FDA attempts to regulate tobacco yet again

[FathomFear]

I'm pretty sure these types of graphic image mandates are in effect all across the world.

My main concern is, will it cost taxpayers any money?

I think the better question would be "Would the cost of these ads outweigh the proposed benefits?" Just asking whether or not something costs money isn't itself a very good litmus test. You need to look at the goals and expected outcomes.

[Deleted]

Well those pictures are already on the packages in Denmark. But to be honest, as a smoker myself I just flip the package around if it's one of the gross over exaggerated pictures. Would they just be honest about the dangers I might actually want to listen to what they have to say, until then i don't care.

And please piss of if you are going to say anything about how stupid it is, I know the dangers etc. and i don't care about some random guy mentioning it for the billionth time.

[ptwonline]

This is stupid. The gov't forces companies to pay to say stuff all the time with rules of mandatory info on packaging. If forcing you to pay to say something is infringement of free speech, then reasonable infringements are allowed. Is it fair to force manufacturers to disclose the harm that their products can do? I think so. Look at ads for prescription drugs--the list of side-effects and dangers can be so lengthy that the commercials start to sound like a comedy sketch.

[Deleted]

Well, over here we don't have the supergross images, but the packages themselves contain like 1/3rd of the facing covered with big black bars with clear white lettering that give a concise message of what smoking can do to you.
It's possibly not as graphic, but it serves the same goal. In a country with absolutely so many diverse languages as the US, I suppose something more pictorial is neccesary.

Funny thing. People who still wanted to smoke anyway still do. And there was a brief sales spike in the market for cigarette-cases, covers and tobacco-wallets.

As Dennis Leary said "It doesn't matter how big the warnings on the cigarettes are; you could have a black pack, with a skull and crossbones on the front, called TUMORS, and smokers would be around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these f* things! I bet ya get a tumor as soon as you light up!"

[Dasmunk]

I remember those... Smokers in the NL started collecting them.
It was a dead end.

Actually when i first heard about this happening in the US i was gonna do exactly that!

[Laize]

Excellent and even if we have to spend taxpayer money on it, it is a very very cheap investment if we can just get even a marginal drop in use of tobacco since we will reap benefits galore in the healthcare costs and loss of productivity that will go down,

Win win situation to enforce more anti tobacco measures.

Except it's been proven many times over that it does nothing to deter smoking. In fact, someone in the Netherlands said the exact same legislation caused people to start collecting the packs.

[Roggan]

burgers and alchohol arent addictive, if you get addicted you have some serious mental problems be it insecurity or worthlessness

Sorry, but alcohol is addictive and habit forming. Burgers and other terrible foods can be as well, you think those 800 pound people that eat 8,000 calories a day aren't addicted to food?

And please don't turn this into a debate on the definition of addiction.

[KingHorse]

This is stupid. The gov't forces companies to pay to say stuff all the time with rules of mandatory info on packaging.

The government does indeed dictate that you must disclose things like ingredients, potentially harmful side effects, etc. They even dictate the size, by way of essentially saying "it has to be big enough to be read without a fucking microscope." The American government does not, however, dictate that a specific percentage of your packaging space has to be occupied with way over the top "OMFG DON'T USE THIS PRODUCT OR YOU DIE!!" pictures. They have only attempted to do so with tobacco.

To equate it to the other arguments about other harmful things: McDonalds doesn't have to put a picture of a fat guy having a heart attack on their burger wrappers. Budweiser doesn't have to put a picture of a rotted liver and/or wrecked car on their bottles. You get the idea.

[NeutralGuy]

Smoking in young people is on the rise which is a great concern. We need to work even harder with education and such to stop smoking.

Actually it has declined here in the USA (over the last 30 years)... the rate of decline has leveled off but nowhere near increasing. Smoking is no longer the cool thing to do.

---------- Post added 2012-03-01 at 01:08 PM ----------

If anything this imaging campaign was probably just a clever scheme to allow someone to sit on their ass and have money thrown at them. Why do we live in such a backwards society that the guy who cleans your sewers gets less money than the guy who makes a TV show about sewers.

Seriously you cannot answer that question for yourself?
economics 101

---------- Post added 2012-03-01 at 01:10 PM ----------

Wait a minute. Cigarrete packs in the USA don`t have those pictures in them??

Wow, here in Brazil, all packs have it already.

And I thought the USA was ahead of us in everything. Guess times are really changing.

We've had to fight this stupid idea off before, I'm more then sure we will successfully fight it off again and have this discussion again in about 4 years...

"A federal mandate requiring tobacco companies to place graphic images on their products warning of the dangers of smoking was tossed out Wednesday by a judge in Washington, with the judge saying the requirements were a violation of free speech."

And there is your reason why.

[Worshaka]

I'm pretty sure these types of graphic image mandates are in effect all across the world.

My main concern is, will it cost taxpayers any money?

Because Governments don't earn disproportionate amounts of Tax from Tabacco right?

Alcohol is harmful. That entire Prohibition Era went so well too.

There are 2 major differences:

• Tobacco is not illegal and therefore available (allbeit in a regulated fashion).
• There is a safe level of alcohol consumption whereas there is no safe level for smoking tobacco.

[Brett Skullcrack]

There are 2 major differences:

• Tobacco is not illegal and therefore available (allbeit in a regulated fashion).
• There is a safe level of alcohol consumption whereas there is no safe level for smoking tobacco.

* Alcohol was not illegal, until it was made so by prohibition.
* There is a "safe" level of tobacco consumption just like there is a "safe" level of alcohol consumption. "Safe" meaning "no controlled studies have found a statistically significant difference between consuming at this level and not consuming at all".

[Palliente]

Isn't there already enough regulation against tobacco industry?

They're already forbidden from advertising anywhere a child could have a remote chance of seeing it. They have to include the surgeon general's warning on all the labels. Now the FDA pretty much wants them to directly advertise AGAINST themselves.

Seriously, enough is enough already. I'm an ex smoker and I don't have much love for tobacco myself... but come on. It's not like people smoking is on the rise. Smoking trends are the lowest they've been since the 1960s. There are already tremendous educational programs in place.

If people are going to smoke they are going to smoke. That's all there is to it. Pictures and surgeon general's warnings and meeting people who've suffered from smoking related illnesses are not going to stop them. It's pointless to waste money to continue and try.

Agreed. Aside from making sale of tobacco illegal (which I am definitely not advocating), is there really anything else that can be done?

Total waste of legislation, time, money, etc.

---------- Post added 2012-03-01 at 09:45 PM ----------

* Alcohol was not illegal, until it was made so by prohibition.
* There is a "safe" level of tobacco consumption just like there is a "safe" level of alcohol consumption. "Safe" meaning "no controlled studies have found a statistically significant difference between consuming at this level and not consuming at all".

Please tell me the "safe" level of tobacco consumption? o.O

[MechaMoose]

I don't smoke so I don't really care 1 way or the other but I lost all faith in the FDA after they pulled a sting on an amish farmer for selling raw milk to people who requested it.

[Brett Skullcrack]

Please tell me the "safe" level of tobacco consumption? o.O

I haven't seen a study that has found a significant difference between a cigar per day vs. non-smoking (all the ones I read couldn't find a difference), but to be sure, a cigar per week will be safe.

[NeutralGuy]

I haven't seen a study that has found a significant difference between a cigar per day vs. non-smoking (all the ones I read couldn't find a difference), but to be sure, a cigar per week will be safe.

pretty sure cigar a week = higher chance of cancer in the mouth. ever smoke a real cigar?

[Artravus]

THAT isn't really necessary at all. What they should be trying to do is to tax it as hard as they can.