A smoker was accused of violating a Davos City ordinance prohibiting smoking in enclosed public spaces. The smoker argued that the city ordinance was superseded by the subsequent federal Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003. He argued the new act contained a definition of enclosed spaces that did not coincide with the circumstances of his arrest. The court found that there was a conflict between the two laws with the municipal law being vague and that the restaurant where the smoker was caught did not meet the enclosed spaces definition of the new law. The smoker was thus found not to have violated the law.
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
A smoker was accused of violating a Davos City ordinance prohibiting smoking in enclosed public spaces. The smoker argued that the city ordinance was superseded by the subsequent federal Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003. He argued the new act contained a definition of enclosed spaces that did not coincide with the circumstances of his arrest. The court found that there was a conflict between the two laws with the municipal law being vague and that the restaurant where the smoker was caught did not meet the enclosed spaces definition of the new law. The smoker was thus found not to have violated the law.