New Warnings On Cigarettes Sold In USA

[FireNexus]

Those would have been extremely helpful in preventing me from ever picking up the habit. If not, it may at least have driven me to quit sooner. As it stands, I think that will also be extremely helpful in keeping me from picking it back up, too.

Fucking smoking. If there were a way to completely wipe out tobacco with a virus I would be all for it.

[Lusankya]

Actually, since 70-80% of smokers actually want to quit (conflicting sources here and here), it's actually hard to claim that it's that emotionally manipulative anyway, since it's encouraging something that the smokers already want to do.

[Count Chocula]

Is there some kind of point you're trying to make here? If so, what is it, apart from "I'm a hopeless junkie who won't stop smoking for any reason?"

The main point I'm trying to make, albeit from a personal viewpoint, is that someone (like myself) who smokes is NOT going to be dissuaded by graphic "OMG see what this will do to you!" pictures on a pack. Watching "Highway of Death" in Drivers' Ed and reading Henry Felsen's "drive fast and die young" books didn't keep me from pushing the limits in a car or driving a motorcycle, either. I view this effort as equivalent to worst case scenario scare tactics from drivers' ed.

I've cut my consumption in half in the past few months for economic reasons, not because of anything I might have seen on a pack of smokes. Even if I cut down to three cigarettes a day, Canadian-style pictures and health warnings won't be why I do it.

[ray245]

Is there some kind of point you're trying to make here? If so, what is it, apart from "I'm a hopeless junkie who won't stop smoking for any reason?"

The main point I'm trying to make, albeit from a personal viewpoint, is that someone (like myself) who smokes is NOT going to be dissuaded by graphic "OMG see what this will do to you!" pictures on a pack. Watching "Highway of Death" in Drivers' Ed and reading Henry Felsen's "drive fast and die young" books didn't keep me from pushing the limits in a car or driving a motorcycle, either. I view this effort as equivalent to worst case scenario scare tactics from drivers' ed.

I've cut my consumption in half in the past few months for economic reasons, not because of anything I might have seen on a pack of smokes. Even if I cut down to three cigarettes a day, Canadian-style pictures and health warnings won't be why I do it.

Personal anecdotes or personal examples aren't worth a damn.

[Molyneux]

Actually, since 70-80% of smokers actually want to quit (conflicting sources here and here), it's actually hard to claim that it's that emotionally manipulative anyway, since it's encouraging something that the smokers already want to do.

That high a number?
Hrm. Still emotionally manipulative, but I concede that I was incorrect in my initial response.

[Next of Kin]

I've cut my consumption in half in the past few months for economic reasons, not because of anything I might have seen on a pack of smokes. Even if I cut down to three cigarettes a day, Canadian-style pictures and health warnings won't be why I do it.

Chocula, you're not in the least bit worried of the health consequences that you will face down the road?

I would hope that seeing those adds would make you want to cut out cigarette smoking all together. Perhaps some the ads should show former smokers laughing all the way to the bank with the money they have saved.

[JLTucker]

Chocula, you're not in the least bit worried of the health consequences that you will face down the road?

Of course not. He doesn't even want to quit.

[Darth Wong]

Is there some kind of point you're trying to make here? If so, what is it, apart from "I'm a hopeless junkie who won't stop smoking for any reason?"

The main point I'm trying to make, albeit from a personal viewpoint, is that someone (like myself) who smokes is NOT going to be dissuaded by graphic "OMG see what this will do to you!" pictures on a pack. Watching "Highway of Death" in Drivers' Ed and reading Henry Felsen's "drive fast and die young" books didn't keep me from pushing the limits in a car or driving a motorcycle, either. I view this effort as equivalent to worst case scenario scare tactics from drivers' ed.

I've cut my consumption in half in the past few months for economic reasons, not because of anything I might have seen on a pack of smokes. Even if I cut down to three cigarettes a day, Canadian-style pictures and health warnings won't be why I do it.

And you believe that all smokers are just like you ... why, precisely? That's a pretty damned self-aggrandizing attitude: "I feel this way so everyone does!"

Your personal attitude is quite frankly idiotic. Anyone with a brain should want to quit smoking, even if they feel they can't muster the willpower to do so.

[Surlethe]

I've cut my consumption in half in the past few months for economic reasons, not because of anything I might have seen on a pack of smokes. Even if I cut down to three cigarettes a day, Canadian-style pictures and health warnings won't be why I do it.

Don't you have kids, or am I mixing you up with someone else?

