Scary Enough To Quit?

[mpjh]

Yes, but, governments lie in the national interest, right?

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, but, governments lie in the national interest, right?

doubt it, unless you refer to military stuff.

[AAFitz]

Proven liars don't get the same benefit of the doubt as everyone else.

Unless you're the federal government, right Player?

Context?
Not sure what you are talking about there.

Well, let's see. You accuse the tobacco companies of being proven liars, which arguably they are. And you say they don't get the benefit of the doubt because they are proven liars. Okay, that sounds reasonable.

On the other than, federal government representatives and employees have been regularly shown to be proven liars. And yet you seem to give them the benefit of the doubt on this issue and most others. As I stated in my post on the last page, the government (federal and state) have a vested interest in keeping tobacco companies around and making loot. And that, at least with respect to this particular issue, gives me pause.

I agree, except the people pushing for these measures are the ones that want tobacco gone, and this is simply a baby step towards that goal. It is the people in the government that have been corrupted by the tobacco money, that have simply stopped more extreme measures until this time.

There should absolutely be pause, because there absolutely is corruption, but in a case like this, its very obvious that these measures are just the compromise between the two parties fighting against each other. One side wants a carcinogenic product that kills and costs taxpayers millions to be removed from the shelves, and an other side that would happily remove all warnings and allow doctors to promote the health benefits of cigarettes. One must absolutely view such information in that light, but since those pictures actually are a result of smoking, and are a very real threat to everyone that smokes, especially children...I think the level of corruption putting them on there if any, pales in comparison to the corruption that caused those pictures to be possible in the first place.

Also, in a very real way, all warnings on all products have migrated from text to pictures, so its hardly without precident. My construction equipment looks like a 4 year olds picture book, and not the ones with a everyone lives happily ever after...or at least not everyone lives happily ever after with both arms, legs, etc.

Picture warnings work. They help stop accidents. They help save lives. Its simply more effective than text, which is so easily ignored. In the end, the only damage by these pictures is that a billion dollar industry that thrives on taking advantage of the weak, illiterate, or just stupid will lose a little money. The benefit is possibly saving children's lives, and extending, countless others, and making countless others more effective, efficient, and productive throughout their entire lives.

There's just very little downside to any measure that helps stop kids from starting smoking, which is the only way smoking will ever be stopped. Its one of the more addictive habits and drugs available, and children let alone adults simply have a difficult time quitting once they start.

[rdsrds2120]

Just read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43844518/ns ... ddictions/

So, it seems that Teenagers and young adults are seeing smoking less severely. Maybe the pictures will help make those percentages go back up?

-rd

[Woodruff]

Yes, but, governments lie in the national interest, right?

doubt it, unless you refer to military stuff.

They lie to US all the time, "in the national interest".

[tkr4lf]

Wow, this thread made me really want a cigarette.

You know, smoking might be bad, it might cause cancer eventually, etc., etc.

But it should still be a choice about whether to use it or not. It's called personal responsibility.

Besides, at least I know what' s killing me. I'll die doing what I wanted to do.

[shakeycat]

Picture warnings: they aren't just for the smoker. I've heard of kids pressuring their parents to stop smoking because of the graphic warning labels, terrified their mom or dad will get cancer and leave them behind.

And I'm pretty sure that youth smoking in Canada is at an all-time low. Then again, so is youth freedom.

[neanderpaul14]

Cigarettes are delicious.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, but, governments lie in the national interest, right?

doubt it, unless you refer to military stuff.

They lie to US all the time, "in the national interest".

Reading back, I think what I meant was that I don't think its OK for government officials to lie, except in a few narrow cases of true national interest, mostly national security... but that gets WAY overused. Unfortunately, we only know some of the cases.

(that is, I don't excuse it just because someone claims a lie is for the national interest, but there are legitimate times when a lie is warranted)

[rdsrds2120]

More on this:

Big Tobacco sues feds over graphic warnings on cigarette labels

COLUMBIA, South Carolina — Tobacco companies want a judge to put a stop to new graphic cigarette labels that include the sewn-up corpse of a smoker and pictures of diseased lungs, saying they unfairly urge adults to shun their legal products and will cost millions to produce.

Four of the five largest U.S. tobacco companies sued the federal government Tuesday, saying the warnings violate their free speech rights.
"Never before in the United States have producers of a lawful product been required to use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally-charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their products," the companies wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington.
The companies, led by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co., said the warnings no longer simply convey facts to allow people to make a decision on whether to smoke. They instead force them to put government anti-smoking advocacy more prominently on their packs than their own brands, the companies say. They want a judge to stop the labels.

The FDA refused to comment, saying the agency does not discuss pending litigation. But when she announced the new labels in June, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called them frank and honest warnings about the dangers of smoking.
The FDA approved nine new warnings to rotate on cigarette packs. They will be printed on the entire top half, front and back, of the packaging. The new warnings also must constitute 20 percent of any cigarette advertising. They also all include a number for a stop-smoking hotline.

One warning label is a picture of a corpse with its chest sewed up and the words: "Smoking can kill you." Another label has a picture of a healthy pair of lungs beside a yellow and black pair with a warning that smoking causes fatal lung disease.
Manipulated images?

The lawsuit said the images were manipulated to be especially emotional.
The tobacco companies said the corpse photo is actually an actor with a fake scar, while the healthy lungs were sanitized to make the diseased organ look worse.

The companies also said the new labels will cost them millions of dollars for new equipment so they can frequently change from warning to warning and designers to make sure the labels meet federal requirements while maintaining some distinction among brands.

Joining R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard in the suit are Commonwealth Brands Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc.
Altria Group Inc., parent company of the nation's largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, is not a part of the lawsuit.
The free speech lawsuit is a different action than a suit by several of the same companies over the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

The law, which took affect two years ago, cleared the way for the more graphic warning labels, but also allowed the FDA to limit nicotine.

The law also banned tobacco companies from sponsoring athletic or social events and prevented them from giving away free samples or branded merchandise.

A federal judge upheld many parts of the law, but the companies are appealing.

[HapSmo19]

I've done it. I'm a genius:

The federal and state governments get out of the tobacco tax business(I know, right?) and turn it all back over to big tobacco. Then the tobacco companys sell "gift" type cards that tobacco users can buy and then register online in their name before they use them to buy tobacco products. OK... Then...the tobacco companys can charge whatever they want for a pack of cigarettes because, as one of their valued customers, they'll be picking up the cost of your healthcare based on the amount of money you've spent on their product over the years. You'd have the Platinum Weezer, Gold Hacker, and the Bronze Loocher or something. They could compete with eachother by offering the best price per pack/best percentage going toward your health insurance premiums. It would then be in their best interest to either make sure their product was as harmless and non-addicting as they say or price themselves out of business.

You could do the same with alcohol and combine benefits and have, say, the 70/30 Philip Morris/Anheuser Bush Health plan.

You could also still buy these things with cash but you'd be screwing yourself out of the benefits.

I'll take my nobel prize now.

[rdsrds2120]

The courts did not uphold the decision.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/27/appea ... fdas-graph

On Friday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that graphic cigarette warning labels proposed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violate the First Amendment.

Interesting.

-rd

[notyou2]

America....the land of litigation