T1B

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/06 ... t=1&f=1001



I think they need to start putting graphic pics of car accidents and abortions on liquor bottles.

Everybody knew the graphic new cigarette labels the Food and Drug Administration would be disturbing. But the nine selected by the agency may still startle you.

The whole idea is that the labels will grab people by the lapels and be the visual equivalent of someone yelling: "Stop smoking!"

And, for the most part, the labels unveiled by the agency today live up to the advanced billing. Check out the ravaged teeth and damaged lip in the label on the left for starters.

Beginning in Sept. 2012, cigarette makers will have to give up the top half on their packages to display the nine images in rotation. In ads, 20 percent of the real estate at the top of the ads will have to be devoted to a graphic warning.


Since the '80s, cigarette packs have featured boxed safety warnings that were more of a whisper. Next year, they'll carry the hard-hitting visuals, a rotating set of text warnings, such as "Cigarettes cause cancer," and a toll-free telephone number for smokers who want help quitting. One of the new images is more encouraging that rest; it shows a young, bald man wearing an "I Quit" t-shirt.

Will the starker warnings work? The FDA predicts the new labels will cut the ranks of smokers by 213,000 in 2013, with smaller reductions in later years.

And in Canada, which has had tougher labeling for decades, graphic images have helped increase smokers' motivation to quit. Even so, as the University of Ottawa's David Sweanor told NPR last November, smoking hasn't declined quite as much as some people had hoped because of inadequate access to smoking cessation programs.

Some research has suggested that graphic warnings may actually reinforce the habit among smokers whose self-esteem is tied to it. But the FDA has its own research, involving 18,000 people, backing up the labels and their likely effect.

Late last year, Shots and Thomson Reuters asked Americans about the FDA's proposed graphic warnings. Fifty-four percent people surveyed supported the FDA proposed to deter smoking. About 24 percent were opposed.

See all of new labels here...

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoPro ... 259401.pdf

Whitey, your thoughts?

Sudden Sam wrote:Anyone who smokes doesn't GARA about themself or anyone else. What good will new labels do?

It might be fun to collect them all and trade them with your friends.

Sudden Sam wrote:Anyone who smokes doesn't GARA about themself or anyone else. What good will new labels do?

Exactly. The dumbfucks that still smoke, this day and age, aren't going to be remotely phased by these labels.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Anyone who smokes doesn't GARA about themself or anyone else. What good will new labels do?

Exactly. The dumbfucks that still smoke, this day and age, aren't going to be remotely phased by these labels.

Agree as well. I just wish they would save all the money they are putting into the "stop smoking" campaigns, tax tobacco progressively each year increasing the tax and apply all those funds to the federal deficit. Since many smokers are part of the poor population who don't pay taxes anyways (or very little), this can be their means for putting up their fair share. If you are poor and don't pay for tobacco, you don't have to worry about it.

First, for the record, smoking is bad for you, hard to debate.

And when you start looking at the numbers, the health risks associated with it are so grossly blown out of proportion, it's silly.

Been many years since it became about politics more than health. Like so many other scientific issues that entered the political forefront, if the numbers and reality don't say what the "antis" want then to, then they move the goalposts a few miles.

Analyzing the issue requires the use of one's brain -- when the vast majority of non-smokers die of "smoking related illness," anybody with anounce of sense knows there's no debating that the numbers are being flagrantly fudged on a very large scale.

So Dinsdale, how many packs a day do you smoke?

Goober McTuber wrote:So Dinsdale, how many packs a day do you smoke?

1/3rd to 1 (full pack would e a heavy, drunk day, probably involving a fishing rod).

Dinsdale wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:So Dinsdale, how many packs a day do you smoke?

1/3rd to 1 (full pack would e a heavy, drunk day, probably involving a fishing rod).

I was a steady pack a day smoker for 29 years. Good times.

Goober McTuber wrote:I was a steady pack a day smoker for 29 years. Good times.

Stupid is as stupid does. That's how it goes, right? Right, Gobbles?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I was a steady pack a day smoker for 29 years. Good times.

Stupid is as stupid does. That's how it goes, right? Right, Gobbles?

Smoking is fun. Don't ever let anybody ever tell you any different. Plus, I was just one of those people who looked really good with a cigarette in his mouth.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:So Dinsdale, how many packs a day do you smoke?

1/3rd to 1 (full pack would e a heavy, drunk day, probably involving a fishing rod).

I was a steady pack a day smoker for 29 years. Good times.

