The money that cigarettes have paid the two men makes them understandably sensitive to the well-being of their donors and they have expressed their gratitude by letting Europe know that it can't follow in Australia's footsteps and impose restrictions on how its donors are portrayed to the public.
Do the graphic warnings the Food and Drug Administration would like to require on cigarettes -- which depict, for instance, a woman crying uncontrollably -- violate the free speech clause of the Constitution?
In granting tobacco companies a delay in complying with a government order to put graphic anti-smoking images on cigarette packs, Federal District Court Judge Richard Leon sought mightily to make a case for industry. His problem -- industry doesn't have a case.
The idea behind the new cigarette warnings is that if people really knew what cigarettes can do to them, they would not smoke. Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that these warnings will not have the desired effect.