Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

[DanieMarie]

I have something to write about on this, but can't seem to figure this out. I haven't been to the US in almost 15 years, so I really can't say. It -seems- that there are judging by the FDA website, but I'd like to have a confirmation from someone who actually lives there

[jazzalbert02]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

Learn about lung therapies and the labels must appear on every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States and on all cartons and have adopted graphic warnings on tobacco products.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

No.

The subject was brought up and considered, but the ruling is that it violates free speech. As long as the cigarettes are legal (so goes the ruling), the government CAN NOT force them to put anything on the package - i.e.: the government can not force companies to give up their right to free speech, even when some people may not like that they have it.

At this point, the matter was dropped because, if the tobacco companies chose to pursue it, the ruling would also allow them to take the warnings off the package.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

Blech that makes my subject harder to write about. Maybe I'll just talk about how Canada does it and it was discussed in the US.

[Bjorn]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

Nope. That didn't fly here.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

I guess I'll just write about how it almost happened, the current state of tobacco advertising, and places where it does happen.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

I guess I'll just write about how it almost happened, the current state of tobacco advertising, and places where it does happen.

If you can use this, DannieMarie, here is an article about what's going on in the U.S. -

FDA changes course on graphic warning labels for cigarettes

[Ophidia]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

This is probably derailment, but... after looking at the graphic warnings from that article, it got me wondering.

If it's been proven that mass-produced tobacco cigarettes with all the additives in them are fatal, why does the US still allow them to be sold? What's the difference between cigarettes and say, Phen-Fen (for those unfamiliar with it, it was a popular diet aid that caused heart problems)? I mean, if one cigarette won't kill you, and one Phen-Fen pill won't kill you, shouldn't that equalize them in the consumer market?

[dgirl1986]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

We have the gross pics on our packets of cigarettes here, and they just implemented plain packaging as well.

[Corvus]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

This is probably derailment, but... after looking at the graphic warnings from that article, it got me wondering.

If it's been proven that mass-produced tobacco cigarettes with all the additives in them are fatal, why does the US still allow them to be sold? What's the difference between cigarettes and say, Phen-Fen (for those unfamiliar with it, it was a popular diet aid that caused heart problems)? I mean, if one cigarette won't kill you, and one Phen-Fen pill won't kill you, shouldn't that equalize them in the consumer market?

Imo the reason cigarettes are legal is because they're so established culturally and economically. Tobacco is a huge industry and the stuff has been farmed in our country for 400 or so years. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that tobacco is part of our culture. Then there's the fact that there's just so many people who smoke already and anything with that many supporters would be difficult to ban.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

If you can use this, DannieMarie, here is an article about what's going on in the U.S. -

FDA changes course on graphic warning labels for cigarettes

Thank you! That is helpful!

[Ophidia]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

Imo the reason cigarettes are legal is because they're so established culturally and economically. Tobacco is a huge industry and the stuff has been farmed in our country for 400 or so years. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that tobacco is part of our culture. Then there's the fact that there's just so many people who smoke already and anything with that many supporters would be difficult to ban.

You could say the same about dietary aids, too. Tapeworm eggs & segments used to be sold in the US for 'ye olde slimming effect'. I mean, if the graphic warnings specifically state "This stuff WILL kill you", isn't it time to take it off the market already?

[DanieMarie]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

This is probably derailment, but... after looking at the graphic warnings from that article, it got me wondering.

If it's been proven that mass-produced tobacco cigarettes with all the additives in them are fatal, why does the US still allow them to be sold? What's the difference between cigarettes and say, Phen-Fen (for those unfamiliar with it, it was a popular diet aid that caused heart problems)? I mean, if one cigarette won't kill you, and one Phen-Fen pill won't kill you, shouldn't that equalize them in the consumer market?

I think it's really difficult to pull off an outright ban. It's sort of like prohibition. Phen-Fen wasn't as prevalent in the market as tobacco is. If you try to ban something that many people use, you're setting yourself up for failure. Your best bet is to try to get them to quit, or not start at all.

I know that in Canada, where there is a socialized health care system, and smoking still costs billions of dollars per year in costs (which everyone else has to cover as well), they still haven't banned it for that reason. You can't really advertise cigarettes, you can't display them openly, all packages are covered with warnings and pictures of dying organs, there are massive public campaign efforts, you can't smoke anywhere remotely in public, any rental suites, or in your car with your kids (in BC anyway), and it costs a ton of money to smoke; BUT you can still smoke. There's just too much grown on the continent, too much around, and still a bit too many people doing it (though it's gone down a LOT in the past 20 years....like amazingly a lot). It would work as well as prohibition did. And that's not counting the fact that it's an industry, because you can't really grow tobacco that well in Canada, and I think the vast majority of it is imported.

I'm probably one of the biggest anti-smoking advocates you'll meet. I would be happy if no one ever smoked another cigarette anywhere near me again. I get sick of seeing butts littering our streets and parks (I can see why they banned it in parks back home...folks got warned that if they didn't use public ashtrays, it would happen, and they didn't stop...loss of privilege). I hate having to breath in the sheer stink of people everywhere I go, which I'm also allergic to. I hate that my boyfriend does it, and I am constantly sneezing all the friggin time, but he's too addicted to quit. HOWEVER, I still don't think a ban is the answer, at least not now. Judging from back home, the above methods do work. People used to smoke there about as much as they do here (about a third of the population or so, and many of them heavily). Now, it's something like 10% where I grew up. The smoking rate is 14.9% in the province, but lower on the coast. The youth smoking rate is 8.9% province-wide. I'd say that's a huge achievement for 20 years.

[Aeran]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

Not to mention the powerful and influential lobbyists working to maintain the tobacco industry's profits.

But yeah, while I wouldn't mind seeing tobacco go (despite being a light smoker myself), it just isn't feasible. Banning drugs never works. What I would like to see is a shift away from all the toxic additives in cigarettes, there's no reason for people to be inhaling all those awful chemicals just because they're addicted to the nicotine, but the chance of the government cracking down and regulating the tobacco industry at this stage is basically nil.

On the bright side, e-cigarettes seem to be taking off finally, and they're most probably far, far less toxic than the regular variety. Just have to hope the tobacco industry fails to quash their new competition.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Do cigarette packages have pics of lung disease in the US?

I think that it is great that you are not allowed to smoke in your car with your kids... That is an awesome rule that should be enforced everywhere... too bad the US won't do it...

As a side note, we have had to ban e-cigarettes from the hospital, you would be surprised at how many people will complain about someone smoking in the hospital when it is clearly not a real cigarette, and then there are the "That person is smoking, why can't I?" people, and we have had to ban even e-cigarettes, not even allowed to smoke em outside on the property.