As Judge Judith Rogers noted in dissent, there is good evidence that bolder warnings will "alleviate" some of the harm.
He upheld the constitutionality of requiring bigger, bolder warnings on packages, though he did not rule on the specific images, which the F.D.A. had not yet chosen.
But the bolder warnings should help persuade more adults to quit and show young people that the habit is more lethal than cool.
But efforts led by former Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey to require bigger, bolder warnings like "Cigarettes kill!" and "Cigarettes are addictive" have stalled.
Businesses and special-interest groups often cloak their profit motives in the garb of constitutional rights — think Big Tobacco and its opposition to restrictions on smoking in public places and bold warnings on cigarette packages.
In the United States, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, and Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, are preparing legislation that would require large, bold warnings like, "Cigarettes are addictive," but would not go so far as to require photographs.
The industry agreed to be regulated by the F.D.A., which could, among many other things, set manufacturing standards that could include the lowering of nitrosamines, an established carcinogen; mandate bigger and bolder warnings on cigarette packages; virtually eliminate tobacco marketing and advertising; and take other measures that might reduce the long-term harm tobacco causes.
Those actions were met with equally bold warnings from Canada's natural resource minister, who said defence forces and police would be used to deal with non-peaceful protest.
Now the bold warning must fill 20 percent of the advertising space.
Tobacco companies are back in court trying to prevent the government from imposing new regulations that will require bold warning labels on cigarette packages and advertisements.
