Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed


sign up to get updates

The Fall and Rise of Investigative Journalism

Truthdig Bazaar
Past Imperfect

Past Imperfect

By Julian Fellowes

more items

Ear to the Ground

Get Ready for the New, Scary Anti-Smoking Packaging

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 10, 2010

Ew! This is but one of the tamer pictures that’ll come with smokers’ favorite fixes in the future.

If the black-and-white surgeon general’s warning on cigarette packaging hasn’t served as fair warning to smokers that bad things are likely to happen to them if they keep lighting up their cancer sticks, the new, super-graphic images to be slapped on their smoke packs just might.  —KA

ABC News:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration unveiled 36 labels Wednesday, which are aimed at ramping up efforts to warn smokers of smoking’s fatal consequences. These labels represent the agency’s exercise of its new authority over tobacco products and the most significant change in cigarette warnings since companies were forced to add the mandatory Surgeon General’s warning in 1965.

Read more


More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Green Smoke Reviews, January 2, 2012 at 11:12 pm Link to this comment

Somehow I feel rather disturbed by this discussion going on in the comments section. I personally have come from being a smoker to the point where I finally managed to quit smoking, but I still agree that while smoking is a negative externality, you can’t just penalize people for being smokers. That’s akin to being penalized for height, weight, gender, or any other characteristic. It’s prejudice.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 12, 2010 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment

I got your point mrfreeze but you apparently didn’t get mine.

Lifestyle choices of others whether they impact our “insurance rates” or not are the burden we bear in a free society.

Fast food, blaring music, pollution, cell phone radiation and a host of other maladies I don’t agree with affect my health every day.

Being a non-smoker myself I certainly want public areas where I don’t have to interact with smokers, however I understand that smokers just want a place they can be left alone.

The feds and states make a killing off of excise taxes on tobacco, a legalized addictive drug.

We need nationalized medicine, the only real threat to national security I recognize are the insurance companies.

Report this

By bibisad, November 12, 2010 at 10:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I wish they would do that sort of advertising for WAR!

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, November 12, 2010 at 2:05 am Link to this comment

ronjeremy - You too missed my point: Smoking is a disgusting, pathetic and inappropriate behaviour. It is the elimination of a waste product that you, your kids nor I should have to confront any more than if someone wanted to urinate on us.

When smokers complain about being persecuted or that “they’re adults and have a ‘right’ to do whatever they want,” that’s where their stinking rotten opinion ends and my right to speak the truth begins.

I don’t think warnings on the boxes work either. I think the real way to make people stop smoking around those of us who don’t want the filth ON or AROUND us is to continue to tax the holy hell out of it, demand more restrictions on where people can smoke, force insurance companies to surcharge their smoking policy holders until they, themselves see the wisdom of doing something good for themselves.

Report this

By mark in toronto, November 11, 2010 at 10:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

They’ve been doing this in Canada for years now. In addition, they totally hide
cigarettes from public view at all retailers who sell them.  The going price for a
pack of smokes here in Toronto is approaching the $10 mark.
The effect on smokers . . . absolutely nothing.
Someone in the States must be making money from this . . . why else would they
do something so . . . unnecessary?

Report this

By ronjeremy, November 11, 2010 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

more warning labels? waste of time.  anyone born after 1975 that does not know smoking MAY kill you or make you really sick will probably die from some silly accident.  besides, the real problem is what companies are allowed to add to the tobacco.  how about a list of ingredients on the package.  where are you FDA?

governments should not be allowed to make laws forbidding the use/consumption of anything that grows naturally.  (it took white men less than 400 years to screw up tobacco, but less than eighty for marijuana).  smoking in public is no where near urinating in public.  people who want to outlaw smoking in public places should not be allowed to use gasoline powered vehicles or purchase anything transported by them.  exhaust really pollutes the air and stinks.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, November 11, 2010 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment

Patrick - As I said, if someone has a health insurance policy, they agree to drug testing for nicotine. If they test positive, well…...........$$$$ or don’t have coverage. Too bad.

Perhaps you didn’t get just how little I care about smokers and their nasty, disgusting habit. It’s high time they know those of us who value our health, help pay their premiums (and hospital stays) and their long, drawn-out deaths want them to step up and pay full price.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 11, 2010 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment


I’m sure smokers don’t like paying for the health conditions of the fat or diabetic.

How would insurance companies enforce ‘fast food’ use? search the car for cheeseburger wrappers?

I wouldn’t worry though, most smokers can’t afford health insurance since cigarettes cost so much.

Report this

By B H, November 11, 2010 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By whatever extent, this is justified in that it’s portraying a very real danger and effect. But—life is typically short and miserable in the longer frame anyways, and nobody lives forever.

It’s good in that I hope it’ll dissuade the kids, our youth is a lost generation already—don’t need them getting hooked on the corporate tobacco chain. But the rest of us nihilists? We’ll keep smoking to the grave. Can’t wait till my lungs fill with tar.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, November 11, 2010 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

There’s simply nothing worse than a self-righteous smoker (that’s ALL smokers). They suck stinking, rotten poison into their lungs and then complain when non-smokers object to having this human waste product spewed in the air, on their clothes, in their faces, etc.. Smokers will never understand that smoking in public is akin to urinating on everyone and everything around them. This garbage comes from within the smoker and pollutes everyone around them.

I propose 1 regulatory solution in conjunction with one “free market” solution:

Insurance companies should be required by law to double the rates of smokers. Insurance companies can then drug-test their policy holders 2 times a year (at the insurance company’s expense) in order to enforce the policy. That way all of us non-smokers can enjoy far lower rates and the smoking-nazis can go ahead and kill themselves while subsidizing those who don’t.

Sound fair? No? Consider this: I don’t really give a shit what smokers think. How about that rico, suave.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 11, 2010 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

I see the big hand of the insurance companies here.

Cigarette related deaths are cutting into their profits.

These are the same guys who championed seatbelt laws, helmet laws, redlight and speeding cameras, all violations to raise your rates.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, November 11, 2010 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

There’s talk of banning menthol cigarettes. They say the flavoring attracts youthful smokers. So does the crack dealer on the street corner. So, will they also ban flavored rolling papers and flavored blunts?

I guess I’ll be buying my menthol cigarettes from that crack dealer on the corner, soon. The vast majority of Black smokers smoke menthol. I’m sure the Asian owned Bodegas will have a steady supply of menthol cigarettes. At a price, of course. $2.00/loosie. Maybe 3?

Report this
Queenie's avatar

By Queenie, November 10, 2010 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

Let’s see now. We can carpet bomb, napalm, spray white phosphorus. We can waterboard, attack with drones, use depleted uranium. We can poison wells, rivers and oceans. BUT! We can’t enjoy a cigarette after sex.

Was that good for you, babe?

Report this

By Potent_Placebo, November 10, 2010 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Did you step outside to the designated commenting space
before you posted?  If not you may be subjecting
unsuspecting others to your second-hand comments.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 10, 2010 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

You Puritan progs must be champing at the bit for this campaign to start.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.