US court rejects graphic cigarette warnings

peacefrompaul

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 4144d1.5e1

hedonist

It does seem like overkill, especially since it's pretty much common knowledge that harm may come from it.

Also, I haven't seen anything about slapping photos of dead alcoholics or their diseased livers on bottles of booze.

Some may disagree, but I believe people are - or should be - free to arm themselves with knowledge (or choose not to), and then live as they see fit for themselves.

(I am kind of surprised by the rejection, though!)

peacefrompaul

hedonist wrote:

Some may disagree, but I believe people are - or should be - free to arm themselves with knowledge (or choose not to), and then live as they see fit for themselves.

Preach it.

One of the things I say to myself everyday.

Zoso

a new law just passed in Australia for this to happen.. good move there but Australia is always going to be move progressive then here.

dancepartner

good point. Beer bottles don't have to show distended bellies - yet.

your move now

it doesn't make any difference.
Australia introduced pictures in 2006 when I was living o/s, so I came back and was shocked and put off by them... for about a month. now I don't even see them.. although I had a good laugh at the impotency one when in New Zealand last year...
And now Aus is introducing plain packaging - again I can't see the point. Especially since they aren't allowed to be on display in stores anyway

unsung

Zoso wrote:

a new law just passed in Australia for this to happen.. good move there but Australia is always going to be move progressive then here.

Do you think people are so stupid that they need those pictures on the labels?

Prince Of Dorkness

The comparison to alcohol isn't quite accurate. A small amount of alcohol is good for you, moderation is key and just about every alcohol ad says "enjoy responsibly."

And beer doesn't actually cause a beer gut. Sorry, cracked.com is my life.

Cigarettes are a unique product that when used in the intended way, causes death. And the cigarette industry has gone out of their way to market their product at younger people who see it as "rebellious" and "cool" and a social bonding thing. I took up smoking at 12 so I could fit in with the rock n roll bad guys at my school.

Yes, it was dumb, I was 12 and 12 year-old boys do dumb things to fit in.



That said... We used to think the horrifying packages were cool, too. So the whole thing backfired.

Zoso

unsung wrote:

Zoso wrote:

a new law just passed in Australia for this to happen.. good move there but Australia is always going to be move progressive then here.

Do you think people are so stupid that they need those pictures on the labels?

people smoke even thought they know it's killing them so I don;t know..

BinauralJam

dancepartner wrote:

good point. Beer bottles don't have to show distended bellies - yet.

Jason P

hedonist wrote:

Also, I haven't seen anything about slapping photos of dead alcoholics or their diseased livers on bottles of booze.

hedonist

Jason P wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Also, I haven't seen anything about slapping photos of dead alcoholics or their diseased livers on bottles of booze.

Ah, but I laugh at that!

I was thinking earlier about how far this stuff should be pushed; shouldn't even be pushed.

Doesn't, shouldn't, simple common sense prevail?

Like "drink responsibly". Yes (and, not directed to you, Prince, but duh...it's as if not saying that is encouraging irresponsible drinking).

Or warnings on plastic bags and bottles of Windex and cans of Raid - keep away from children.

Again, duh.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

unsung wrote:

Zoso wrote:

a new law just passed in Australia for this to happen.. good move there but Australia is always going to be move progressive then here.

Do you think people are so stupid that they need those pictures on the labels?

I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that the label is going to make a 30 year smoking veteran toss them out all of a sudden. But if it makes a potential new smoker take a moment, think about it, and change their mind, then it's worth it, don't you think?

fife

unsung wrote:

Zoso wrote:

a new law just passed in Australia for this to happen.. good move there but Australia is always going to be move progressive then here.

Do you think people are so stupid that they need those pictures on the labels?

I don't think this is intended for most people but is more targeted toward young people. we have had had those pictures in Canada for a very long time.

cincybearcat

unsung wrote:

Zoso wrote:

a new law just passed in Australia for this to happen.. good move there but Australia is always going to be move progressive then here.

Do you think people are so stupid that they need those pictures on the labels?

Must be in Australia, who knew?

Really, this is ridiculous. Either let them sell their product or ban it. You can't keep doing this bs. Does it make them feel better at night to know, well, kids are going to grow up smoking and die of cancer, but at least its not our fault, we put pictures on there!!!!!

I can see kids collecting and trading these pictures to get a whole set.

peacefrompaul

cincybearcat wrote:

unsung wrote:

Zoso wrote:

a new law just passed in Australia for this to happen.. good move there but Australia is always going to be move progressive then here.