[tim31]

As already pointed out, we've had graphic images on durrie packs for a few years, and of course the health warnings for long enough that advertising can take advantage of it. Having worked in a supermarket long ago, I laughed my arse off the first time I saw the above ad.

[Count Chocula]

And you believe that all smokers are just like you ... why, precisely? That's a pretty damned self-aggrandizing attitude: "I feel this way so everyone does!"

Your personal attitude is quite frankly idiotic. Anyone with a brain should want to quit smoking, even if they feel they can't muster the willpower to do so.

I don't believe that all smokers are like me; as I said, my opinion is from a personal point of view. The fellow smokers I showed the Canadian packs to also found the images amusing, but again a sample size of under 50 smokers who agree with me does not impute any statistical validity to my statement. I'm not presenting proof here, just my point of view.

To your second point: the demon weed has its hooks in me, and I don't want to stop smoking...but I am glad I cut down my consumption. The "first smoke of the day" buzz is a lot like the first cuppa joe's stimulation; and, like coffee, I smoke to keep the buzz going. I understand the health risks associated with smoking, but I probably have a cavalier attitude because I've only been smoking cigs for about 8 years. I am looking at so-called electronic cigarettes as a substitute (they're basically water-based nicotine inhalers), but patches and gum did not work for me. And my personal attitude is clearly irrational, I acknowledge that, as most other substance addictions are irrational.

Surlethe: yes, I have a son. And no, I don't smoke in the car or around him, nor do I smoke in the house.

[Darth Wong]

That's a nice backpedal, but you DID earlier speak on behalf of all smokers, claiming that smokers would not be affected at all by this. And when challenged to back it up, you offered only your personal anecdote.

[Count Chocula]

There does not seem to be a consensus on the efficacy of graphic labels on cigarette packs; I found a study here and another one here that seem to indicate a higher awareness of the risks, but according to this article from Australia, the jury's still out:

British American Tobacco complained pictorial warnings have been tried only in Brazil and Canada and that official Canadian figures show no attributable reduction on smoking rates, while Australian authorities argue rates of smoking have decreased in Canada as a result of the images.

I'd expect opposing points of view from a tobacco company and an Australian health authority, but it's interesting to me that the tobacco company looked at official Canadian figures. The only other cites I could find cited a 3% reduction in tobacco consumption in Canada, with no mention if that was just smokers smoking less, or smokers quitting as a result of the images. And those citations were from Australian sources, not Canadian sources. So, there does not seem to be any reliable confirmation from Canada that the warning images influenced smokers to quit any more than PSAs and written warnings on the packs.

[FSTargetDrone]

What kind of people find images of medical disasters "amusing"? The last thing I'd be doing after seeing images of mouth cancer or ravaged lungs is to laugh about it. Hoo-wee, this guy's tongue looks like it's dead. Hilarious!

[Batman]

Smokers may KNOW the health hazards on an intellectual level but but many don't BELIEVE in them on the visceral level. 'Bah, what are the chances of that happening to me?' Quite high, actually, depending on how much you smoke, but since it DOESN'T happen to every smoker it's easy to tell yourself that it won't happen to you either.

I support Molyneux' in allowing people stupid enough to want to smoke to do so. I DON'T agree that people who decide to smoke do so despite knowing the risk. They may have been TOLD about the risk, but they often don't BELIEVE in it. If those images change that, make people realize that yes, in a few years that might very well be YOU, and stop smoking or never start to begin with, I'm all for it.

[Stark]

I'd expect opposing points of view from a tobacco company and an Australian health authority, but it's interesting to me that the tobacco company looked at official Canadian figures. The only other cites I could find cited a 3% reduction in tobacco consumption in Canada, with no mention if that was just smokers smoking less, or smokers quitting as a result of the images. And those citations were from Australian sources, not Canadian sources. So, there does not seem to be any reliable confirmation from Canada that the warning images influenced smokers to quit any more than PSAs and written warnings on the packs.

Who gives a shit? Like Tim said, AU has had gross pictures on smokes for ages and warnings for at least a decade. It affects nobody except smokers - people so stupid they can seriously fuck off and die - and if it affects 1% of them to stop it's worth it. It's a zero-cost, possible-benefit situation. AU even limits shelf space in shops for smoking, because it's a disgusting, stupid habit and reducing uptake rates is a worthy goal. Nobody really expects the 50+ brigade of LOL IT CLEARS THE CHEST to quit, but most people want less fifteen year-olds smoking.

