PDA

View Full Version : New cigarette warnings unveiled



PoliCon
11-28-2010, 11:43 AM
By Rob Stein
November 10, 2010; 8:49 AM ET

Federal health officials on Wednesday announced plans to require cigarette packs and ads to carry bigger, much more prominent and graphic health warnings, including images of dead bodies, cancer patients and diseased lungs.

The Health and Human Services Department, which announced the new initiative, called the new warnings "the most significant change in more than 25 years" in cigarette packages and advertising. The warnings will cover half of a cigarette pack, the government said.

One warning, for example, is, "Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease." It is shown with the picture of the feet of a dead body in a morgue. Another, "Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease," shows a man apparently having a heart attack. A third, bearing the warning, "Smoking can kill you," shows what appears to be the head a chest of a corpse. The chest is bisected by a large surgical scar.

The Food and Drug Administration said it is using its newly enhanced powers to regulate tobacco products to require the more prominent warning statements and color graphic images "depicting the negative health consequences of smoking."

"Today marks an important milestone in protecting our children and the health of the American public," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.

Every day, the statement said, nearly 4,000 youths try a cigarette for the first time and 1,000 become regular smokers.Tobacco is the leading cause of premature and preventable death in the United States, causing 443,000 deaths each year and one-third of all cancer deaths.

Officials said that the new labels are part of a series of actions aimed at reducing smoking. The FDA has already restricted the use of the terms "light," "low," and "mild" to describe cigarettes; banned fruit, candy, and spice flavors from cigarettes; and taken steps to prevent the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to youth. The 2010 health-care legislation includes free access to anti-smoking therapies, and the 2009 stimulus package included $225 million to support local, state and national anti-smoking efforts. The government has raised taxes on cigarettes, and taken other measures to stop the illegal sale of tobacco products over the Internet and through mail order, including the illegal sales to minors.

The FDA will gather public comment on the 36 proposed images until Jan. 9, 2011, and select nine final warning statements and images by June 22, 2011--after reviewing the scientific literature, the public comments, and a study involving 18,000 people. The final regulation will go into effect Sept. 22, 2012, the FDA said. By Oct. 22, 2012, manufacturers will no longer be able to distribute cigarettes for sale in the United States that do not display the new graphic health warnings.

"Today, FDA takes a crucial step toward reducing the tremendous toll of illness and death caused by tobacco use by proposing to dramatically change how cigarette packages and advertising look in this country," FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg said in a statement. "When the rule takes effect, the health consequences of smoking will be obvious every time someone picks up a pack of cigarettes."

Assistant Secretary for Health Howard K. Koh said the United States is "at an unprecedented time in our nation's history to protect the public's health from tobacco use, the leading cause of preventable, premature death" in the country.

"It will take renewed commitment from every sector of society to end the tobacco epidemic," Koh's statement said.

See more pictures of the proposed cigarette product warning labels here (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteProductWarningLabels/UCM232425.pdf).


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/11/anti-smoking_plan_launched.html

NJCardFan
11-28-2010, 11:56 AM
I have no problem with this at all. Let people see how ridiculous smoking is and what it can cause.

PoliCon
11-28-2010, 12:00 PM
I have no problem with this at all. Let people see how ridiculous smoking is and what it can cause.

So you have no problem with them demonizing those that smoke - while they tax and subsidize the whole industry?

lacarnut
11-28-2010, 12:13 PM
I have no problem with this at all. Let people see how ridiculous smoking is and what it can cause.

Do you feel the same way about Pot?

PoliCon
11-28-2010, 12:17 PM
Do you feel the same way about Pot?

Another issue that cracks me up. States going out of their way to demonize and outlaw tobacco while at the same time legalizing pot. :rolleyes:

marv
11-28-2010, 12:41 PM
Do you feel the same way about Pot?

Another issue that cracks me up. States going out of their way to demonize and outlaw tobacco while at the same time legalizing pot. :rolleyes:
...and what about genetically and brain damaged teens and the increased number of autistic children? Pot head DUIs? Drug related crime? Gangs that trade in pot?

How about pics in the windows of the "medicinal pot dispensaries"?

NJCardFan
11-28-2010, 02:14 PM
Do you feel the same way about Pot?

Yes. Drug abuse in any sense is stupid. To think otherwise is laughable. As for smoking, you have to be an idiot to smoke and this is coming from someone who was a 2 pack a day menthol smoker. I realized one day how stupid the habit is. And there are people who would rather smoke than eat. I've seen inmates spend most of their money on cigarettes and not on items like stamps to mail letters home, money for phone calls, or food off of commissary. You have people on welfare who would trade their food stamps for money for cigarettes and booze. Smoking is responsible for more deaths in this country than any other means.