Do you think people are so stupid that they need those pictures on the labels?

Must be in Australia, who knew?

Really, this is ridiculous. Either let them sell their product or ban it. You can't keep doing this bs. Does it make them feel better at night to know, well, kids are going to grow up smoking and die of cancer, but at least its not our fault, we put pictures on there!!!!!

I can see kids collecting and trading these pictures to get a whole set.

Or we'll buy a cigarette case and simply purchase soft packs instead.

I've thought this out. :corn:

comebackgirl

Scare tactics don't generally work. If they did, I would have stopped wearing heels after my co-worker showed me her bunions

cincybearcat

fife wrote:

unsung wrote:

Zoso wrote:

a new law just passed in Australia for this to happen.. good move there but Australia is always going to be move progressive then here.

Do you think people are so stupid that they need those pictures on the labels?

I don't think this is intended for most people but is more targeted toward young people. we have had had those pictures in Canada for a very long time.

I see that in Canada 17% smoke. In the US that number is 20%. Awful close.

Now, it does show an 8% decrease in canada form 1999-2010 while the US has remained flat over the last 5 years. Do you think it's because of the pictures? I don't but I guess it could be.

Pictures, warnings, etc are all antecedents. They make very little difference over a period of time.

mookeywrench

Legal issues aside, isn't the message more for people who are under 18?

You tell a 13 year old kid that they'll get emphysema from smoking....that means nothing to them.

You show them a rotting lung and they'll get the picture.

The unintended consequence that the politicians and anti-smoking lobbyists don't get is that when you promote a cigarette as an addictive, toxic chemical-laden, expensive product. Youngsters who want to smoke are going to seek out a non-addictive, natural smoking product that will give em more bang for their buck....wonder what that could be?

Godfather.

comebackgirl wrote:

Scare tactics don't generally work. If they did, I would have stopped wearing heels after my co-worker showed me her bunions

that would'a did for me
oooohhhh that was funny..sorry if you were serious but it just painted a funny picture of a pair of feet with bunions and band-aids stuffed into some open toed spike-heels.

Godfather.

Godfather.

mookeywrench wrote:

Legal issues aside, isn't the message more for people who are under 18?

You tell a 13 year old kid that they'll get emphysema from smoking....that means nothing to them.

You show them a rotting lung and they'll get the picture.

The unintended consequence that the politicians and anti-smoking lobbyists don't get is that when you promote a cigarette as an addictive, toxic chemical-laden, expensive product. Youngsters who want to smoke are going to seek out a non-addictive, natural smoking product that will give em more bang for their buck....wonder what that could be?

I agree,this wont have much results right away but it probably will in 5 to 10 years and if it helps a kid to not smoke I'm good with it .

Godfather.

comebackgirl

Godfather. wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Scare tactics don't generally work. If they did, I would have stopped wearing heels after my co-worker showed me her bunions

that would'a did for me
oooohhhh that was funny..sorry if you were serious but it just painted a funny picture of a pair of feet with bunions and band-aids stuffed into some open toed spike-heels.

Godfather.

That was pretty much my reaction...and now you've made me relive the visual :shock: But I'm much too short to let that stop me

I think the problem with scare tactics targeted towards adolescents is that they don't believe any of that will actual happen to them. Part of being an adolescent is the sense of invincibility that comes along with it, thus the high level of risk taking. The part of the brain that has to do with risk taking and anticipating consequence isn't fully developed yet, but developmentally teens are focused on developing a sense of identity and they use their peers as a framework. A lot of interventions recognize the high influence of peers on this age group, so programs are more geared toward social norms. Of course most of the research I have is from sources that support the social norms approach, so who knows how accurate those stats are. There is definitely some skepticism against this approach as well, but developmentally it seems like social norming would make more sense.

catefrances

Zoso wrote:

a new law just passed in Australia for this to happen.. good move there but Australia is always going to be move progressive then here.

this is incorrect. the law that just passed was for plain cigarette packaging, removing the colourful, sometimes iconic look of some brands. it was way back in the 70s that the first public health warning appeared on cigarette packs in australia and 2006 for the graphic images to be displayed. imo the graphic images displayed are more to discourage new smokers. the first time i saw a cigarette pack with the words SMOKING KILLS printed on it, i thought i was hallucinating. oh and australia was talking about passing a law that states it will be illegal for anyone born after the year 2000 to buy cigarettes. :think: