San Francisco: Smoking Ads Are Not Free Speech

City clashes with Phillip Morris over pharmacy ban

View Comments ()
|
Email
|
Print

    NEWSLETTERS

    AP
    Cigarette products are shown on the counter of a beverage store. (AP Photo/George Widman)

    Lawyers for the city of San Francisco told a federal judge Thursday that the city's ban on cigarette sales by pharmacies has nothing to do with  free speech.

    Attorneys for the city made the argument in a brief filed with  U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland to oppose a bid by Philip  Morris USA Inc. for a preliminary injunction blocking the ban.

    Philip Morris, the nation's largest tobacco company, claims the  ban violates its First Amendment right of free speech by putting an end to  cigarette advertising and displays in the pharmacy stores.

    But city lawyers wrote in their brief, "The sale of a product is  conduct, not speech."

    They said Philip Morris is still free to pay pharmacies to display  tobacco advertisements.

    Wilken will hold a hearing in Oakland on Oct. 30 on the tobacco  company's request for a preliminary injunction.

    Last month, she declined to grant a temporary restraining order  that would have blocked the ban from going into effect on Oct. 1.

    A San Francisco Superior Court judge also refused to suspend the  ordinance in a separate lawsuit filed by Walgreen Co., and the measure took  effect as scheduled.

    Lawyers from the office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera argued in  today's filing that Philip Morris' free speech claim shows "no respect for  the Constitution (and) no respect for the power of cities to protect the  health of their citizens."

    The brief contends that if the measure "can prevent just a few  young people from taking up smoking, becoming addicted to nicotine, and  developing cancer, that would greatly outweigh any minimal, speculative  financial loss that might be incurred by the tobacco industry."

    Philip Morris argued in its Sept. 25 lawsuit that the purpose and  effect of the ordinance is "to suppress communications directed to adult  smokers" in violation of the company's free-speech right.