And Batman, you're a fucking moron. Smoking is massively, massively addictive (and is very very easy to get hooked on again if you start) and if you think nobody who ever had a single smoke didn't 'believe' the danger, you're stupid. People are just dumb, don't understand statistics, etc, but everyone knows smoking kills you. Some people just don't care long enough to get addicted. People too dumb to 'believe' inhaling superheated toxic smoke is dangerous are probably going to ignore pictures of exploding eyeballs... but if it makes them even slightly less desirable it's worth it.

[Batman]

And Batman, you're a fucking moron. Smoking is massively, massively addictive (and is very very easy to get hooked on again if you start)

Define massively addictive please. The physical dependency aspect of smoking is negligible compared to hard drugs. The worst you'll get going through withdrawal is temper tantrums.

and if you think nobody who ever had a single smoke didn't 'believe' the danger, you're stupid. People are just dumb, don't understand statistics, etc,

Which is exactly what I said,

but everyone knows smoking kills you.

Which isn't true. Everybody knows smoking CAN kill you. My point was that since smoking DOESN'T inevitably kill you, or even seriously impede your health (the fact that it does so in the vast majority of cases notwithstanding), smokers delude themselves into thinking it won't happen to THEM.

[Lusankya]

Define massively addictive please. The physical dependency aspect of smoking is negligible compared to hard drugs. The worst you'll get going through withdrawal is temper tantrums.

Nicotine is quite well known to be the most difficult drug to get off of:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Lib ... icfax5.htm
http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com/most- ... drugs.html

I honestly can't believe that you don't know this already.

[Stark]

Define massively addictive please. The physical dependency aspect of smoking is negligible compared to hard drugs. The worst you'll get going through withdrawal is temper tantrums.

You are a fucking retard. Nicotine addiction is WAY harder to kick than shit like heroin; you think you can quit smoking by just NOT HAVING ONE for a week? Honestly? The chemical way it works means if you've been addicted, small doses (ie, one smoke) can put you right back to square one, and you're not 'clean' after small amounts of time. Did you think quitting smoking was easy?

I mean, it is (protip, don't have any smokes) but saying it's harder to quit than 'hard drugs' is ignorant.

Which is exactly what I said,

No, you said 'believe'. People believe it kills people, they just don't care or don't understand how it applies to them. We're generally talking about teenagers here, remember?

Which isn't true. Everybody knows smoking CAN kill you. My point was that since smoking DOESN'T inevitably kill you, or even seriously impede your health (the fact that it does so in the vast majority of cases notwithstanding), smokers delude themselves into thinking it won't happen to THEM.

Are you a semantic cunt normally, or is this an effort for you? Nobody in Australia can claim ignorance of the effects of smoking, because IT'S ON EVERY GODDAMN PACK. People accept that risk (for stupidity, ignorance, whatever) but only really freaky loons think smoking doesn't kill you.

PS, smoking DOES seriously impede your health. You've never smoked, have you? You have NO FUCKING IDEA what you're talking about. Smoking even infrequently cuts your wind, fucks your appetite, affects your sleeping, I believe it even changes the way your body deals with fat. People just DON'T NOTICE because they're very gradual changes. Speed freaks don't think speed fucks up their face, either, remember? LOL. Everyone I've ever met who quits (ps everyone I know who smokes wants to quit) immediately notices all kinds of positive changes to their health and lifestyle. You know why?

HINT - smoking is really bad for you short term AND long term. Just because hopeless addicts like it doesn't mean it's fun and games.

EDIT - update: I'm still reeling under the impact of the statement that nicotine withdrawl = 'temper tantrums'. It boggles the fucking mind.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What kind of people find images of medical disasters "amusing"? The last thing I'd be doing after seeing images of mouth cancer or ravaged lungs is to laugh about it. Hoo-wee, this guy's tongue looks like it's dead. Hilarious!

Some people are prone to taking pleasure in the deserved suffering of others. I for example, while kind and compassionate, am one of those people who for whatever reason is amused by stupid people getting themselves killed. I read the darwin awards for example. Nothing better than reading about some idiot drowning in a river while trying to swim across it in a fish suit...

Just throwing that out there.

[bobalot]

There does not seem to be a consensus on the efficacy of graphic labels on cigarette packs; I found a study here and another one here that seem to indicate a higher awareness of the risks, but according to this article from Australia, the jury's still out:

British American Tobacco complained pictorial warnings have been tried only in Brazil and Canada and that official Canadian figures show no attributable reduction on smoking rates, while Australian authorities argue rates of smoking have decreased in Canada as a result of the images.

