Graphic cigarette package warnings blocked

slimvictor

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
The federal government’s plan to put images of a dead body or diseased lung on U.S. cigarette packages is on hold — and may itself be going up in smoke, according to a federal court ruling Monday.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot force tobacco companies to put its new images and warnings on the top halves of all cigarette packages until 15 months after a final ruling on the merits of the companies’ lawsuit against the regulation, a case likely to take years, Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said Monday.

The preliminary injunction likely ends the FDA’s quest to have its dramatic new labels on cigarette packages by September 2012.

The final ruling, however, may not favor the government, wrote Judge Leon, a 2001 appointee of President Bush.

The court “concludes” that the five tobacco companies that brought the lawsuit “have demonstrated a substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of their position,” he said in a 29-page opinion.

The government’s plan to take over 50 percent of cigarette packages in the U.S. “strongly suggests” that it seeks to use the packages for its own anti-smoking agenda, Judge Leon wrote.

Also, images such as a diseased lung, or male cadaver with chest staples, combined with warnings such as “Smoking can kill you” and a “1-800-QUIT-NOW” hot line, are not intended to merely inform, “but rather to advocate a change in consumer behavior,” he wrote.

“In short, the government has neither carried its burden of demonstrating a compelling interest” to carry the images, nor did it explain how it has tailored its “compelled commercial speech” into a constitutionally permissible form, Judge Leon said

He added in a footnote: “One can only wonder what the Congress and the FDA might conjure for fast-food packages and alcohol containers, if … they were not compelled to comply with the intricacies of our First Amendment jurisprudence.”

cont at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/7/graphic-cigarette-package-warnings-blocked/
 
Hoozah! A victory for tobacco (my biggest fear was always that they'd move to extend the pics from just cigs to cigar bands which are works of art and should not be defiled, but I'm happy on this ruling all around. Well, if they do end up going through I hope that cigarette cases come back in style. That'd be neat).
 
I think this is more likely to even further alienate smokers from non-smokers. In the US smokers are ostracized, forced to isolated areas, bullied by store management, mall cops, etc about smoking in 'non-smoking areas' or being 'too close to the entrance', and the anti-cool social stigma since the at least the 1990's. Can you imagine the reaction when you go to pull your pack of Marlboro's out and its got a picture of an emaciated corpse of a lung cancer victim? Imagine doing this in a populated area, around children, family, etc. It's obscene. And I don't believe it will have any more an effect than the traditional anti-drug ads and images promoted by DARE-type groups and non-profits out there. Education is the best weapon against people using any addictive substance for the first time- after that it's well studied treatments and harm reduction where this isn't possible. This is not how to stop people from smoking their first cigarette (I think its been established that the lowering percentage of new smokers over years past is due to education and also the drop in advertising- not from showing everyone gorey, morbid pictures).
 
In Canada we have these warning labels and have for years now; Has it changed my behaviour or even had me second guess that cigarette I am about to light up? Not really.
 
I'd like to see it happen, only to reduce the number of cigarette smokers, although, it might have an opposite effect. Nonetheless, it would for sure have a desensitizing effect.

Tchort said:
It's obscene.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion, though I disagree. Someone more sensitive than you or I would say smoking cigarettes in itself is obscene.

Nonetheless, if you wanted to really bring up the "think of the children" point, then why wouldn't someone just put their smokes into a cigarette case? Or, you can hold onto one of the old packs without the ads, and just transfer them into there.
 
Last edited:
My point wasn't specifically 'think of the children' but in a broader social aspect- ostracism and alienation is not an effective strategy to reduce consumption of anything. Is there any reason to believe this will reduce the number of new smokers better than the education programs that have and are working? I don't think individual smokers need anymore social stigma than they already have.
 
Tchort said:
My point wasn't specifically 'think of the children' but in a broader social aspect- ostracism and alienation is not an effective strategy to reduce consumption of anything. Is there any reason to believe this will reduce the number of new smokers better than the education programs that have and are working? I don't think individual smokers need anymore social stigma than they already have.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I honestly don't think it would be a measurable reduction in the number of smokers. However, I think on one side - I'd rather see a picture of what my lungs were to look like, if I was thinking of starting smoking. It's like a fair warning. It's not like you can avoid it by still buying cigarettes. You can avoid it by not smoking cigarettes, or getting an e-cig, or getting a smoke-free tobacco product.

I think honestly - some people may not be aware of the risks as is, without putting it right there on the pack, they may not know until after they start.

At the very least, for people who are already aware of said risks, it puts it at the forefront of their minds every time they buy a pack, if not have a cigarette. It could encourage people to quit sooner instead of later.
There's also the chance it may not have any effect at all and the number of smokers may increase regardless of whatever we do to try to stop it. I think if you look at how the Montana Meth Project, you could see how I'd believe such a thing.

Nonetheless, I'd just be personally interested to see the effects it had.
 
Good. I mean, fuck the obscenely powerful tobacco lobby in the US. But having those warning labels just seems really mean to me. It's like the government trying to bully and taunt smokers out of smoking. Not cool.

Would this only be on cigarettes or would cigars and pipe tobacco and shisha also have to have that shit? And what if it's manufactured in a different country but sold in the US, like most shisha and many cigars?
 
We already have these in the UK. No-one cares. They are ignored in the same way that the text warnings were ignored (by me and most people I know, anyway)
 
|>R()|)!G/-\|_ said:
My, my, my...If I had the power of the tobacco lobby I'd be a friggin' superhero.
Click to expand...

