, 2015).
According to Scott (2001) “Since the preemption provision of FCLAA applies to cigarettes, manufactures and sellers of smokeless tobacco and cigars argued that the outdoor and point-of-sale regulations violated their rights of commercial free speech”. The preempt law was constructed to hold Tobacco companies marketing under control, keep it honest as possible and allowing consumers to only be exposed to it on an age appropriate setting. Before Congress tobacco companies operated only on state laws and in some states tobacco companies had more control of the state representatives. Congress needed a law in place to hold a moral obligation for the industry and its consumers. In the beginning most states incorporated the new law, but by 2015 we’ve seen many states form and inforce their own laws. Tobacco is a very dangerous and addictive drug, with health issues connected to cancer and others disease. Having a law limiting the exposer to only those older and informative enough about the consequence of using the product. As consumers learn the effects they can make their own choice, I agree with limited but informative ads and campaign of the product. I feel big tobacco can afford to invest in the health of their consumers. The law a great tool to base any states healthy standards for a dangerous product. In the end all products that has the potential to harm, shorten one’s life span, cause cancer cells to develop because of it use should have restriction more severe than what they have in place know.

Works Cited * Americans for non-smokers rights. (2004, January 1). Retrieved January 26, 2015, from http://no-smoke.org/ * Scott, R. (2001, August 17). Federal Preemption Now a Barrier to Local Tobacco Ordinances, Health Law Perspectives, Health Law & Policy Institute. Retrieved January 26,2015,from http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/PublicHealth/010817Federal.html