I think Dinsdale is talking about cigarettes, not dicks

Goober McTuber wrote:Smoking is fun. Don't ever let anybody ever tell you any different.

100% agree. That's why quitting sucked all three times. Thankfully the last one stuck.

I smoked in college for about 6 months. Only smoked when I drank. ALWAYS woke up feeling like I was going to puke and could not get the taste out of my mouth. Can't believe I lasted 6 months. Now dipping...I did that for a good 15 years. Glad I kicked the habit on about the 10th try, and I don't miss it. That's how I know I've kicked it for the last time. So when I say tax the fuck out of it, it's not so much that I want to punish the smoker/chewer. I just want it to be looked down upon that no one really wants to even do it. Let the shit-eaters in Japan have the smokes. It can be taboo here.

Goober McTuber wrote:I was just one of those people who looked really good with a cigarette in his mouth.

All pole shaped objects feel right at home, eh?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I was just one of those people who looked really good with a cigarette in his mouth.

All pole shaped objects feel right at home, eh?

Are you and Cooter sitting together?

88 wrote:If this ploy doesn't reduce smoking rates,

Who says that it's even supposed to? The government doesn't want anybody to stop smoking. They're making too much money off of tobacco. They probably make more money off of it then the tobacco companies do.

Goober McTuber wrote:Are you and Cooter sitting together?

Unlike your mouth and pole shaped objects, Cooter and I don't go together very well. So, no.

Goober McTuber wrote:Whitey, your thoughts?

A lot of non-smokers are judgemental asshats who need to mind their own fucking business, stay the fuck out of my wallet and then kiss my ass.

Goober McTuber wrote:I was just one of those people who looked really good with a cigarette in his mouth.

That was one of the gayest things ever posted on this board.

88 wrote:And does this pave the way for putting pictures of fat-asses on candy bars?

A snack and jerk material at the same time?!? Awesome!

-black guys

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I was just one of those people who looked really good with a cigarette in his mouth.

That was one of the gayest things ever posted on this board.

Narcissistic for sure but not really gay. Now if someone like oh...say KC Scott said, "Man, Goober really looks good with a cigarette in his mouth," then that would be gay.

Narcissistic for sure but not really gay.

Err, yeah, I agree. "Gay" can be used a lot of different ways these days. Stupid, lame, toolish, etc. It's all the rage with kids and NBA players.

Indy wrote:I just wish they would save all the money they are putting into the "stop smoking" campaigns, tax tobacco progressively each year increasing the tax and apply all those funds to the federal deficit. Since many smokers are part of the poor population who don't pay taxes anyways (or very little), this can be their means for putting up their fair share. If you are poor and don't pay for tobacco, you don't have to worry about it.

Social engineering.


The gov could also tax Krispy Kreme and Dunkin Donuts heavily, because diabetes is out of control and is a MAJOR health problem in America.

Tax skateboards heavily, too... since many dumbfucks show up at the hospital with limbs twisted up in every direction.


Or... the gov could stay out completely and let the free market (and Darwin) sort the whole thing out.



The land of the -FREE- and the home of the brave?


Yeah, once upon a time.

Papa Willie wrote:You know - if it weren't for the lobbying tobacco company lawyers in DC, cigs would have been banned 40 years ago.

bullshit.

DC will never put a bullet in the head of one of its best cash cows.

IndyFrisco wrote:So when I say tax the fuck out of it, it's not so much that I want to punish the smoker/chewer. I just want it to be looked down upon that no one really wants to even do it.

It's already taxed the fuck out of. How does taxing it even more achieve the goal of having it 'looked down upon' so much that no one wants to do it?

Idiot.

smackaholic wrote: DC will never put a bullet in the head of one of its best cash cows.

They tried that once with Prohibition. How'd that work out?

Its a fucking disgusting habit, but to each their own.

I don't give a shit who does it, but don't do it while I'm sitting in a bar or restaurant one table (or stool) over from you. I didn't seek the establishment so I could go home smelling like a fucking ashtray.

I agree with pops, though, they should lift the heavy taxes off of it so Darwin can sort it all out; however, the other side of that coin is a doctor spending time performing multiple stints during multiple operations on some ass hat who refuses to kick the habit while some poor schlep who's never smoked a day in his life has to wait his turn out in the hallway. Seems like a waste of time if you ask me.

poptart wrote:The land of the -FREE- and the home of the brave?


Yeah, once upon a time.

Hey, if you don't like it you can.................oh, wait...that's right.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

poptart wrote:The land of the -FREE- and the home of the brave?


Yeah, once upon a time.

