FDA Unveils Graphic Images for Cigarette Packs

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by likemyorbs, Jun 21, 2011.

  1. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #1
  2. soco, Jun 21, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2011

    soco macrumors 68030

    soco

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Location:
    Yardley, PA
    #2
    Were those images to the left some of them? I'd like to see them all.

    More importantly, this annoys me because it goes along the same lines as those nasty commercials.

    I don't smoke. I don't want to be subjected to this disgusting imagery.

    Also, this:

     
  3. IntelliUser macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Location:
    Why does it matter?
    #3
    If you're stupid enough to even consider breathing poison I don't think any kind of textual or graphical content will stop you.

    High taxes, on the other hand...
     
  4. mscriv macrumors 601

    mscriv

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    #4
    "Sometimes freedom smells like a lit cigarrette."

    One of my favorite quotes when it comes to topics like this. It's from a radio host here in the Dallas area, but I can't recall his name at the moment. I'm not a smoker, but we can't legislate morality or put warning labels on everything in life. People are going to make choices and sometimes those choices can and will result in harm to themselves or others. That's just how life is.
     
  5. lewis82 macrumors 68000

    lewis82

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    #5
    None of these work. In Québec, graphical images are now 75% of the packaging and I doubt it will change anything (it was 50% before and the effect was very small). There will now be more "gory" pictures, but once you've seen them all, the effect lessens, I guess.

    As for taxes... we have indian reserves who produce their own cigarettes and you can buy them (illegally) for almost nothing.
     
  6. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #6
    If they really wanted to deter smoking, they'd just outlaw tobacco. As usual, though, follow the money.
     
  7. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #7
    The War on Drugs has been a huge, expensive failure. As was Prohibition. For certain drugs, regulation - not outright prohibition - is the answer.
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    Govt should just get out of everyones lives. If a person wants to smoke its their choice. Where does it stop? next we will have the fat police trying to control peoples diet.
     
  9. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #9
    That link was pointless without the images themselves...
    Yahoo is always like that.
     
  10. lewis82 macrumors 68000

    lewis82

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    #10
    I'm perfectly fine with people smoking. What I'm not fine with is people getting their lung cancer treatments entirely paid for by the state.
     
  11. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #11
    Its a good point but we have to draw the line of govt intrusion into everyones life somewhere because there will be no stopping it just as there has been no stopping of taxes everywhere. Services should allways be compensated somehow. Maybe we should make these folks who cant pay give return service for their care.
     
  12. Sam Yikin macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #12
    I would argue that there is a difference between government intrusion in peoples' lives and this sort of action. If they include warning labels on cigarette packs, if they raise taxes on cigarettes, they are discouraging you from buying them- not forcing you not to. There is a difference between helping you make good decisions, and making them for you.
     
  13. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #13
    I'm even less fine with smokers stinking up pubs and restaurants and giving other people cancer in the first place.
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    Which begs the question of what kind of service a life-long smoker with Emphysema can provide.

    What return service can end-of-life patients provide?
     
  15. lewis82 macrumors 68000

    lewis82

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    #15
    In Québec it's a thing of the past ;) Smoking is now forbidden in all public buildings, and in theory, outside, within 9 meters of public buildings.
     
  16. mscriv macrumors 601

    mscriv

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    #16
    Don't worry that's already started, but it's not yet coming from the government, just the insurance companies. When you start discussing the connection between the freedom to make your own health choices and who should cover the cost of those choices the coversation gets much more complicated.

    My current employer's insurance company does annual health screenings part of which involves a blood test. Through the blood test health and risk factors are identified including smoking. Those found to be smokers pay a higher rate for their company sponsored insurance. The slippery slope argument begs the question of how long before they apply such a policy to other things like cholesterol, obesity, etc. etc.

    When government health care kicks in it will be interesting to see how or if some sort of tiered pricing structure like this is applied.
     
  17. Merkava_4 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #17
    I'm not fine with it. As I'm pushing my grocery cart into the store, I have to walk passed all the smokers leaning on the outside of the building. I've considered getting some handkerchiefs to cover my breathing as I'm walking passed those people.
     
  18. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #18
    OK, raise the tax to $100 a pack; I guarantee you'd get a lot of people to quit. 10 years ago, a carton of Marlboros at the local Wal-Mart was around $15. Today it's pushing $50. The increase is pure sin tax, but that level of taxation obviously hasn't done its job.

    IIRC, the increased taxes that smokers voluntarily pay fund that treatment, at least in part.

    I'm actually fine with this to a point. Smokers are higher risk patients. Auto insurance costs more for high risk drivers; life insurance costs more for those in high risk occupations. It seems perfectly logical to extend this to smokers.
     
  19. IntelliUser macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Location:
    Why does it matter?
    #19
    Outlawing is useless and usually a waste of money.
    The problem is there's not enough stigma towards smoking. Smoking is still seen by many as something "cool," especially from teenagers who think they make you look more like an adult. That's the real problem. It's not lack of education, with the textual warning (and now the graphic one) I don't think there's anyone who doesn't know cigarettes are harmful, just people who don't care.

    Why are you frowned upon by society if you cut your wrists but not if you smoke? To me, it's the exact same thing. Except that by cutting your wrists you don't spray infected blood over the others around you.

    The current government policy of outlawing and demonizing soft drugs which are much less addictive and physically harmful than smoking and alcohol, of course, doesn't help.
     
  20. ChristianJapan macrumors 601

    ChristianJapan

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Location:
    日本
    #20
    Not all cancer are to be linked to smoking; would be unfair to exclude passive smoker from treatment.

    I guess a significant tax on a pack dedicated to health care would be the right approach. Those who want to smoke and take the risk would direct contribute to the increase health care cost.
     
  21. 42streetsdown macrumors 6502a

    42streetsdown

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    Gallifrey, 5124
    #21
    someone smoking isn't just their choice. when someone smokes the people around them have to breathe it as well. Also cigarette butts all over the ground. yuck.
     
  22. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #22
    I might like to pout out prohibition did have some positive side effects. Drinking did go down and domestic crimes dropped as well. Also in terms of being drunk and those crimes they dropped during that time period as well.

    Now I do not see this pictures have any effect on current smokers but they will reduce new smokers.
     
  23. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #23
    The problem is smokers themselves. If they gave a crap at all about other people, we wouldn't have to crack down on their "rights". Let me ask you one question: can you name any other vice in which when people are done partake in it, they just throw their garbage on the street, sidewalk, grass? Its disgusting. Why do smokers think that this is ok?
     
  24. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #24
    I think increasing taxes to the point where electronic cigarettes replace regulars , while it is still addictive it doesn't harm other people
     
  25. Love macrumors 68000

    Love

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Location:
    Just southeast of Northwestshire
    #25
    Same here in Alberta - No smoking in pretty much any public building or within 10 metres of it.
     

Share This Page