담배광고 규제에 관한 헌법적 고찰− 미국에서의 경고도안(graphic warnings) 부착강제에 제기된 헌법적 의문을 중심으로 −
Constitutional Issues of Restrictions on Tobacco Advertising― Focused on Constitutional Issues of Graphic Warning Labels of Tobacco Products in the United States ―
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Tobacco-related disputes can generally be classified as litigation for the damages caused by smoking and tobacco regulation. In our current reality, absent comprehensive tobacco control acts, tobacco litigation functions are regarded as the most important social means of tobacco control. The Unites States has enacted and is enforcing the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The essential feature of the TCA is the granting of powerful supervisory authority over tobacco products to the FDA, which is designated as the main federal regulatory body for the manufacture, marketing and distribution of tobacco products. Meanwhile, based on the TCA, the FDA has enacted regulations making the affixing of graphic warnings, etc., on cigarette packs and tobacco advertisements mandatory, to which tobacco companies filed suit against the TCA and the regulations enacted by the FDA for the violation of their First Amendment rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the TCA provisions providing for the FDA regulation of cigarette packs and tobacco advertisements did not violate the First Amendment rights of the tobacco companies. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the regulations enacted by the FDA forcing the affixing of graphic warnings, etc., on cigarette packs, etc., to violate the First Amendment rights of tobacco companies. In our case, discussions regarding comprehensive tobacco control laws have, up to this point, mainly been from the perspective of the recognition of the right to smoke, or the restriction of tobacco companies’ freedom of occupation. However, an examination of the discourse in the United States regarding graphic warnings shows that the violation of the freedom of expression also accounts for a very important portion of the discourse surrounding comprehensive tobacco control laws. With the enactment of compre- hensive tobacco control laws now a task immediately at hand, discussions in the United States regarding the TCA, and the content thereof, have many implications on us.
Abstract
Tobacco-related disputes can generally be classified as litigation for the damages caused by smoking and tobacco regulation. In our current reality, absent comprehensive tobacco control acts, tobacco litigation functions are regarded as the most important social means of tobacco control. The Unites States has enacted and is enforcing the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The essential feature of the TCA is the granting of powerful supervisory authority over tobacco products to the FDA, which is designated as the main federal regulatory body for the manufacture, marketing and distribution of tobacco products. Meanwhile, based on the TCA, the FDA has enacted regulations making the affixing of graphic warnings, etc., on cigarette packs and tobacco advertisements mandatory, to which tobacco companies filed suit against the TCA and the regulations enacted by the FDA for the violation of their First Amendment rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the TCA provisions providing for the FDA regulation of cigarette packs and tobacco advertisements did not violate the First Amendment rights of the tobacco companies. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the regulations enacted by the FDA forcing the affixing of graphic warnings, etc., on cigarette packs, etc., to violate the First Amendment rights of tobacco companies. In our case, discussions regarding comprehensive tobacco control laws have, up to this point, mainly been from the perspective of the recognition of the right to smoke, or the restriction of tobacco companies’ freedom of occupation. However, an examination of the discourse in the United States regarding graphic warnings shows that the violation of the freedom of expression also accounts for a very important portion of the discourse surrounding comprehensive tobacco control laws. With the enactment of compre- hensive tobacco control laws now a task immediately at hand, discussions in the United States regarding the TCA, and the content thereof, have many implications on us.