036289_9.jpg


" We don't sell Tic Tacs, we sell cigarettes. And they're cool, available, and *addictive*. The job is almost done for us."
 
psychomimetic said:
Good. I mean, fuck the obscenely powerful tobacco lobby in the US. But having those warning labels just seems really mean to me. It's like the government trying to bully and taunt smokers out of smoking. Not cool.

Would this only be on cigarettes or would cigars and pipe tobacco and shisha also have to have that shit? And what if it's manufactured in a different country but sold in the US, like most shisha and many cigars?
Click to expand...


This would just cover cigarettes I believe. As for whether they mean all or only those of domestic manufacture, I am unsure.
 
There is no way the government should be able to force tobacco companies to put 50% of their label as a diseased lung or whatever. If the government is allowed to do this, then 50% of every bottle of alcohol should have a photo of a bar fight stabbing victim. Every automobile should be 50% covered with a photo of a car accident. Every airliner should be 50% covered with a picture of the twin towers on 9/11. Every firearm should be 50% covered with photos of people that have been shot. Where does it end ? Who is not aware that smoking is bad for you ? This is unacceptable government intrusion in what is supposed to be a free market .
 
Tchort said:
ostracism and alienation is not an effective strategy to reduce consumption of anything. Is there any reason to believe this will reduce the number of new smokers better than the education programs that have and are working? I don't think individual smokers need anymore social stigma than they already have.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if I agree with you.
I think that ostracism and alienation might be very effective strategies to reduce consumption.
Hasn't it already happened with cigarettes?
It sure seems to have worked here in Japan.
Both the number of smokers and the number of cigs smoked per day have both gone down in the past 20 years, based on (nothing more than) my observation, as well as the observation of a friend who has smoked all that time. He said that he was amazed 20 years ago, when he first came to Japan and found ash trays on almost every street corner. Now, he claims, people give him dirty looks when he smokes.
This is not to say that it is fair, or moral, for the government to control social opinion in order to shape the world into what they want it to be.
In fact, I would say that it is evil to use social control for such purposes.
However, in this case, I personally wouldn't mind terribly if they succeeded, as the cost to society from tobacco has got to be higher than that of almost any other drug, save possibly alcohol. (I include in this cost the continued illegal status of cannabis, for example.) But I do believe that propaganda and social control by brainwashing are evil, as I said...
Of course, as you said, education is the ultimate key to changing social behavior, and with science-based education (which is 100% free of religion or morality) people might actually grow up and trust what they learned in those classes as kids...
I wasn't aware that such education was already being practiced, if indeed it is.
 
nsauce said:
There is no way the government should be able to force tobacco companies to put 50% of their label as a diseased lung or whatever. If the government is allowed to do this, then 50% of every bottle of alcohol should have a photo of a bar fight stabbing victim. Every automobile should be 50% covered with a photo of a car accident. Every airliner should be 50% covered with a picture of the twin towers on 9/11. Every firearm should be 50% covered with photos of people that have been shot. Where does it end ? Who is not aware that smoking is bad for you ? This is unacceptable government intrusion in what is supposed to be a free market .
Click to expand...

I don't quite agree, I think.
I do agree about the alcohol.
But alcohol and tobacco, when used as directed, cause illness and death to some percentage of users.
Cars and airplanes, when used as directed, do not cause illness or death to anyone.
I feel that there is a large difference.
Still, it is hard to argue with your point about "unacceptable government intrusion" - though I would not consider (science-based) education programs to be so.
 
Venrak said:
In Canada we have these warning labels and have for years now; Has it changed my behaviour or even had me second guess that cigarette I am about to light up? Not really.
Click to expand...

We've got them here in the UK too.. is one of them a picture of a syringe? Such a stupid picture.. Syringe.. tobacco.. no mate.
 
slimvictor: Still, it is hard to argue with your point about "unacceptable government intrusion" - though I would not consider (science-based) education programs to be so.
Click to expand...

The government has every available outlet to advertise their anti-smoking campaign (tv, radio, print). I simply think it is unfair that they try to force the cigarette companies to take part in it by altering their packaging. If the government is so virally anti-smoking, just outlaw cigarettes already, and let the mexican drug cartels take control of tobacco, as they have all the other prohibited substances. The cartels would love the extra revenue, and already have the smuggling and distribution structures in place. There would hardly be a burp in supply .
 
rickolasnice said:
We've got them here in the UK too.. is one of them a picture of a syringe? Such a stupid picture.. Syringe.. tobacco.. no mate.
Click to expand...

Lol naw no syringes on our packs ... Why do they even have that on your packs ?
Is it cause they're worried about people IVing tobacco lol .


On our packs we have pics of tarred up lungs and clpgged hearts . And children see children do kinda stuff . Them when you open the pack there's a business card inside the pack for a quit smoking hotline .

Also what sucks but is also good at preventing people from smoking is that in Canada (it could just be my province ) they can't actually display the cigarettes on a shelf or anything .

Its not like the US where our gas stations are covered with tobacco ads .

We have to know what we want before even going in the store
 
What also needs to be recognized is that no amount of public opinion shift will keep people from smoking.

I know that smoking causes all kinds of diseases, I know that it's addictive and I know that doing it is costly to the public. But I still smoke, albeit only once a day usually (one cig or one hookah bowl depending on how much time I have). I love smoking. I love tobacco. It's something I really enjoy doing and I have no plan of quitting, regardless of what warning labels say, because I already know the risks. Many other smokers also feel this way.

Everyone knows smoking is bad. Depending on where you are cigarettes are already generally socially stigmatized. But smoking is fun, relaxing and pleasant, as well as extremely addictive. People will always keep doing it.

Like I said, my main qualm with these warning labels is that it wouldn't be nice to all us who smoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top