Judge Claudia Wilken denied the company's request for a preliminary injunction in December, noting [image-nocss] that the ordinance "prohibits conduct, tobacco sales, not speech about tobacco." That decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last month.
Jack Marshall, a spokesperson for Richmond, Va.-based Altria, PM USA's parent company, confirmed the suit had been dropped and declined further comment, according to a Reuters report.
"Although called a ban on sales, the purpose and effect of the ordinance is to suppress communications directed to adult smokers, in violation of our constitutional rights," Joe Murillo, Altria Client Services vice president and associate general counsel, speaking on behalf of Philip Morris USA, said in September 2008. "Likewise, the ban unfairly deprives adult consumers of the opportunity to buy tobacco products from legitimate licensed retail businesses."Click here for previous CSP Daily News coverage.)
"San Francisco's local officials have the right and the duty to protect public health, and in this case they have a compelling rationale," said Herrera. "Consumersand especially young peopleshould reasonably expect pharmacies to serve their health needs, not to enable our leading cause of preventable death."
The ordinance being defended by Herrera's office prohibits San Francisco's nearly 60 drugstores from selling cigarettes and other tobacco products. San Francisco's ordinance, which took effect on Oct. 1, 2008, was the first of its kind in the nation. In February, a similar law in Boston took effect that bans tobacco ban in drug stores and on colleges campuses.
Another lawsuit against the tobacco sales ban by Walgreens remains underway in state courts. The Deerfield, Ill.-based drug store chain sued on Sept. 8, 2008 to strike down the ordinance, alleging that it violated the retailer's right to equal protection under the state and federal constitutions, and charging that the measure was void for failing to comply with Proposition I, a city measure requiring "economic impact reports" in certain circumstances. That suit was dismissed in San Francisco Superior Court, and is now before the California Court of Appeal.
The federal case is Philip Morris USA Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. C-08-4482-CW. The Walgreens challenge is Walgreen Co. v. City and County of San Francisco et al., Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, Case No. A123891.
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.