참고문헌 (34)
- 김성수, "독일연방헌법재판소의 비흡연자보호법 결정에 대한 평가와 한국의 흡연규제법제에 대한 시사점", 토지공법연구, 45, pp.407~432 (2009), 한국토지공법학회
- 김종철, "흡연권과 혐연권의 우열관계에 관한 소고* - 헌법재판소 2004.08.26, 2003헌마457 결정을 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 17(3), pp.61~80 (2007), 법학연구원
- 김효근, "담배규제기본협약(FCTC)에 의한 담배제품 규제전망", 한국연초학회지, 29(1) (2007)
- 박길준, "한국의 담배규제에 관한 입법론적 고찰", 경제법연구, 3 (2004)
- 박동열, "규칙제정절차에서의 국민의 참여― 미국의 협상에 의한 규칙제정법의 실패를 중심으로 ―", 행정법연구, (37), pp.211~236 (2013), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 서미경, "외국의 흡연 그림경고 법제화 현황 및 효과", 보건복지포럼, 통권 : 133 (2007)
- 윤혜선, "리스크의 관점에서 본 담배규제의 법적 쟁점", 행정법연구, (27), pp.105~126 (2010), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 이현경, "담배규제기본협약의 국내이행과 관련한 문제점과 개선방안", 석사, 법학과 국제법전공, pp.2013
- 임인숙, "한국의 담배시장 개방과 담배광고･판촉규제법의 역행", 아세아연구, 54(2), pp.289~324 (2011), 아세아문제연구소
- 임지봉, "美國憲法과 商業的 表現의 自由", 미국헌법연구, 17(2), pp.215~224 (2006), 미국헌법학회
- 장욱, "미국의 가족금연 및 담배규제법(Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act) 제정을 통해 본 우리의 입법과제", 법학연구, 19(4), pp.115~147 (2009), 법학연구원
- 담배소비세제의 합리적 개편에 관한 연구, "최병호", 한국지방재정학회, ~ (2013)
- 최호영, "국민건강증진을 위한 담배사업 규제정책의 동향과 타당성 검토 -미국, ‘가족 흡연 예방 및 담배규제 법’(Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act)을 중심으로-", 의료법학, 12(2), pp.317~338 (2011), 대한의료법학회
- 하재홍, "‘흡연권’의 기본권성에 대한 고찰", 헌법학연구, 14(4), pp.173~197 (2008), 한국헌법학회
- 황성기, "담배규제에 관한 국내법제도 개선방향", 보건복지포럼, 통권 : 152 (2009)
- Nathan Cortez, "Do Graphic Tobacco Warnings Violate the First Amendment?", Hastings Law Journal, 64, pp.1467~ (2013)
- David D. Coyle, "Smoke and Mirrors: First Amendment Protection of Commercial Speech and the FDA's New Graphic Warning Labels for Tobacco", Northwestern Interdisciplinary Law Review, 6, pp.21~ (2013)
- Whitney Ehlin, "Silencing the Smoking Gun: A Critique of Formalism in Ruling on the Free Speech Implications of the Graphic Label Requirement of Tobacco Products", Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 11, pp.643~ (2013)
- Matthew R. Herington, "Tobacco Regulation in The United States: New Opportunities and Challenges", Health Lawyer, 23, pp.13~ (2010)
- Jordan Paradise, "No Sisyphean Task: How the FDA Can Regulate Electronic Cigarettes", Yale Journal of Health, Policy, Law, and Ethics, 13, pp.326~ (2013)
- Elaine Stoll, "The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and the First Amendment: Why a Substantial Interest in Protecting Public Health Won't Save Some New Restrictions on Tobacco Advertising", Food and Drug Law Journal, 65, pp.873~ (2010)
- Timothy J. Straub, "Fair Warning?: The First Amendment, Compelled Commercial Disclosures, and Cigarette Warning Labels", Fordham Urban Law Journal, 40, pp.1201~ (2013)
- Danielle Weatherby, "The Butt Stops Here: The Tobacco Control Act’s anti-Smoking Regulations Run Afoul of the First Amendment", Albany Law Review, 76, pp.121~ (2012)
- "헌법재판소 보도자료, 2013년 10월 8일자", 헌법재판소 공보관실, ~ (2013)
- "건보공단 ‘흡연피해 담배사가 물어내라’ 소송키로(종합)" (2014)[URL]
- "‘담배는 건강의 적’…정부, 담배와의 전쟁 나선다. 식약처는 담배 안전성 관리 나서…복지부는 금연구역 확대, 담배소송까지 벌여" (2014)[URL]
- "‘담배 소송 2라운드’ 국민건강보험공단, 537억원 訴" (2014)[URL]
- "담뱃갑 표면 65%에 경고 사진… 유럽의회, 흡연규제법 통과시켜" (2014)[URL]
- "정부, 담배산업발전 챙기면서 안전규제 손놔" (2013)[URL]
- "태국, 담뱃갑 경고문 확대에 담배기업ㆍ판매상 반발(종합)" (2013)[URL]
- "OECD 국가 중 담뱃값 가장 저렴… 경고사진없이 디자인만 화려하게" (2014)[URL]
- "YMCA “학교인근 편의점 담배 진열․광고 차단” 촉구" (2013)[URL]
- "Recent Case, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food & Drug Administration, 696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012)", Harvard Law Review, 126, pp.818~ (2013)
- "Cigarette Graphic Warnings and the Divided Federal Courts" (2013)[URL]