buddahj Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I hope the new labels work. But IMO, if you're gonna smoke, you're gonna smoke...regardless of what's on the pack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 It seems bizarre that, regardless of health risk, PG images are mandated to be put on cigarette packaging on the whim of a government body. What's next? Bloody corpses of drunk driving accident victims on beer bottles? It seems like a story from the Onion, or a 'life imitates art' story about Monty Python's Crunchy Frog sketch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Yep. This is very stoopid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) I hope the new labels work. But IMO, if you're gonna smoke, you're gonna smoke...regardless of what's on the pack. I don't think they're trying to communicate to adult smokers. It is illogical to smoke, but reason rarely works on an addict. I think they are trying to communicate to the kids cigarette companies lie about not marketing to. These labels will have the greatest impact on young people who haven't picked up smoking yet, and hopefully never will. Edited June 22, 2011 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 i'm surprised how graphic they are. if it stops some kids from starting the habit, i'm all for it - i don't see much downside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 i'm surprised how graphic they are. if it stops some kids from starting the habit, i'm all for it - i don't see much downside. This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 NSFW - language Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I am not a smoker. I feel there is something fundamentally wrong with the world where a product that if used correctly kill 1/3 (cigarettes) can be sold on every corner in America yet we freak out over gun control which doesn't kill remotely even close to the level of people that squares do. I find the habit disgusting and it makes no sense at all to me why people continue to smoke with all of the information we have on how deadly it is. I hated going out to eat and having the smoke from the smoking section drift over. Makes as much sense as having a peeing section in a pool. That being said... I find putting these warning labels on cigarettes is essentially embarrassing/shaming people as age who choose to smoke every time they go to purchase a pack. If the vendors that sold cigarettes follows all of the laws associated with them then a majority of kids (under the age of 18) wouldn't have access to them. There will always be ways to get them when you are underage so I say a majority and not all. If parents did their due diligence then a lot of kids wont start smoking. If police out on patrol see a kid that looks to be underage and smoking stopped and question the kids it could reduce those numbers. Hell, if vendors that sell cigarettes have to card anyone that appears to be 32 years in age or younger (per the signs in stores) then police should also have the right to do so. I personally feel that while the intentions are good for these new labels it is overwhelmingly unnecessary and a waste of money. We are just continuing to go down the path we always do here. Instead of focusing on the root causes let's just throw up some legislation (and the money involved in that) to put new labels on. That should shut up the advocates and special interest groups. If I were a smoker and went to go buy a pack from a gas station I would feel embarrassed purchasing them with a picture of a diseased lung on it. I'm 37, I make the choice to smoke so I know the risks that come along with it yet now I have to be handed a cancer riddled lung from a cashier and the other people in line seeing this would only make me feel shameful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Jeebsus. We get it already. Cigarettes are dangerous to ones' health. Thanks, we got it 40 years ago, too. Despite that, the tobacco companies are still going strong. It's America. People still have the right to engage in legal activity, even if it is dangerous to themselves. Enough of the nanny state, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) I agree with everything you said Cliaz, except that smoking is a choice. Of course it is a bad choice that many make when they're young and stupid, but later on it's an addiction like any other... Trust me, with the way smokers are looked down upon, charged more for healthcare and taxed on smokes, and even denied job opportunities nowadays, most every smoker I know, including myself, would love to be able to quit. It's incredibly difficult (especially if you have an addictive personality), and the negative effects are usually not as immediately serious as drug and alcohol addictions are, making it even more difficult to hit rock-bottom as incentive to quit (until it's too late and you develop a serious condition)... So I'm all for educating kids about the dangers and negative effects of smoking, but this kind of nanny-state scare-tactics is not the answer, and it flat-out makes me resent the government who already tax the crap out of my addiction "for your own good". I am not a smoker. I feel there is something fundamentally wrong with the world where a product that if used correctly kill 1/3 (cigarettes) can be sold on every corner in America yet we freak out over gun control which doesn't kill remotely even close to the level of people that squares do. I find the habit disgusting and it makes no sense at all to me why people continue to smoke with all of the information we have on how deadly it is. I hated going out to eat and having the smoke from the smoking section drift over. Makes as much sense as having a peeing section