New cigarette warning labels: What is wrong with our country

When smoking a cigarette a smoker is not only harming his/her own health, but putting carcinogens (aka second-hand smoke) into the air to harm the health of those immediately surrounding him/her. There's no immediate health danger to those next to someone eating one Big Mac, drinking one beer, etc. (the only "danger" is if those foods/drinks give the person consuming them gas).
So if the warnings are strong enough to keep someone from starting to smoke or to get someone to reconsider trying to quit, you're improving the health of just not the smoker, but those who are around that person when he/she lights up.

Besides, if fewer people smoke it means less sin tax revenue, giving politicians a chance to raise taxes in a way most people (ie. non-smokers) don't object to

 

As mentioned in the OP, this stuff has been going on here in Canuckistan for years and I don't know if it has had much effect as a deterrent. Certainly the shit is heavily taxed, you can't smoke anywhere and you can't even see the packs when you go into a store, the law has them hidden behind a barrier like a copy of Hustler or something. But people are still buying them.

Years ago there was a huge issue with natives and organized crime smuggling cigarettes from the US and the government backed down and lowered the price a bit but it slowly went back up and nobody seemed to notice.

I have never smoked (maybe the only bit of advice I followed from my old man) and know few people who do these days. I don't mind not coming home smelling like cigarette smoke if I've been in a bar or restaurant.

 

Well, for 6.2 million people, it's called Texas...

http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=5519

 

OK asshole, here are some answers: someone eating a Big Mac sitting next to me doesn't stink up the joint, my clothes or make me cough with their second-hand sesame-seeed bun. Someone having a beer next to me, ditto. Car accidents are just that: an accident. People in car accidents don't set out intentionally to have an accident. You, on the other hand, are intentionally setting out to poison yourself and everyone around you when you light up.

Enough answers for you? Probably not because it's not what you want to hear. Some Long Time Listener's post is spot on: STFU, light up and do it far from me.

 

Having sat on a train near someone eating fast food on more than one occasion, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with this assessment.

I'm just glad we don't have Krystal/White Castle over here. If someone brought that on a train, I'd have to kill them and then claim justifiable homicide. And my defense would cost $3.99 -- one sack of Krystals, placed neatly on the edge of the jury box.

 

I don't know why this concept is so hard for you and others to understand. A complete ban will never pass, or at least not any time soon, but stuff like this can. It's that simple.

And these measures aren't aimed at smokers. They are aimed at people who might become smokers.

 

Disagreeing with what some here have stated... I think we actually are on our way to an eventual ban. Maybe in our lifetime??

We're evolving as a species. We're figuring out how to live longer. A longer life and smoking just aren't compatible.

Think of it in terms of Darwin.

 

I think there are concerns about the damage losing that entire industry could do, not to mention the fact that getting rid of it entirely just isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

The current approach? Better than nothing. Do I hope Luggie is right? Absolutely.

 

At some point, particularly as journalists, our First Amendment antenna should start to perk up a little bit when it comes to this kind of impingement on commercial speech. I suspect the tobacco companies are going to challenge this, probably in multiple circuits, and the Supreme Court is going to choose to hear it. Off the top of my head, I predict that, as presently constituted, the Court says this labeling requirement is one or more steps too far. And I'll applaud.

 

Yeah, forcing them to tell the truth. How dare the government do that!

 

I think there is a difference between regulating false advertising - which is clearly within the government's powers, even under the First Amendment - and affirmatively imposing speech on them to this degree. Not sure how you'd draw a principled line between current warning labels and the new labels, but my intuition tells me, for example, that the government wouldn't be able to take over the entire box. So which side of the line does this fall? I think we'll find out soon enough.