Law Commons^™

Fda-Required Tobacco Product Inserts & Onserts – And The First Amendment, Eric N. Lindblom, Micah L. Berman, James F. Thrasher

O'Neill Institute Papers

In 2012, a federal court of appeals struck down an FDA rule requiring graphic health warnings on cigarettes as violating First Amendment commercial speech protections. Tobacco product inserts and onserts can more readily avoid First Amendment constraints while delivering more extensive information to tobacco users, and can work effectively to support and encourage smoking cessation. This paper examines FDA’s authority to require effective inserts and onserts and shows how FDA could design and support them to avoid First Amendment problems. Through this process, the paper offers helpful insights regarding how key Tobacco Control Act provisions can and should be interpreted …

Effectively Regulating E-Cigarettes And Their Advertising—And The First Amendment, Eric N. Lindblom

O'Neill Institute Papers

If tobacco smoking did not exist in the United States, there would be no reason, from a public health perspective, to allow addictive, nicotine-containing e-cigarettes to be marketed and sold. Because e-cigarette use, by itself, is neither beneficial nor benign to users and nonusers, the only public health justification for allowing e-cigarettes in the existing U.S. market would be if doing so would not sustain or increase existing smoking levels but would help smokers quit completely or provide addicted smokers a less harmful way to obtain the nicotine they crave. Yet e-cigarettes are now pervasive in the U.S. market, being …

The Deregulatory State, Lawrence O. Gostin

O'Neill Institute Papers

Public health can be achieved only through collective action, not through individual endeavor. Collective goods are essential conditions for health, but can be secured only through a well-regulated society. Yet, successive governments have eroded health and safety protections, with serious consequences. Think about the death of miners, lead in children’s toys, industrial solvents in toothpaste, salmonella in peanut butter, e-coli in spinach, and unsafe or ineffective pharmaceuticals such as COX-2 inhibitors or non-statin cholesterol medications.

Conservatives have waged a campaign against the administrative state that has created and reinforced deep-seated concerns about over-bearing government, particularly at the national level. The …

Addressing The Global Tragedy Of Needless Pain: Rethinking The United Nations Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs, Allyn L. Taylor

O'Neill Institute Papers

The lack of medical availability of effective pain medication is an enduring and expanding global health calamity. Despite important medical advances, pain remains severely under-treated worldwide, particularly in developing countries. This article contributes to the discussion of this global health crisis by considering international legal and institutional mechanisms to promote wider accessibility to critical narcotic drugs for pain relief.

The Difficult Case Of Direct-To-Consumer Drug Advertising, David C. Vladeck

O'Neill Institute Papers

This article will appear in a symposium to pay tribute to Professor Steven H. Shiffrin, one of the leading First Amendment theorists of our time. The author was asked to focus on Professor Shiffrin’s contribution to the development of the commercial speech doctrine. To reflect on the wisdom of Professor Shiffrin’s refusal to rely on general First Amendment theories, the article focuses on the difficult First Amendment problem of regulating direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs. In his famous dissent in Virginia Pharmacy Board, then-Justice Rehnquist forecast that, as a consequence of the Court’s ruling, drug companies would soon advertise …

A Critical Examination Of The Fda’S Efforts To Preempt Failure-To-Warn Claims, David A. Kessler, David C. Vladeck

O'Neill Institute Papers

This article explores the legality and wisdom of the FDA’s effort to persuade courts to find most failure-to-warn claims preempted. The article first analyzes the FDA’s justifications for reversing its long-held views to the contrary and explains why the FDA’s position cannot be reconciled with its governing statute. The article then examines why the FDA’s position, if ultimately adopted by the courts, would undermine the incentives drug manufacturers have to change labeling to respond to newly-discovered risks. The background possibility of failure-to-warn litigation provides important incentives for drug companies to ensure that drug labels reflect accurate and up-to-date safety information. …