Judge blocks FDA rule on graphic images on cigarette packs

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2011 6:24 PM GMT
    The 36 proposed images include a man exhaling smoke through a hole in his throat; diseased lungs next to healthy lungs; a mouth bearing what appear to be cancerous lesions; a bare-chested male cadaver with chest staples down his torso.

    Though Congress mandated the images fill the top half of the front and back of cigarette packages, Leon said the dimensions suggest it was trying to turn cigarettes into mini-billboards intended not to impart information about smoking but "to advocate a change in consumer behavior. He said that images that will go on cigarette packs aren't, "factual," but rather are, "unquestionably designed to evoke emotion." He also said that tobacco companies would win a suit against the government due to first amendment freedom of speech.

    The images would have been accompanied by dissuasive wording on cigarettes and smoking, including "cigarettes are addictive," "cigarettes cause cancer," and "smoking can kill you." They must be displayed on at least half of the front and back of cigarette packs, and 20% of the top of the pack.

    The American Cancer Society Action Network (ACS CAN) was quick to call the ruling, "bad for public health" and "Larger, graphic warning labels have the potential to encourage adults to quit smoking cigarettes and deter children from starting in the first place."

    http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Smoking/29506
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Nov 09, 2011 8:03 PM GMT
    carminea said
    The American Cancer Society Action Network (ACS CAN) was quick to call the ruling, "bad for public health" and "Larger, graphic warning labels have the potential to encourage adults to quit smoking cigarettes and deter children from starting in the first place."

    http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Smoking/29506

    They may deter starters. But I doubt they will encourage adults to quit. People already know what happens, if they want to keep harming themselves, go for it. More sin tax.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2011 11:54 PM GMT
    Thats been done in several countries... and smoking in all those countries has apparently gone down considerably from what Ive heard
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Nov 10, 2011 12:51 AM GMT
    GreenHopper saidThats been done in several countries... and smoking in all those countries has apparently gone down considerably from what Ive heard


    Due to pictures on the cigarette cartons? The US already has a smoking rate well below many European countries.
  • NerdLifter

    Posts: 1509

    Nov 10, 2011 12:53 AM GMT
    commoncoll said
    GreenHopper saidThats been done in several countries... and smoking in all those countries has apparently gone down considerably from what Ive heard

    Due to pictures on the cigarette cartons? The US already has a smoking rate well below many European countries.

    Ideally we'd have a smoking rate close to zero percent. Even though it'd be legally unethical to put those graphics on those packs, it would be the morally correct thing to do when it comes to preventing starters. Most people I know who started were when they were really young, impressionable, and regret doing so.
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Nov 10, 2011 1:00 AM GMT
    Studinprogress said
    commoncoll said
    GreenHopper saidThats been done in several countries... and smoking in all those countries has apparently gone down considerably from what Ive heard

    Due to pictures on the cigarette cartons? The US already has a smoking rate well below many European countries.

    Ideally we'd have a smoking rate close to zero percent. Even though it'd be legally incorrect to put those graphics on those packs, it would be the morally correct thing to do, at least to prevent people from starting. Most people I know who started were when they were really young, impressionable, and regret starting.

    Do you know if they have tried quitting? If they tried, were they successful in quitting?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2011 1:05 AM GMT
    The ongoing strategy for the tobacco companies has been to target the young. They know that their product cannot survive without the next generation. Even if the graphics were only successful in making young people think twice about smoking, they would have achieved their goals.

    People need to go on field trips to the hospital ICU at least once in their lifetime. The scary pictures are not enough. They're factual all right, but without the right human context.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2011 1:26 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidThe ongoing strategy for the tobacco companies has been to target the young. They know that their product cannot survive without the next generation. Even if the graphics were only successful in making young people think twice about smoking, they would have achieved their goals.

    People need to go on field trips to the hospital ICU at least once in their lifetime. The scary pictures are not enough. They're factual all right, but without the right human context.

    Exactly. 18-25 yr old males, especially white, are the most prevalent group of smokers. Additionally, smoking rates have seen only a very slight decline during the past 5 years. More incentives like higher sin taxes or public images like these are needed. Also patients tell me they receive coupons for cigarettes.icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2011 1:30 AM GMT
    carminea said
    q1w2e3 saidThe ongoing strategy for the tobacco companies has been to target the young. They know that their product cannot survive without the next generation. Even if the graphics were only successful in making young people think twice about smoking, they would have achieved their goals.

    People need to go on field trips to the hospital ICU at least once in their lifetime. The scary pictures are not enough. They're factual all right, but without the right human context.