Jumpy
11-28-2010, 04:19 PM
The pics are pretty shocking. They probably won't help any smokers to quit, but maybe they will prevent new smokers. Less smokers could be a huge blow to states that rely on taxes from cigs.

BadCat
11-28-2010, 06:15 PM
Yeah, like any of us look at the pack of cigarettes we buy.

Maybe if they put cheesecake photos of Megan Fox on the packs, I'd look at them.

PoliCon
11-28-2010, 08:04 PM
The pics are pretty shocking. They probably won't help any smokers to quit, but maybe they will prevent new smokers. Less smokers could be a huge blow to states that rely on taxes from cigs.

Taxes they're using to subsidize HEALTHCARE. :rolleyes:

noonwitch
11-29-2010, 08:50 AM
They recently outlawed using the words "lights" or "ultra lights" in cigarette names. This has led to mass confusion among non-smoking clerks at gas stations. In that case, it's because the government doesn't want anyone to think that Light referred to anything less than taste.

Here's the thing, though. My "lights" always had less tar in them than the regulars. Doesn't that mean that they are, indeed, slightly less bad than regulars, because they have less tar? They're so expensive I don't really smoke that many a day anymore, but still, this is getting ridiculous.

Gingersnap
11-29-2010, 10:45 AM
This entire effort is both hypocritical AND pointless. If smokers didn't subsidize just about every kind of health care except health care for themselves, the states would go bankrupt making up the difference. Or they would switch their sights to your soda drinks and snacks and you'd hear the exact same level of agitprop about how junk food kills. Maybe they'd slap a pic of a diabetic amputation on your Twinkies while they ratchet up the price by $5.00 bucks or so.

It's pointless because smoking levels aren't going up or down in response to government messages. I've already seen cigarette cases being sold at convenience stores and you can bet that sales will just increase.

There's a point at which the "you're gonna die" message just stops working. If they really wanted to decrease smoking rates, they'd discuss the expense and how it's propping up expensive government programs and giving the government even more power over individual lives. That's a realistic message that would resonate with some people.

PoliCon
11-29-2010, 12:07 PM
This entire effort is both hypocritical AND pointless. If smokers didn't subsidize just about every kind of health care except health care for themselves, the states would go bankrupt making up the difference. Or they would switch their sights to your soda drinks and snacks and you'd hear the exact same level of agitprop about how junk food kills. Maybe they'd slap a pic of a diabetic amputation on your Twinkies while they ratchet up the price by $5.00 bucks or so.

It's pointless because smoking levels aren't going up or down in response to government messages. I've already seen cigarette cases being sold at convenience stores and you can bet that sales will just increase.

There's a point at which the "you're gonna die" message just stops working. If they really wanted to decrease smoking rates, they'd discuss the expense and how it's propping up expensive government programs and giving the government even more power over individual lives. That's a realistic message that would resonate with some people.

:mad: HOW DARE YOU CHALLENGE THEIR PROPAGANDA WITH COMMON SENSE!!!!1!!!!;)

Calypso Jones
06-22-2011, 03:04 PM
That's not even a smoker's mouth. It's called Meth Mouth.

linda22003
06-22-2011, 03:15 PM
Yeah, like any of us look at the pack of cigarettes we buy.

Maybe if they put cheesecake photos of Megan Fox on the packs, I'd look at them.

I can mostly imagine teenage boys going, "Hey, I got the dead guy! Which one did you get?" :p

Zafod
06-22-2011, 05:08 PM
“You can make the entire pack the warning label. You can call [the cigarettes] Tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block to buy a pack.”

- dennis leary

Odysseus
06-22-2011, 05:38 PM
The real issue is this: Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to expropriate advertising space on the packaging of a legal product? Can the feds demand that a certain amount of private building space be devoted to signage about the evils of urban blight? Can they demand that McDonald's be compelled to put photos of obese people in spandex on the sides of burger packaging? Where does this authority come from, and what are the limits on it?

pyackog
06-22-2011, 07:01 PM
Wow. The feds are spending time and money trying to figure out ways to let people know that smoking is dangerous. As if there are smokers who don't know this. I'll probably smoke more of them just to say screw you to them and help pay for the warnings.

And the feds do know that in the long run, smokers are good for the budget so they don't want us stopping anyway.

Hawkgirl
06-22-2011, 07:17 PM
What's next? Putting a photo of an obese man/woman on a bag of potato chips?

I just lost a dear uncle to lung cancer. Smoking DOES kill you. People already know that. It's up to the individual if they want to stop or not.

pyackog
06-22-2011, 07:22 PM
“You can make the entire pack the warning label. You can call [the cigarettes] Tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block to buy a pack.”

- dennis leary

Great line from Leary that also happens to be 100% true. :D

fettpett
06-22-2011, 10:18 PM
way to necro a post.....