Plain tobacco packaging tank supported by British American Tobacco, stated that it would be "disastrous if the government, by introducing plain-packaging legislation, [removed] the simplest mechanism for the ordinary consumer to tell whether their cigarettes are counterfeit or not." Arguments against plain packaging include its effect on smuggling, its effect on shops and retailers, and its possible illegality. A study published in July 2014 by the British Medical Journal refuted those claims. In reporting Philip Morris's legal action against the Australian project, "The Times of India" noted in 2011 that plain packaging legislation was being closely watched by other countries, and that tobacco
Tobacco packaging warning messages anti-smoking campaigns by placing the new warnings on packaging violates the companies' free speech rights. Additionally, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Commonwealth Brands Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc. claimed that the graphic labels are an unconstitutional way of forcing tobacco companies to engage in anti-smoking advocacy on the government's behalf. A First Amendment lawyer, Floyd Abrams, represented the tobacco companies in the case, contending that requiring graphic warning labels on a lawful product cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. The Association of National Advertisers and the American Advertising Federation also filed a brief in the suit, arguing that