Regardless of if it's a good idea or not, the government does not have the right to put anti-smoking pictures on packs of cigarettes, amirite?

McDonald's should be forced to put pictures of naked morbidly obese people on their food. I mean come on, how else are people gonna know its bad for you?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Mcdonalds doesnt cause morbid obesity; excess consumption of fat does. Which exists in other food as well. Smoking=bad. No matter how much you consume because it is a poison.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So? that's a very invalid point. Smoking is only harmful when done excessively as well.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No its not. Cigerettes are flat out bad. 1 or 10. smoking lots is of course worse for you that smoking a bit, but since cigerettes contain all sorts of poisons I dont hink a cheeseburger and smoking are really comparable. Fat is natural, carcinogens are not. Also 2nd hand smoke effects everyone. I would take a guess that only a very small amount is harmful to a baby.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Most of the shit in McDonald's isn't natural either.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

If you disagree, comment saying why so I can tell you why you're wrong.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Why can't they put anti smoking pictures on the packs of cigarettes? There's anti smoking propaganda everywhere else. There's anti everything propaganda absolutely everywhere. I'm not saying that it's right to put it everywhere, but what makes the cigarette packs untouchable?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Because paying money to put up an anti-meth commercial is quite different from forcing a company to put damning phrases on their products without compensating them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well it's not like you can necessarily get the meth info out any other way. Since meth is illegal no one can make them put damning phrases on the products. They're just getting the info out the best way possible.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They can put up as much anti-smoking propaganda as they want, but they shouldn't be able to force others to do so. The textual warnings are enough.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Apparently not. If the textual warnings were enough, there wouldn't be as many smokers. People completely disregard those.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Okay, so why not put pictures of children with black eyes and people with dying livers on cases of beer? Or obese people on McDonald's fries?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Lol. I agree with the beer example. Not the McDonalds. That analogy is a fallacy. Smoking and drinking both cause potential harm to those who don't partake in the activity while eating unhealthy foods only harms the body of the one who consumes it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Huh. I didn't think of it that way, but that's true. But I don't believe that secondhand smoke is harmful unless you're exposed to it regularly. If you don't want to breathe in smoke, don't hang around smokers. I really think that the whole secondhand smoke thing is blown out of proportion. I used to be friends with a bunch of smokers and I was in closed rooms with them while they were smoking, frequently. And my dad smokes when I'm in the car with him. I haven't suffered any health problems from that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It would be great if it was that simple. Not hanging around smokers isn't always an option. I absolutely hate cigarette smoke, (mostly because I have asthma) and my mother is a smoker. I can't get away from it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Unless your house is one room, you should be able to escape it if it bothers you that much.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It lingers on everything. She leaves the door open to her room and it spreads through the house. And the only way to the bathroom is through her room.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ah I understand. I'm sorry to hear that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But in reality, that's your advice? Leave the room? Leave the personages doing it? 'Ya mom so a guy on the Internet told me to leave you whenever you're smoking, but I don't know what to do because you're ALWAYS smoking.' so everyone should always leave them? What if they have family dinners? They are in the car driving? Every day, if that adolescent is lucky, they won't be aware that every minute they are around their loved one their lungs and body may be taking damage. The damage they would have been compeletely oblivious of if they hadn't seen the diseased cancer lung on the box of cigarettes. This prompted them to do something about it. The point is, if you had a can of pop that would kill 1 in 3 people that drank it, wouldn't it be obcene for that to still be legal? Wouldn't the least the government could do is put deterrents whereever they could?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Unlike McDonalds or Alcohol cigarettes are the only product scientifically proven to kill 1in 3 of it's users. The reason this post is negative is because you are incorrect, so get rid of the arrogance. The government puts those pictures on the packs because smoking SHOULD be illegal, but they don't quite have the support for that yet thanks to the huge tobacco companies. Inb4 any over liberal crap about 'it's our bodies' it needs to be illegal because of... Yes... The second had smoke. Whether it's blown out of preportion or not it's TERRIBLE for you. You say that you have no health draw backs from the second hand smoke? Ya no shit, if you chain smoked for all those years instead you'd still feel fine because smoking doesn't work that quickly, it's right around middle age where you get the cancers and the diseases and the permanent treacheotomies. You will probably start to notice your own lung Deficiency in 15 or so years. Oh of course! Just leave the smokers! Dumbass. What about those who can't? A new born baby will have to experience that smoke around them till they're almost 6 EARLIEST and can actually understand they need to leave their mom when she smokes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Eating unhealthy food can affect your children, especially if you have health problems from it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Most everything you do now can affect your children. I should have clarified. I'm talking about //direct// negative effects. Not could possibly/may happen. Will.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because smoking is a black and white case: there can be no doubt that every ciggerette you have is bad for you. Mcdonalds: its fatty but fat isnt necessarily bad. Alcohol: What about red wine when it can be good for you in moderation? The thing is the floodgates argument doesnt work when it comes to smoking becasue if there ever was a clear cut case where a product is harmful and should be discouraged in every possible way its smoking.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I disagree. The textual warnings are as about as heeded as terms and conditions you agree to on a daily basis. The are devalued to the point where they dont hold any serious sway on people. If I see a warning I would interpret it as the company trying to cover its butt and would not take seriously. And thats only when I bother reading.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Even prescription drug companies are forced to ramble off all the possible side effects of their drug when they pay for a commercial or advertisement. Since the general assumption when buying a product is that it's perfectly safe to use, it makes sense that companies should be forced to put appropriate warnings on their products, if they are in fact unsafe. Since cigarettes are inherently addicting and carcinogenic, they'll be forever damned with those anti-smoking Surgeon General warnings and the like.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They do have warnings, and they should. But forcing a company to put pictures of black lungs and such on their cigarettes is just over the top.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think it's justified, given how many deaths cigarettes cause a year.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Everyone already knows how bad cigarettes are, the media and schools hammer it into our brains. Anyone that smokes obviously just doesn't care.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No I dont agree with that. Smoking is mainly a problem in low socio economic areas suggesting that a lack of education may be the problem.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, everyone knows how bad cigarettes are. You don't have to go to school to know that cigarettes are bad for you. It already says so right on the carton.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well health class is where i learned it was bad. Your biased becasue you have been exposed to anti smoking messages you're thinking "its so obvious everyone must know" and are you serious?? have you ever read shit like that on products you consume? really? besides even If everyone knows is irrelevant. If there is a smoking culture in low socio economic areas it needs to be discouraged. I mean its poison for petes sake! cigerettes will eventually be illegal but only when there is enough support and smoking is a very low minority.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sure, smoking should be discouraged. I said "regardless of if it's a good idea or not..." That means that I don't want to talk about the morality of smoking or if we should discourage or encourage smoking, I'm talking about the government and if they should have the right to force private companies to put things on their products that they don't want to put on their products. They already have warnings from the surgeon general and whatnot, that's okay. I think that some warning is necessary. But these pictures just go over the top.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You are wrong: The govt has that power. Of course it does. Why probably would still have lead in our paint if it didnt. Should it have that power? i think yes, but i think that is how you should have framed your amirite statement. Because the fact is it absolutly does, and its pretty uncontentious.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If they know the harmful effects smoking has on them and they still don't care and continue to smoke, then putting pictures of possible dangers on cigarette packages won't make a difference either.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's exactly what he's saying

