New GRAPHIC warning labels on cigarette packs

[fireheart17]

I dunno... has it hurt the sales in australia yet?

Its gone up and down in Australia as far as I'm aware.

There's a proposal for plain packaging going around and the comment from everyone is "The clerk will take forever to find them!" If the lineup does not change, I'm pretty sure that the clerk will be able to locate which one is which.

[Andara Bledin]

I dunno... has it hurt the sales in australia yet?

They can't tell if this has ever done anything other than waste a lot of money because every time it's been implemented it was part of a much larger campaign.

Mucking about with packaging is a quick fix, "look, we're doing something about the problem" feel-good measure.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

i was just wondering cos i saw that idea used in australia...and people still seemed to be buying cigarettes

[Lace Neil Singer]

Hasn't worked over here; apart from the odd person who requests a different packet cuz they don't like the picture (the teeth one is pretty bad; I personally don't like it cuz of my dentist phobia) it hasn't made a blind bit of difference.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/...29_468x376.jpg

These are the ones everyone round here takes the piss out of most often. A friend of mine thought that the man on the slab was on a sunbed, and I had to tell her, "I hate to break it to you, but he's actually dead". XD The guy with the porno 'tashe is the worst, tho.

[anakhouri]

That's what I figure; there is so much information out there about the dangers of smoking, that people who choose to smoke have to be aware of them. They just don't care. Gross pictures aren't going to change that.

[Andara Bledin]

Article at NPR

A judge has blocked implementation of the new law based on the fact that he considers it likely that the cigarette companies will win their lawsuit stating that the requirement cross the line from mere information to advocacy, which is disallowed.

^-.-^

[bainsidhe]

I'm glad, actually. I don't even smoke, but the idea of seeing such advertising is disgusting. Plus, where does it end? I doubt cigarettes would be the last product to bear such gross "warnings".

[DGoddess]

I'm glad, actually. I don't even smoke, but the idea of seeing such advertising is disgusting. Plus, where does it end? I doubt cigarettes would be the last product to bear such gross "warnings".

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if one day we see a warning label on a pack of Hostess Twinkies

"Warning: the Surgeon General has determined that consumption of this product can lead to obesity, which in turn can cause other health issues such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes."

Okay, that diabetes at the end may be a stretch, but the point is: if our government succeeds in getting smokers to quit (unlikely, as it would be a huge loss in tax revenue) the "vice police" could go after snack foods next.

In short, it wouldn't end as far as I can see . . . they'd simply move to something else until it's more or less eradicated and then onto something else, then another thing until everything we enjoy is gone.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if one day we see a warning label on a pack of Hostess Twinkies

Damn things need a warning on them. Scary jokers. Worse than crack.

Okay, that diabetes at the end may be a stretch, but the point is: if our government succeeds in getting smokers to quit (unlikely, as it would be a huge loss in tax revenue) the "vice police" could go after snack foods next.

They are. There is a "Fat Tax" that is getting applied to an ever increasing number of fatty foods. Sugary drinks (but they still apply it on diet drinks and sodas...go figure), fatty foods...

And get this. They want to tax Milk that has more than 1% fat in it. To me Skim Milk is like making love in a canoe. Fucking close to water. Butter! Butter is on the hit list. Joslin Diabetes Center's nutritionists have said that while Butter has the fat in it, it is better for you than Margarine because Margarine is nothing more than some form of vegetable oil loaded with a metric fuck ton of chemicals that even God himself could not pronounce.

In short, it wouldn't end as far as I can see . . . they'd simply move to something else until it's more or less eradicated and then onto something else, then another thing until everything we enjoy is gone.

Nah, they won't take them away. Too many jobs would be lost if they did that. They'll just keep taxing the shit out of it so they can get more money from us. They know that we're addicted to our snacks. Keep raising the price on a pint of Hagan-Daaz or Ben and Jerry's and we'll still buy it.

It's not about "saving the lives of the American Public"...it's about money.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Exactly. Also, if you do end up with an American NHS, expect more tax on cigarettes to pay for it. -.-

[Boozy]

It's not about "saving the lives of the American Public"...it's about money.

Why can't it be both?

Look, governments have to tax something. Where do you think the government's operating revenue comes from?

Why tax things that people cannot live without? Why tax fruits and vegetables when they can tax soda? Why tax your hydro bill when then can tax cigarettes?

Personally, I love the idea of luxury taxes, because unlike with income tax, if I don't want to pay it, I don't have to. Don't want to pay tax on smokes? Don't buy them. It's not going to kill you.

[Andara Bledin]

Personally, I love the idea of luxury taxes, because unlike with income tax, if I don't want to pay it, I don't have to. Don't want to pay tax on smokes? Don't buy them. It's not going to kill you.

What we call "income tax" is actually a luxury tax. Because taxing wages is unconstitutional, which is why it was repealed the first time around. So, don't think you love the idea of luxury taxes as opposed to income tax, because that's what we're already paying. >_<

^-.-^

[the_std]

Except that Boozy, like myself, is from Canada. Therefore what is unconstitutional doesn't really apply to her.

[Andara Bledin]

Ah. Too true. You guys pay an actual income tax. We in the US, however, have a bullshit "luxury tax based on income" because the founding fathers found being taxed on the wages you earn for your labor to be counterproductive to their own goals.

Anyway, it's been said for ages that after the smokers, they'll go after the fatties. I'm curious to find who they'll go after as "undesirable behavior" once that agenda is mostly played out. I imagine that the drunks are safe because prohibition (which wasn't really about drinking) screwed the pooch so badly.

^-.-^

[KabeRinnaul]

Okay, that diabetes at the end may be a stretch, but the point is: if our government succeeds in getting smokers to quit (unlikely, as it would be a huge loss in tax revenue) the "vice police" could go after snack foods next.

It would only be a loss in tax revenue if the revenue from cigarette taxes is greater than the expenses from treating illnesses caused by smoking. Medicare is expensive, and its initial sign-up period does not require any health check at all - so long as you join when you turn 65, it doesn't matter if you have lung cancer, emphysema, COPD, a history of heart attacks, and still smoke three packs a day. The government still picks up a big chunk of your bills.

I didn't work with Medicaid enough to know it very well, but I doubt it's in much better shape.