meh. Those have been on cigarette packages here in Canada for at least 15 years (I breifly smoked in university and they had them on the packages then). In fact a year or two ago (i can't remember because I don't smoke anymore) a legislation was passed that cigarettes cannot even be on display in stores in Canada. They did this instead of decided to make the graphic warning take up 75% of the packaging.
They are now behind opaque levered doors. The theory behind this was that kids that wanted to start smoking had to know a what brand they wanted rather than being able to look at the wall of smokes and pick one out. So of course most just used whatever one thier parents/older siblings/friends/other relatives used.
Yeah, like other people have said, other countries have done it, and I don't have a problem with it. But something from the article didn't make sense to me:
She noted that a pack-a-day smoker will confront the graphic photos more than 7,000 times a year.
So a pack a day means 365 packs a year. There are 20 cigarettes in a pack. I guess they figure the smoker will see it every time they light up a cigarette? And if it is an insert placed between the cardboard box and the plastic film, then that is patently false, because they'll just throw it away the same time they throw away the film. Now I suppose they could have it printed on the box, but that seems like a lot more work. As someone who works in a place that sells cigarettes, I'm curious to see whether it will be a hard deadline (i.e. you can't sell cigarettes that don't contain this warning after this date) or a soft deadline (continue to sell them until the new product arrives, which in the case of some poor selling brands can be several months).
Originally posted by CajunManIf the government wants people to quit
Fiscally, I don't think the government REALLY wants people to quit because they're making so much money off the taxes. According to this article Click Here (dailycaller.com) the federal government collected $15.5 BILLION in fiscal 2010.
That would be a lot of lost revenue if everyone suddenly gave up smoking and/or went to a black market for their smokes.
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year -- -- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Originally posted by Mike Zeidler On the other hand, think of all the money we'd save on healthcare.
We're talking long-term benefits vs. short-term shortfalls. Any decrease in the percentage of people who smoke is going to happen with young people. Someone who has been smoking for 20 years isn't going to be put off by a picture of yellowed teeth or a diseased lung or a guy with throat cancer. Either they already have these symptoms and they don't care or they figure it won't happen to them. We have people who still buy Camel Non-Filters, which is crazy because (1) it's like $2 per pack more than the Cmael Filters, and (2) it's freaking NON-FILTERED CIGARETES! The healthcare costs for people on Medicare (the majority of which are over the age of 65) with smoking-related diseases is not going to be affected by this any time soon. Now the budget shortfall from losing even a fraction of that $15 billion is something that Congress would have to do something about, especially with the Tea Partiers making a balanced budget such a big deal. And incidentally, politicians have always been better at planning for the short term rather than the long term (because there's a chance they wont be around in the long term anyway).
I was in Europe last week and all the Cigs had those pretty pictures and warnings on them, and, at about 8 bucks (6 Euros) a pack, they sold OK.
I saw a lot of people rolling their own too.
In Belgium, July 1st starts the "can't smoke in Restaurants" law, and there was a lot of talk about that.
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift
We have people who still buy Camel Non-Filters, which is crazy because (1) it's like $2 per pack more than the Cmael Filters, and (2) it's freaking NON-FILTERED CIGARETES!
Hey, that's ME! I always say - smoke a pack a day for 30 days and see how you feel
Then spend 30 days eating nothing but fast food and see how you feel
I gave up the fight against non-smokers and the non-smoking laws years ago. If it's a place I can smoke, I smoke. If not, I don't. And the pricing and gruesome pictures have no effect on me. If I want them, I'll buy them
Besides, all the tax revenue is supposed to go towards the health care of children. If I quit smoking, who is to say some kid won't suffer due to lack of funds?
Also - non-filtered smokes have never been recalled for rat shit and fingernails in the filter. Just sayin
Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high
I do think that non-filtered cigarettes are relatively* healthier than filtered. Then again, if people went back to smoking unprocessed tobacco, it wouldn't be nearly as addictive. So tax the crap out of the additives.
*still not really all that healthy, though.
"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
My parents smoked Lucky Strikes while I was growing before switching to a "safer" cigarette in Winston's. Both have stopped smoking and both are still living (in their 70s). However, when my Dad quit, he gained about 50 pounds and never has lost it, and just had valve replacement surgery last year. My Mom does have lung problems but not cancer.
They ruled recent that cigarette makers can't call cigarettes Lights or Extra-Lights in the United States. So instead of Marlboro Light's, it's Marlboro Gold etc.
Then spend 30 days eating nothing but fast food and see how you feel
That's a great point. Is a 150 smoker more healthier then say a 300 pound non-smoker? I would argue yes.
Originally posted by Zeruel That would be a lot of lost revenue if everyone suddenly gave up smoking and/or went to a black market for their smokes.
On the other hand, think of all the money we'd save on healthcare.
On the other, other hand smoking kills people off younger so you save money on caring for the elderly! Phillip Morris attempted to prove smoking was good for the Czech economy back in 2001 using this, perhaps unwisely, as part of their argument.
Originally posted by wannaberockstarI really doubt that people who smoke have never seriously considered the long term effects and that, miraculously, these pictures will make them go "whoa, really?".
True, but it is pretty unpleasant to look at. Call me squeamish but I used to leave the pack lying with the flip side up so I was just faced with a random health warning which would range from the alarming "Smoking kills" to the unlikely-to-be-a-problem-for-we-menfolk "smoking when pregnant harms you and your baby".
At the end of the day though the only thing that makes you stop is deciding you really don't want to smoke any more and no, scary pictures aren't likely to make a real difference one way or the other.
Originally posted by AWArulzI was in Europe last week and all the Cigs had those pretty pictures and warnings on them, and, at about 8 bucks (6 Euros) a pack, they sold OK.
I quit about 18 months ago and couldn't *believe* how expensive the things are over here these days. £8.70 for a measly 16 out of your average fag machine. Even if I wanted to start up again I probably couldn't afford it. I remember when I was at high school being able to make a healthy profit from buying 20 for £2.50 then selling them at 20p a pop to the kids in class who didn't look old enough to get served themselves. Changed days I tell you.
I don't know how much attention everyone was paying to yesterday's primaries. But we had the potential for the greatest general-election campaign in the history of democracy. Then Orly Taitz goes out and gets curb-stomped (vote.sos.ca.gov)