in a pool. That being said... I find putting these warning labels on cigarettes is essentially embarrassing/shaming people as age who choose to smoke every time they go to purchase a pack. If the vendors that sold cigarettes follows all of the laws associated with them then a majority of kids (under the age of 18) wouldn't have access to them. There will always be ways to get them when you are underage so I say a majority and not all. If parents did their due diligence then a lot of kids wont start smoking. If police out on patrol see a kid that looks to be underage and smoking stopped and question the kids it could reduce those numbers. Hell, if vendors that sell cigarettes have to card anyone that appears to be 32 years in age or younger (per the signs in stores) then police should also have the right to do so. I personally feel that while the intentions are good for these new labels it is overwhelmingly unnecessary and a waste of money. We are just continuing to go down the path we always do here. Instead of focusing on the root causes let's just throw up some legislation (and the money involved in that) to put new labels on. That should shut up the advocates and special interest groups. If I were a smoker and went to go buy a pack from a gas station I would feel embarrassed purchasing them with a picture of a diseased lung on it. I'm 37, I make the choice to smoke so I know the risks that come along with it yet now I have to be handed a cancer riddled lung from a cashier and the other people in line seeing this would only make me feel shameful. Edited June 30, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 What's really laughable is that they honestly think gruesome pictures will prevent youngsters from smoking. Helllllllllllllllllooooooooooo! Who exactly do you think make slasher/psycho killer movies and graphically violent video games wildly profitable? You want to keep kids from buying cigs? Put pictures of Liberace or Theodore Cleaver on the package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 "We’ll begin . . . studies to make sure that we are keeping people sensitized," says Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius. "What may seem quite shocking at the beginning, people get used to quite quickly." So if people build up a tolerance for the repulsive, the FDA will amp the dial up to grotesque. Although the placement of graphic warning labels on commercial products is novel in the U.S., government’s use of the gross-out is nothing new. Wartime propaganda posters of an earlier age routinely depicted the enemy as monstrous beasts to be slain or subhuman bugs to be exterminated. Of course, no one backing the new warning labels would call them propaganda. Rather, the FDA’s Lawrence Deyton says, "We are trying to communicate accurate, truthful information about the health impact of smoking, to allow consumers to be informed." That is a lie. The old warnings—informing buyers that cigarettes cause cancer, and so forth—conveyed information. The new labels are designed to provoke a reaction in that lizard part of your brain thoughts never reach. A warning on a ladder that reads, "Caution: Improper use could lead to serious injury from falling" conveys information. A graphic photo of a compound tibia fracture conveys only sentiment. sums up my thoughts pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Hell, if vendors that sell cigarettes have to card anyone that appears to be 32 years in age or younger (per the signs in stores) then police should also have the right to do so. I would feel very strongly against a police officer having the right to question a person just because he looks under 32 and smoking. That is a Pandora's box you don't wanna open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I would feel very strongly against a police officer having the right to question a person just because he looks under 32 and smoking. That is a Pandora's box you don't wanna open. I've been looking over the laws in the counties around me and the public policies state only persons of teenage years in appearance. But if the stores are required to do so why shouldn't the police? (Not pushing back, just trying to stimulate a civil debate) I'm curious as to your mind set based off of your reply above. And where are my signed panties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Judge block these graphic warnings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 They should put a warning on pussies that they can lead to marriage, mortgages, kids, college funds, and Disney vacations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Why mandate looking at a picture of a fetus before an abortion? After all, I am paying the $300 for a legal procedure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I think it's over the top. Kids start smoking to be cool, look cool, be an outlaw. No amount of gore could get me to quit, which I did one year ago. Only the help of electrronic cigarettes could get me to quit, something I wanted, needed desperately to do. Footnote: The FDA is doing all it can to make electronic cigarettes illegal. Makes a ton of sense, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I've been looking over the laws in the counties around me and the public policies state only persons of teenage years in appearance. But if the stores are required to do so why shouldn't the police? (Not pushing back, just trying to stimulate a civil debate) I'm curious as to your mind set based off of your reply above. And where are my signed panties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The moment that happens, every illegal in the nation would quite smoking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.