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I replied to a different part and didn't realize it just sent my comment right to the end, where he'd already addressed what I said. But hey, thanks for informing me of something I already knew.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Way to turn that into a bitchy comment right at the end

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know. The reason I don't think they should put the pictures on there is that the government just shouldn't have that kind of power.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

To discourage poison! I supose you are against the ad campaigns in the 90's about the dangers of arsonic in some plasters? or the Drink driving ads? these are all goverment funded aimed at informing people about really really bad things. They do have that power and excersise it all the time. I dont know why you care so much about the wealthy tobacco companies. They profit from addiction. Im sure they wouldnt even hurt that much if the new packets did happen.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't care what would happen if they put the pictures on cigarettes. I'm saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to force private companies to put these pictures on their products. And no, I'm not against campaigns warning about arsenic or drunk driving PSAs. Those aren't forcing private companies to alter their product's appearance. Those aren't even comparable.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But thats my point! The govt does force private companies to alter their packageing. eg nutrician info, there are copyright laws, false advertsing laws, regulations that specify what you have to mention: ie lead in paint.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

These days, the negative effects of smoking are basically slapped across your face wherever you go--forget the fact that it's almost impossible to take up the habit these days anyway due to the fact that it's pretty much 9$ a package. Billboards, commercials, laws, and education all make the effort to rub it in your face. Most people are aware of the negative effects, and if they want to make the choice to smoke them regardless, they should at least be allowed to small luxury of having packages that don't make them want to puke every time they go for a smoke.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

