Graphic Cigarette Labels

[ke1985]

Ciagarette lables will include graphics such as ": Cigarette packs are going to get really ugly soon

What do you think?

I like it!

 

[pgp_protector]

If the government can force them to have large print warnings, can they force contracts to be large print vs the tiny .01 font?

 

[Skaloop]

When the whole warning-labels-on-cigarettes thing started, people started collecting them like trading cards. I doubt putting pictures on them would change anything. Besides, I think it's highly unlikely that any significant number of people in this day and age doesn't realize that cigarettes are unhealthy. And any that are so disconnected from the culture they are living in probably wouldn't care anyway.

 

[bigbadwilf]

I can't help but fel that this is more being seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something useful. After all, all you need is a cigarette case and any "benefit" is almost completely negated..

And it does lead to the question of where next, when this doesn't work? Plain wrappers? One big health warning occupying the entire box? Indoor smoking bans? Outdoor smoking bans? More tax hikes?

It'd serve them right if people en masse started avoiding white market cigarettes, as has happened to quite a degree in the UK. To give you some idea, the tax on tobacco has got so high that the HMRC estimates on how much tax is lost on imports for personal use (which is legal) which is often resold (which isn't) runs to half of the cost of an aircraft carrier every year.

 

[USincognito]

They already do this in Australia.

I'll just find a pack cozy so I don't have to look at the pics.

I can read. My father died of lung cancer. I'm making an informed choice.

 

[Bubbahotep]

O' Big Brother...stay out of my lungs or I'll huff, and I'll puff, I'll blow yo' butt away.

 

[Mystman]

Well, it seems to work:

"In Canada, which introduced graphic warning labels in 2001, a study by the Canadian Cancer Society found that smokers who quit after that date were more 2.78 times more likely to cite package warnings as a factor in their decision than smokers who quit in the two years before the pictorial warnings.
"

(yes yes, lies, damned lies and statistics, and this is assuming that they had textual warnings before the pictorial warnings, and a larger percentage of quitters citing the package is only a good number if more people actually quit, and etc etc etc..)

The thing about "oh but people have already made the choice to continue smoking.." is that the human mind isn't rational, choice doesn't exist, and the drug-addicted brain is even less rational than a healthy brain. Pictures do change how we think about things. Everyone knows that the sad children in Africa are dying from preventable causes, but for some reason charities still insist on including graphic images of the kids in their advertisements. Why would they do that if it didn't help raising more money?

We often recognize that others are being manipulated, but of course we are rational and completely immune to all the manipulation that's going on.

So. I think graphic warnings can certainly have some effects. The human mind may not comprehend the "this is really, really bad for you" message when it's just a bit of text. You may think that you do.. but then why do you still smoke? It's not a rational activity. So any piece of info that's trying to free a drug-addicted brain is a good thing, imho

 

[PreachersWife2004]

so when will we see a picture of some cellulite on that box of twinkies?

I really do hate the way the government picks on the tobacco industry.

 

[rambot]

Canada has had these pictures for a quite a while. So long as people are disgusted by it's doing the job; it can't force people to quit but at least it can force the ugly truth on them.

And cigarrette cozies got comfy up here in Canada for a while too. But they soon went by the wayside.

Smoking rates are generally going down around the country (from what i've seen) so, whatever they're doing, i'm content.

so when will we see a picture of some cellulite on that box of twinkies?

I really do hate the way the government picks on the tobacco industry.

TAx the crap outta bad food too... and put disturbing pictures "These could be your hips" type of thing.

 

[Supreme]

I've always found it ironic that the government is so adamant to warn people off a hobby they profit so much from themselves.

Nevertheless, anything that will try and stop people from destroying their lungs, raising their chances of CHD or developing emphysema is good, in my opinion.

 

[rambot]

I've always found it ironic that the government is so adamant to warn people off a hobby they profit so much from themselves.

It's almost like they care about the well being of the people they serve.

And the same is true of cops with speeders.

 

[Bubbahotep]

TAx the crap outta bad food too... and put disturbing pictures "These could be your hips" type of thing.

Yes, because God forbid we allow a little freedom of choice for the little people.

 

[Skaloop]

Yes, because God forbid we allow a little freedom of choice for the little people.

Well, informed choice would be preferable to uninformed choice.

 

[MrJDSmith]

Yes, because God forbid we allow a little freedom of choice for the little people.

are you saying that the government does not know what is best for you.

 

[ElizabethPeart]

Thing is that the number of smokers is going down anyway thanks to smoking bans in public enclosed spaces and the like. Given that the health risks of smoking are now well-publicized, the smoking ban in enclosed spaces means that smokers face the prospect of standing out in the rain and cold to have a smoke and also the sheer cost of smoking now (in the UK, 75% of the cost of a carton of smokes is tax), the chances are that smoking will eventually die out as a practice anyway.

 

[pgp_protector]

Once smokers learn to grow their own tobacco (it's legal) what will the Government do?

 

[Bubbahotep]

Well, informed choice would be preferable to uninformed choice.

Taxes have nothing to do with informed choice. Merely punishment for engaging in something the government doesn't want you to.

are you saying that the government does not know what is best for you.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is sarcasm.

Thing is that the number of smokers is going down anyway thanks to smoking bans in public enclosed spaces and the like. Given that the health risks of smoking are now well-publicized, the smoking ban in enclosed spaces means that smokers face the prospect of standing out in the rain and cold to have a smoke and also the sheer cost of smoking now (in the UK, 75% of the cost of a carton of smokes is tax), the chances are that smoking will eventually die out as a practice anyway.

And you consider this good? That people are forced to give up a legal activity they enjoy due to government intrusion and interference?

I think that's a little too close to tyranny for my liking.

Once smokers learn to grow their own tobacco (it's legal) what will the Government do?

They'll think of something authoritarian in nature and designed to generate revenue while burdening the average citizen that just wants to run their own life.

 

[Skaloop]

Taxes have nothing to do with informed choice. Merely punishment for engaging in something the government doesn't want you to.

Who said anything about taxes? We weren't even talking about taxes; we were talking about warning labels. Specifically, to your post and my reply to it, warning labels on cereal boxes.

 

[bigbadwilf]

Once smokers learn to grow their own tobacco (it's legal) what will the Government do?

Growing it isn't hard (no harder than cabbages), curing it is slightly more difficult, but not vastly so.

 

[KIYX]

Well, informed choice would be preferable to uninformed choice.

If you don't know by now that cigarettes kill then you were probably too stupid anyway.