Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels Blocked By Judge

[Myk]

I'm not too sure how I feel about this. Overseas, most of the people I know who smoke started before these labels came into use. I'm not a fan of the labels with graphic pictures of humans, but the labels with pictures of messed up lungs are a good deterrent. IMO.

I was brought up in school being brainwashed into being a preachy little brat with those pictures, they didn't stop me from starting.

 

[Maximum Chips]

They use em in Canada, and they keep getting worse. They use to have few funny ones. Like a long ash on a cig bent over like a limp penis saying "smoking can cause impotency." Now it's all over-enlarged diseased hearts and cancer ridden tongues. As far as I can tell it's never caused any smokers I know to quit. More of a conversation starter at smoke break time than anything. Now Canada Health requires that a percentage (can't remember the number) of the packs in a carton have these labels take up 75% of the pack front and back. The actual company label is only a small portion at the bottom. At this rate soon enough the whole pack will just be one big nasty picture.

I'll have to have a Google for the Canadian packs. Some of you may have heard that Australia has just introduced plain packaging with large health-related pictures/warnings on them:

Google Image Result for http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17w1u525y54s3jpg/original.jpg

Google Image Result for http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/images/localpeople/ugc-images/275783/Article/images/17495114/4369530.jpg

Not to mention the uniform olive-green packaging.

Apparently many local smokers think that their cigarettes taste "different":

Warning: images may harm your smoking pleasure

The new packaging became mandatory here on December 1st, though I first saw them about mid October.

 

[signmeupmeow]

If it prevents kids from taking up the habit, it's a good thing.

 

[Jarski44]

"But it's for the children" - a phrase used to sell the American public any snake oil they want.

While smoking is legal, our government tries everything in their power to discourage it. At the same time, they hand out subsidies to tobacco farmers to make up for loss of sales.

They treat smokers like idiots, "they clearly don't know it's bad for them, so we have to tell them". When that didn't work, now they want to graphically show the consequences...I see cigarette cases making a comeback...which will have to be outlawed sine it will undo all their intentions to scare smokers.

 

[signmeupmeow]

"But it's for the children" - a phrase used to sell the American public any snake oil they want.

Let me rephrase that...

If it makes non smokers think twice about picking up the habbit, its a good thing.

They treat smokers like idiots, "they clearly don't know it's bad for them, so we have to tell them". When that didn't work, now they want to graphically show the consequences...I see cigarette cases making a comeback...which will have to be outlawed sine it will undo all their intentions to scare smokers.

Smokers know its bad for them yet they continue to smoke. I did for 16 years, so did most of you.

Here in Australia, we've just had the plain packets introduced, which means no branding (colours logo etc). The tobacco companies tried every trick in the book to stop this happening because they knew it was going to cut into sales significantly over time.

The warnings, graphic pictures and non branding didnt stop me because i was already heavily addicted. But to a non smoker, its extremely unattractive more so now than ever (in Australia).

I'm all for harm reduction now, but still i think these other tactics work well to reduce the amount of smoking.

 

[2coils]

This crap is over the top IMO. Its one thing to have the "look at me im sick" commercials. They are horrific enough but at least those I understand. Warnings on the side of packs, ok too!! I agree with the Judge. No need to advocate right on the packs.

 

[JinnMyst]

I believe it's a good idea and it does -even if slightly- keep away people from smoking and makes smokers at least *think* of quitting smoking.

That's the product, and that's what it comes with. CANCER & WHATNOT...

I wish the judge would've just approved that, but eh, BIG TOBACCO WINS.. :/

 

[Hulamoon]

I hate the hypocrisy of it all. Target a specific group, but by golly, tax it to the hilt. In the same vein as the graphic labeling, I'm glad I haven't seen those recent horror ads on TV lately. Why? Because my first thought was that the human examples they used and the disease or disability they suffered isn't ONLY caused by cigarettes. I felt bad for other people who got cut a rotten health deal - through no fault of their own, - and who would now be treated as if they deserved it because they MUST have been smoking because that's what causes it. Made me mad. Sorry for the rant.

 

[DiNet]

Impact of graphic images is lower than google's offline % in last 5 years.

At the age of 13 I was taken to medical institute to watch all those "horrors" in person. Overall impact was 14 more years of smoking.