    Exactly. 18-25 yr old males, especially white, are the most prevalent group of smokers. Additionally, smoking rates have seen only a very slight decline during the past 5 years. More incentives like higher sin taxes or public images like these are needed.


    Interesting.. that IS when I started... I dont see why they couldnt put those deterrents on the packages... Its not telling people what to do, but simply warning them of the real risk...

    But then some might accuse us of using "scare tactics".. problem is.. scare tactics are when you scare someone of something unrealistic.. the dangers here are real and people should be made aware
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2011 1:41 AM GMT
    If you don't know by now that cigarettes kill you, then you never will.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2011 1:46 AM GMT
    GreenHopper said

    Interesting.. that IS when I started... I dont see why they couldnt put those deterrents on the packages... Its not telling people what to do, but simply warning them of the real risk...

    But then some might accuse us of using "scare tactics".. problem is.. scare tactics are when you scare someone of something unrealistic.. the dangers here are real and people should be made aware

    There is a Surgeon General's warning on the .

    The judge determined that making the cigarette companies put something on the pack that they don't want on the pack is "presumptively unconstitutional."

    Note: this is not a ban, only a block until the constitutionality of this could be proven. It most likely will be denied because private businesses lose money because of government intrusion, no matter the government's vested interest in healthier citizens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2011 1:50 AM GMT
    GrowAPair saidIf you don't know by now that cigarettes kill you, then you never will.
    True. But most smokers also have seen relatives and friends who have smoked for 30, 40, 50 years, and still alive and kicking.
    This is why there has to be a monetary incentive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2011 2:04 AM GMT
    carminea said
    The judge determined that making the cigarette companies put something on the pack that they don't want on the pack is "presumptively unconstitutional."


    Lol, if it's so presumptively unconstitutional, the FDA has been doing it all along:
    "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease"

    If they don't want pictures, the FDA should ask the cigarette carton to be completely filled with tiny small print that lists all the health hazards of smoking. Then it would be factual, unemotional, and informational:

    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/Overview

    Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body. Smoking causes many diseases and reduces the health of smokers in general.1
    Smoking and Death

    Smoking causes death.

    The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.2,3
    More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.2,4
    Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women.1
    An estimated 90% of all deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease are caused by smoking.1

    Smoking and Increased Health Risks

    Compared with nonsmokers, smoking is estimated to increase the risk of—

    coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times,1,5
    stroke by 2 to 4 times,1,6
    men developing lung cancer by 23 times,1
    women developing lung cancer by 13 times,1 and
    dying from chronic obstructive lung diseases (such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema) by 12 to 13 times.1

    Smoking and Cardiovascular Disease

    Smoking causes coronary heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States.1
    Cigarette smoking causes reduced circulation by narrowing the blood vessels (arteries) and puts smokers at risk of developing peripheral vascular disease (i.e., obstruction of the large arteries in the arms and legs that can cause a range of problems from pain to tissue loss or gangrene).1,7
    Smoking causes abdominal aortic aneurysm (i.e., a swelling or weakening of the main artery of the body—the aorta—where it runs through the abdomen).1

    Smoking and Respiratory Disease

    Smoking causes lung cancer.1,2
    Smoking causes lung diseases (e.g., emphysema, bronchitis, chronic airway obstruction) by damaging the airways and alveoli (i.e., small air sacs) of the lungs.1,2

    Smoking and Cancer

    Smoking causes the following cancers:1

    Acute myeloid leukemia
    Bladder cancer
    Cancer of the cervix
    Cancer of the esophagus
    Kidney cancer
    Cancer of the larynx (voice box)
    Lung cancer
    Cancer of the oral cavity (mouth)
    Cancer of the pharynx (throat)
    Stomach cancer
    Cancer of the uterus

    Smoking and Other Health Effects

    Smoking has many adverse reproductive and early childhood effects, including increased risk for—

    infertility,
    preterm delivery,
    stillbirth,
    low birth weight, and
    sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).1,8


    Smoking is associated with the following adverse health effects:8

    Postmenopausal women who smoke have lower bone density than women who never smoked.
    Women who smoke have an increased risk for hip fracture than women who never smoked.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2011 2:10 AM GMT
    View them here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/cigarette-warnings-labels-photos-fda_n_880885.html#s295464
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Nov 10, 2011 4:21 AM GMT
    Rockbiter saidView them here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/cigarette-warnings-labels-photos-fda_n_880885.html#s295464

    Thanks for the link.

    They are not very graphic or emotionally disturbing. Which one is not factual?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2011 4:26 AM GMT
    they did that up here in Canada, also banned cigarettes from being viewed in stores, they are now locked in cabinets and cannot be seen. And lastly, they upped the price with the addition of around 300% taxation. It seems to have worked enough up here.