on soda bottles or on cookie packages?

Having notices and warning pictures on the packages of cigarettes reminds smokers to either quit or smoke less. I think they are a good idea.

People still have the choice to smoke or not smoke as they wish. They are just reminded that they are incurring a risk when they smoke.

I am over 65. Most my friends who smoked a lot are no longer living. That's anecdotal, but it sure works for me.

I was looking forward to buying an attractive cigarette case so I don't care what they do.

use drugs,and exercise regularly.

It is that simple. Just think of how great you'd be doing if you didn't smoke. Might live to be 126, healthy and happy.

But you can't be sure that you won't die in horrible misery.

Cigarettes are good for you, and they lead to a long and fragrant life utterly devoid of defensive bitterness.

I needed it. I was getting depressed with all the folks on here defending cigs. I guess it's the addiction talking.

I'm not even a smoker myself, and I still don't see smoking as any great evil.

My favorite is "but I really enjoy smoking!"

If they are looking for a public service, absolutely.

The problem is not education.

The problem is that cigarettes are addictive AND they kill.

The only legal position vis a vis cigarettes that would make any sense to me would be to make them illegal or leave them the fuck alone.

BTW, make cannabis legal already. I don't think the govt. should have the right to tell me what kinds of seeds are legal to put in the fucking ground. They are SEEDS.

Being concerned about public health is all well and good, but even as a non-smoker I find the find the portrayal of tobacco as a near-demonic societal evil a bit overblown.

FYI I'm not advocating this, I'm just providing the facts, it does work to reduce use.

...in our lives and to what limits it should be taken.

on all products that contain sugar, for example.

But that, of itself, is not a compelling enough argument to force companies that are trying to sell a product to advertise how bad their product is.

The whole thing is absurd from the POV.

If you allow a product to be legal and sold, you cannot also force said companies to anti-advertise. It is contradictory and ridiculous. It is an infringement on the right to conduct business.

Make them illegal or leave them alone.

What about forcing beer companies to put pictures of bloody car wrecks or stabbings on their labels? Just silly.

I think that in part the "nutrition information" labels were a very good thing, for example.

I would like more labels for things like whether or not a product was produced by slave labor or not.

But I agree that if you're going to force some companies to change their labeling then it can apply to all products that are unhealthy.

But I'm not going to say it's not effective, it most certainly is. Imagery is a very effective way to control populations.

Not the same. No one's learning anything being forced to publish or view grotesque imagery.

...in the produce section.

EAT LEMONS OR ELSE!!!!!!!

I'm not sure I agree with the grounds for this decision but I do think this is a step too far.

The problem with tabacco is the image. Many people smoke because we can't make them not smoke. It's that simple. They don't necessarily enjoy smoking but they do it to show everybody their defiance. A pack of brand name cigarettes costs rougly $5 a pack today. We could add another $1 tax to help offset the costs of smoking but that would stop anybody from smoking. The less income you have the more likely you are to smoke. That is the statistics. If somebody was hungry and out of cigarettes and only had $5 they would buy a pack of cigarettes rather than spend it on food.

So, how do you address that mindset? These grapic labels would have no impact or even a negative impact. What do psychologists have to say on this subject as the ball would seem to be in their court, especially on prevention measures.

but that's just my 2 cents.

I think that if public money is involved in the treatment of tobacco-related illnesses, the holder of the purse strings gets to make some decisions therein. Of course, this is a stronger argument in Canada, where all health care costs are part of the public purse.

And on a more.....musing level....how many lives have to be saved, or massive suffering avoided before some perceptional discomfort on the part of any or all smokers is outweighed?

of smoking related illness and disease on cigarette
packs day after day, month after month and year after year.

It's OK if young people don't start smoking?


Tikki

wouldn't it be better to post the pictures in every classroom? Lots of kids may rarely ever see a cigarette pack close up, but almost all of them go to school day after day, month after month, and year after year.

Young ones do leave the HS classroom and hangout with friends and come in contact
with smokers.
Any reminder is a good reminder.


Tikki

The more you bad mouth tobacco the more it drives teens to smoke. We need psychologists input, not political input. One thing is unmistakable, what we are doing today is failing miserably as somewhere arount 70% of people between 16 and 25 smoke.

We have commercials, posters in schools, in many public areas that already contain such graphic images. If the goal is to scare people into quitting with imagery, it may work for a few, but not for the majority. I really do not think that this is the way to go. Does such a method violate free speech? I'm not sure, but I believe it violates decency.

The labels can always be torn off if people don't want to look at them, but putting them on in the first place I think is overkill. Kids looking at those images may decide not to smoke - the images may also give them nightmares.

My prediction:

The cellophane will soon be made opaque to cover the pictures until they outlaw that. Loosies will also become more mainstream.

I'm certainly no fan of the tobacco industry, but I don't view tobacco companies as a special kind of evil either - other large corporations are just as bad in their own way. Cigarettes are already taxed through the roof - which, being a regressive tax, that disproportionately penalizes low-income folks, I'm not thrilled about.

But never mind all that, because tobacco is EVIL EVIL EVIL and anyone who disagrees with this is EVIL EVIL EVIL too!

Health Insurance and a few other companies come really close, but Big Tobacco is the King of Corporate Evil.

If you honestly think this is hyperbole, you ready should study what they have done, and what they have hidden, for decades upon decades.

Evil.

except I believe that people who disagree that tobacco is a dangerous evil are STUPID STUPID STUPID!