but what about people that arent aware? Every person who takes up smoking has the right to see what its effects could be. A text warning is not enough: nobody reads those, and even if they do its not taken seriously.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How plausible is it that someone buying a pack of cigarettes is unaware of the risks? Smokers and alcoholics are perfectly aware that what they're doing is harmful. You can't force a company to talk about how awful their product is.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Above: "No I dont agree with that. Smoking is mainly a problem in low socio economic areas suggesting that a lack of education may be the problem." Good point I think. the message obviously isnt getting through.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because it's not a good point. No matter the economic standing of an area, it is near impossible to go anywhere, watch tv, or even simply smoke a cigarette without there being something or someone telling you not to.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Also it would be pretty annoying to be a smoker and enjoy it and see something like 'stressed? Have a smoke' and 'don't smoke' on your box of cigarettes.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There's nothing wrong with having those pictures there. You have every right to ignore them (which all smokers do anyway) so what's the big deal?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Let me put a picture of black lungs in your face 40 times in a day and see if you get annoyed and grossed out.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Have you ever watched crime tv shows? please who cares about gore nowdays.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Hows the picture gonna work if everyones immune to the gore in it?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Its not about grossing people out, its so that people can see what will happen when they smoke. Its just a better warning than text.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's the company's private property and product. The government is trying to force them to tell everyone not to use their product, which they basically already do. Now they're making it more extreme. That's crap.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't care either way, they never really bothered me. I'm not sure about this, but I heard Aus has the most graphic anti-smoking ads in the world, both on television and on the fag cartons. The one I have now has an person with their eye being cut up or something, but they come with other pictures like a diseased lung or brain, or a heart with tar dripping from it, or my favourite one, the stillborn baby. But I agree that the government shouldn't force the companies to put the nasty pictures in them - I guess it might stop young girls smoking but all the girls I knew just bought plastic packs to put them in lulz. They should have to put all the warnings and effects and number and website for a quit line on them though, although I honestly don't think anyone nowadays can not know the risks of smoking. Like, my mums excuse is that when she was a kid, they didn't fully know all the risks.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because the government does a lot of shit nobody agrees with but they're never penalized for it. Come on, there are worse things the government has done than put anti-smoking advertisements on cigarettes. It's time this fad dies out anyways; it's hurting nonsmokers, too.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If our generatiom doesn't smoke, then by the time we're old, smoking will likely be eradicated.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

if people want to smoke then they SHOULD be forced to see the results of their actions. They might want to be ignorant but it isn't fair on anyone. If they get cancer then it will seriously affect their friends and family. In my opinion smoking is an extremely stupid and selfish thing to do.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Us smokers are perfectly aware what smoking does. I doubt that there is a single person who smokes regularly that thinks, "this will never hurt me." But if those pictures on cigarettes can keep even a single person from lighting up, then I say it's completely worth it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

My problem with it is that it gives the government too much power. They shouldn't be able to regulate packages that are produced by private companies. If they can do this, what's the next step?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You are kidding they do all the time? all sorts of regulations exist that tell companies what to put on their packaging. Nutrician information for example.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know that they do that all the time, and sometimes it's okay. But putting pictures of black lungs and cancer on cigarette cartons is just abusing that power.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How is it abusing that power? this is where morality comes in. Putting those pictures on is victimless. Yes the tobacco companies may suffer financially but thats a good thing becuase smoking=bad. I agree i think it would be abusing that power if they did that so that they could profit somehow, or if they forced Mcdonalds to put warnings on their food etc. But smoking is black and white bad. Look at the vote of this post. Does that answer your question?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So you think a ciggerette company should be able to put whatever they want on their packageing? like "Smoke; Its good for you!" damn govt trying to ruin poor tobacco companies day.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You're either trolling or an idiot. Either way, i'm going to stop arguing with you.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well alot of people might think you are an idiot for this post given the vote. But they dont say that. I made that point because you keep harping on about the govt regulating private companies packaging. Which is essentially a limitation on their advitising rights. So my 'idiotic' example was an example of how the Govt actually limits those rights everywhere. And why you are wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Technically, cigarettes shouldn't even be sold to the public. They're an extreme health problem and the only reason they're still about is because they're so popular and if we ban them, people will go apeshit. We've learned from prohibition that it'll just become another alley-way deal. People will just do it illegally. Were cigarettes to just be founded today, the FDA would start flipping tables and screaming at the top of their lungs. It's hardly about government power. Cigarettes are a health problem that even affect the health of people who don't use them, and I think that's the difference here. That's why things like fattening, greasy, unhealthy foods are still about. The product affects the individual but not those around them. Cigarettes affect the individual and the people around them.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's true, it's a little too excessive. Then again though, we are talking about cigarettes. There is nothing positive about smoking, so for this single circumstance I think it's alright. If it branches out to other products, then I'll get upset.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree that the government doesn't have the right to do this, just because the government isnt given the right to control propaganda for companies by the constitution. All this really boils down to is the interpretation of the constitution: strict or loose. The government likes to tie the interpretation problem to emotionally driven issues, and a lot of people are blind to what the government is actually doing because all they want to focus on is what affects them right then and there. The government is doing the same thing with gay marriage. The constitution doesn't specifically give the government the right to allow or prohibit things such as gay marriage, but if any laws for or against it are passed nationally, it'll give the federal government more power over the people in the long run.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, they //do// have the right to do this. But should they have this right? Most certainly not. The government does not force pharmaceutical companies to put pictures of what their drugs can do to people on their products, so why should cigarette companies be asked to do that? Yes, cigarettes are dangerous, but so is driving while taking NyQuil. The government can discourage us from doing plenty of things, but they cannot force a company to discourage people from using its product. The Surgeon General's warning serves the same purpose as the side affects label on a bottle of Advil, or the warning label on narcotics. The pictures would be far too extreme.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thank you. You put that in better words than I could.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