Hey, if you don't like it you can.................oh, wait...that's right.

:x

^^^^^^

I'm not actually mad...It's just that this smiley is the closest to having slanty Asian eyes I could find...

If these labels don't work maybe they could try like hairy pictures of grandmas getting fisted by dead raccoons. That might work in states not named Oregon.

Go Coogs' wrote: I don't give a shit who does it, but don't do it while I'm sitting in a bar or restaurant one table (or stool) over from you. I didn't seek the establishment so I could go home smelling like a fucking ashtray.

There are still bars or restaurants that allow smoking? Not around here, except in some of the smaller municipalities that haven't gotten around to regulating behavior... yet.

Oh, and casinos. They don't want to wax their balls that close... yet.

That said, if you patronize an establishment that you know allows smoking, don't get your panties in a wad if someone nearbye - *gasp* - smokes. Who cares if you go home smelling like an ashtray anyway? Mrs. Rumps couldn't smell it over her ass sweat.

I will siiiiiiiiiiiiiiing this victory song...



Don't envy, fans.

You can come here, too.


And Asian lady love you long time!

mvscal wrote:

88 wrote:If this ploy doesn't reduce smoking rates,

Who says that it's even supposed to? The government doesn't want anybody to stop smoking. They're making too much money off of tobacco. They probably make more money off of it then the tobacco companies do.

What mvscal said. Do you people honestly believe the Fed wants to eradicate tobacco usage in this country? Really? If the damn product was truly as big a threat to the collective health of the citizens of this country as the government would have us all believe, then why doesn’t the Fed have the cubes to outlaw the product outright?

Well, duh.

The Fed could pave our Interstates in gold on the mint tobacco taxes reap. And yes mvscal, you are correct: The government (fed, state, county, and local) collects more coin in tobacco taxes than the manufacturers make in profits. In addition to paying these taxes out the ass with every purchase, smokers have a tendency to die off sooner, thus relieving the stress upon Social Security. And yes, some of you all will argue that smoking-related illness puts heat on healthcare premiums and the Medicare system, but the fuckers die early... It ain’t like emphysema treatments run on indefinitely into a smoker’s 90’s.

But to take this discussion a step further: Buncha you fuckers are sayin’ fuggit: “I don’t smoke. Tax the piss outta those Losers." Fine and dandy. So government taxes raise the cost of smokes to $100 a carton, thus successfully encouraging every person in this country to give up their coffin nails...

Who picks up the tab for the lost cigarette tax revenues?

Quick answer: Why, YOU do, dumbass. Think it can’t happen?

There’s already rumblings to assess a “usage tax” on the country’s roadways for those folks who have purchased vehicles that don’t visit the pumps near enough. Own a high mileage compact or an electric hybrid? Best get ready to open your wallet. Somebody’s gotta pick up the slack on lost fuel tax revenues.

And it won’t stop. Fast food, pop, booze, online por, er, the Internet are all revenue streams the Fed greedily eyes to tap. Fuck this noise. People want to kill themselves early, let em’. Their choice. As written by the Founders, our government is charged to defend its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. Not to tell them how to live.

mvscal wrote: They probably make more money off of it then the tobacco companies do.

There's precedent for this; the federal govt already makes more on a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies do.

Great post, Truman.

RACK!



The sheeple have gotten so numb and accustomed to their slavery that they don't even recognize it to be the case.

It's just COMPLETELY ape shit out of control.

Truman wrote:And yes, some of you all will argue that smoking-related illness puts heat on healthcare premiums and the Medicare system, but the fuckers die early... It ain’t like emphysema treatments run on indefinitely into a smoker’s 90’s.

I plan on living until 90 for no other reason than to drive Jimmy Meds healthcare costs up... I'm over halfway there.

Fuck, but I've only been to the doctor once a year for the past 10 years. I better start smoking more than 2 packs of Marlboro reds a day if I want a return on my investment.

Rack Truman...outstanding rant

As far as fucking local, state or federal governments deciding who can smoke where, that's cock-shit. That should be up to the owner. If you don't like it whether they smoke (or not), just don't fucking go there. It's really that simple.

Yes.

Much success staying off the sticks, Buttsy.

War Wagon wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:So when I say tax the fuck out of it, it's not so much that I want to punish the smoker/chewer. I just want it to be looked down upon that no one really wants to even do it.

It's already taxed the fuck out of. How does taxing it even more achieve the goal of having it 'looked down upon' so much that no one wants to do it?

Idiot.

Smoker'sopiniondoesn'tmatter says what?