I'd expect opposing points of view from a tobacco company and an Australian health authority, but it's interesting to me that the tobacco company looked at official Canadian figures. The only other cites I could find cited a 3% reduction in tobacco consumption in Canada, with no mention if that was just smokers smoking less, or smokers quitting as a result of the images. And those citations were from Australian sources, not Canadian sources. So, there does not seem to be any reliable confirmation from Canada that the warning images influenced smokers to quit any more than PSAs and written warnings on the packs.

Do you even read your own sources?

From Page 34, Part 7.4.

The economic evaluation indicates that, under likely assumptions, there is a substantial net benefit of over $2 billion from the new health warnings and a benefit cost-ratio greater than 2:1. Under two conservative sensitivity scenarios, which allow for both lower health outcomes and for a lower value of a healthy life year, the net benefit would be significantly reduced but it would remain significantly positive.

Where as you stated this article indicates a "higher awareness" of the risks, the actual article indicates that there is significant monatary benefit.

As for your Australian article, it is an article from an obscure website, which doesn't even name the study it draws its conclusions from.

I would suggest referring to Australian Department of Health and Aging.
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Graphic Health Warnings on Tobacco Product Packaging 2008 - Conclusions


I have taken some quotes straight out this publication.

in 2008, 48% of smokers said they “have worried more about the effects of cigarettes on my
health since the (picture) health warnings were put on cigarette packs”. This is a significant
increase on the 42% who “worried more about the effects of cigarettes on their health since
the health warnings were put on cigarette packs” in 2000;

57% of smokers and 75% of recent quitters agreed that the warnings “have made them think
about quitting”. This was confirmed through response to an attitude statement, where 56%
of smokers maintained that “seeing the health warnings on packs makes me think about
quitting”;

56% of smokers agreed with the statement, “Seeing the health warnings on packs makes
me think about quitting” is a significant increase on the 50% of smokers who agreed with the
statement in 2000.

[Count Chocula]

bobalot, NONE of your references, many of which were the ones I also saw, were able to put a real (not imputed or calculated estimate) figure based on verifiable data that demonstrated graphic images on cig packs prompted people to quite smoking. At best, from an Australian source and not a Canadian source, a 3% reduction in smoking was determined as the effect...a percentage that's within the margin of error for most types of polls. It's a long way from "under likely assumptions" to "there is significant monetary benefit."

From the Australian report, it appears that the graphic images made an impression among some groups of smokers and ex-smokers. Good for them. Did the warnings do anything to reduce the number of Australians who smoke? The link you referenced contained NO data on actual smoking rates. In addition, the study you cited has no data on the numbers of smokers who quit before the picture packs were put out versus those who quit when there were only printed warnings. It cites a higher influence on those who did quit (comparing 2000 to 2008), but again there are no numbers in any study I've seen that actually demonstrate that graphic warnings on packs reduce the percentage of smokers. Unlike, say, linking AIDS awareness campaigns with a reduction in AIDS infection rates, there's no concrete proof the pictures influence smokers to stop.

[Stark]

Smoking has been decreasing in the country for years. The problem is kids taking it up (especially girls) which is on the way up, apparently.

Chocy, one might respond that nobody who DOESN'T think about quitting will EVER quit. They want to increase the pool of potential quitters. Social engineering!

[Count Chocula]

Winners never quit, and quitters never win. I'M NOT A QUITTER! (tongue firmly in cheek)

Smoking has been decreasing in the country for years. The problem is kids taking it up (especially girls) which is on the way up, apparently.

The kid part is bothersome, and I didn't know that was the case. I didn't start smoking cigs until I was in my 30s, so my perspective is probably off as I'm an outlier. As I've said in other posts, my immediate and extended family is about 50% smoking/50% non smoking. My wife started smoking at 17, long before we met, and "quit" after about 10 years. She was cold turkey for a loonng time, but now she's up to about a pack a year. I'm still unsure if my smoking will influence my son to smoke at a young age, since my own family experience was so inconclusive. Thankfully, I still have 10 years or so to consider the question.

[Stark]

You're an idiot. It's very conclusive that you smoking MASSIVELY increases the chances your children will smoke. That you're a parent who smokes in the 21st century fucking disgusts me. Your child's health is so irrelevant to you you can't be fucked stopping a disgusting, shameful habit - BUT YOU'LL CUT BACK FOR BUDGET REASONS.

You are a despicable individual with totally broken priorities.