People would disregard pictures too. It's not like you're giving smokers any information they're not already aware of. Besides, it's not really the government's job to save people from themselves. If people want to smoke, so be it. It's their right.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ok to answer why you are wrong: you said regardless of whether its good or bad, so ill disregard any argument that talks about smoking being bad for health. Here it is: Yes. The Govt does have that right. It has the right to do whatever the majority wants in a democracy basically. And actually if you actually thought about it rather than taking the most obvious case; it excerses that power all the time on private companies.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know they exercise that power, but this is just over the top. I should have specified. And yes, if the majority wants to do this, they have the right. But until they take a poll and find that the majority is in favor of this, I'll fight it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ok. But do you really think the poll would go in your favour? i mean look at the vote of your post. Public opinion is against tobacco companies. So again; yes they have that right; and since the majority agrees they should have that right.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Can I ask you why you think this crosses the line? You cannot argue that smoking isnt bad for you and you cannot argue that the govt doesnt have the right to regulate packages (because it does so already for loads of things) so what exactly is it about this particular case you think goes too far?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They do have the right to regulate packages, but these pictures are more than that. They're completely taking over the cigarette packages. They already have textual warnings (plus all the media that tells us not to smoke). These pictures are overkill and they are basically forcing private companies to discourage purchase of their own product.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And whats so bad about that? If it means saving peoples lives? I agree if it forcing a company that makes teddy bears to discourage purchase of their own product but tobacco companies are in a legue of their own. The profit from a horrible horrible product that kill 1 in 3 of its users. I think it comes doen to ideology. And youre backing the private interests over the public one. And thats ok. I dont agree with it of course. In my opionin tobacco companies have far to much power and wealth and I think any inititive from the govt to curb that is good.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Private interests of profit from tobacco companies and public interest of health: to me its an easy choice!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The problem I see with that is that if we give the government the power to do that, then what will we give them the power to do next? If they can do that, what else can they do?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well if they did something we didnt agree with we wouldnt vote for them in the next election. That is how democracy works- being re-elected provides the incentive to act in the publics best interests. You can use the whole flood gates arguement on anything. And its a pretty weak response to an initative that might save peoples lives.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I really don't think that putting gory pictures on cigarettes would save lives. A few, maybe. Not enough to make a significant difference. And I don't try to help people unless they want me to. If smokers don't ask for help quitting by voting for these pictures, then why should we force it on them?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

you dont think saving a few lives makes a difference? wow. just wow.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In the grand scheme of things, no. Of course it makes a difference, but I said significant. Saving a few lives isn't going to dramatically alter the world like saving thousands or millions of lives would.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yea... but how is that relevant? are you saying that pictures should only be put on cartons if it 'dramatically alters the world like saving thousands or millions of lives'? Besides I think It will deter people that are thinking of starting smoking , i agree it wouldnt make much difference to the addicted but even that has the potential to save 'thousands' of lives.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think that putting pictures on cigarettes would be a negative thing because it gives the government power that I don't think they should have and it just isn't fair. It's not like they're informing the public of anything, we all know what cigarettes cause. And I could be wrong, but I really don't think that these pictures would influence many people to not smoke.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well we disagree then on what is 'fair'- I dont think its fair that these tobacco companies profit at all from a product that by definition should not even be legal. It kills 1/3 smokers, effects non-smokers and only still exists because of its addictive properties. But most of all I think it would make a difference. And to me; it doesnt matter that its only a small difference becasue that 'difference' is measured in LIVES not profit. Its about making smoking uncool, and to give an accurate dipiction to youngsters who think they are untouchable that this can happen to them. I used to smoke; and im not certain but im pretty sure i wouldnt have started had the packets had those kind of pic on them.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I started smoking when I was 12, before I was really aware of any health issues. My dad gave them to me (of all people) because I have the same crippling anxiety and panic disorder as he has. Smoking really helps him function and it also has helped me more than any medication I have tried. My GP and my psychiatrist have actually strongly suggested that I KEEP SMOKING. The benefits to me (and my dad) outweigh the possible health risks. Should either of us have started smoking? Who's to say? I would never recommend or encourage it especially now that all the health concerns are widely known. Just the money is enough reason never to start. But if my doctor thinks I'll live longer smoking and with a stable mental health, and I don't smoke around non-smokers, who is anyone to say I can't smoke.

by Anonymous 11 years ago