A Moral Decision?

The government and the FDA have control over cigarette packages, and are mandating that all cigarette packages be covered at least 20% by pictures displaying corpses, cancerous lungs, tracheotomy holes, and infants in incubators. This is a federal move that, if passed, will be enacted in September of 2012. The images are being used as visual reminders of the dangers involved with smoking, as well as to display ways for people to quit (typically including a hotline number on the package for help with quitting). However, Federal judge Richard Leon says that this is unfair, and I agree with him.

Although the message needs to get across that smoking is dangerous, it doesn't need to be displayed in a way that will make cigarette boxes a horrifying sight. It's people's right to smoke, and even after knowing the statistics on how smoking causes cancer and death, few people make the choice to quit. This is their right, and it should not be plagued with pictures that make the squeamish gag and others downright disturbed. Although these images are a great tool to deter the youth of the nation from smoking, they are what I'd consider to be morally wrong. There are ways to get the message across without using such graphic, expensive means (the expenses from the law will, of course, be put up to cigarette manufacturers). One of these ways has been around for almost half a century, the surgeon general's warning, printed on all cigarette packages since 1965. Some people thought that this wasn't enough, and elected to put forth those grotesque pictures to fortify the cons of smoking.

Smoking is a big issue because, just as people 18+ have the right to smoke, people of any age who wish to be in a smoke free environment also have the right to not be bothered by clouds of nicotine. Many restrictions have been put on the smoking end, repressing the amount of smokers and the areas they can smoke in. Huge taxes have even been put on cigarettes, in some cases making them nearly twice as expensive as they would normally be without tax. And yet, further restrictions are being placed on smokers, aiming to slap their worst-scenario future on the box and completely limit the manufacturer's space to get their own message across. But where have the restrictions been placed on the other end, the end of non-smokers?

The moral implications thereof certainly don't match up. Perhaps because smoking is hazardous to your health is why it's being limited so much. Yet if it's a right, then why aren't their at least some laws protecting smokers from the opposition in the health field and the federal government?

My questiona to you are these:

1. Is it morally wrong for the FDA to mandate grotesque pictures to be put on cigarette packages?
2. Is it fair to smokers, non-smokers, and cigarette manufacturers to require so much of the cigarette package to be covered by anti-smoking propaganda?