Let me warn you, this image is from an actual fear-mongering proposal brought to you by your federal government.
Yea. Even sometimes I can't even explain things like this.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) requires that cigarette packages and advertisements have larger and more visible graphic health warnings.
FDA issued a proposed rule, Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements, proposing to modify the required warnings that appear on cigarette packages and in cigarette advertisements. These new required warnings would consist of nine new textual warning statements accompanied by color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking.
Looking at the suggested pictures, it's just as bad as this one. And really, would this stop any of you addicts out there from lighting up?
No. No it wouldn't. But at least somebody on a congressional committee with an account at iStockphoto just justified their purchase!
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Big government
Comments (30)
Why don't they just put a w... (Below threshold)1. Posted by justpassingthrough | November 10, 2010 9:47 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Why don't they just put a waring label on everything?
1. Posted by justpassingthrough | November 10, 2010 9:47 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 21:47
2. Posted by John S | November 10, 2010 9:48 PM | Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
If the nannystate wants to do something worthwhile, why don't they take on the corn lobby ban the manufacture and use of fructose. It kills millions more people each year than tobacco ever will.
We've got a budget to cut. The FDA is yet another useless government bureaucracy that needs to be eliminated and its half-million employees fired without their government pension.
2. Posted by John S | November 10, 2010 9:48 PM |
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 21:48
3. Posted by galoob | November 10, 2010 9:48 PM | Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
Those pics are funny as hell.
3. Posted by galoob | November 10, 2010 9:48 PM |
Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 21:48
4. Posted by JLawson | November 10, 2010 9:56 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
It's funny - they depend on heavy taxes on cigarettes to fund children's medical care, yet they do their damndest to cut the number of smokers. You'd think they'd want MORE people lighting up, to get more revenue. For the kids, of course...
4. Posted by JLawson | November 10, 2010 9:56 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 21:56
5. Posted by Rick Caird | November 10, 2010 10:20 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Jlawson hits on it. SCHIP was "paid" for by the Pelosi $1 a pack tax. First, no one has ever checked to see if they are getting the revenue they expected. If not, SCHIP should be canceled until they find additional revenue.
Second, If SCHIP did not get enough revenue, then every other program that expects to be paid through the cigarette tax is also probably now under funded and should be canceled.
Canceling programs that depend on revenue not received is a good way to start cutting the budget deficit.
5. Posted by Rick Caird | November 10, 2010 10:20 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 22:20
6. Posted by trump | November 10, 2010 10:26 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Wow, pedos and necropheliacs will want to smoke now!!
PS- Something about that photo of the kid above makes me laugh.
"Oh uncle Paul!"
6. Posted by trump | November 10, 2010 10:26 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 22:26
7. Posted by 914 | November 10, 2010 10:32 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Liberal do gooders. How would we ever live without them.
7. Posted by 914 | November 10, 2010 10:32 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 22:32
8. Posted by 914 | November 10, 2010 10:37 PM | Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
"PS- Something about that photo of the kid above makes me laugh."
Thats what galoob looks like when Barney gets shut off.
8. Posted by 914 | November 10, 2010 10:37 PM |
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 22:37
9. Posted by jim m | November 10, 2010 10:39 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
This shit is why I smoke cigars.
9. Posted by jim m | November 10, 2010 10:39 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 22:39
10. Posted by GarandFan | November 10, 2010 11:29 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Let me see if I understand this.
The government is going to put graphic pictures on a product in order to dissuade people from using said product.
At the same time, various levels of government (federal, state and local) gorge themselves on tax revenues obtained by the sales of said product.
Often the taxes collected exceed the amount the manufacturer gets for making the item to begin with.
So does the government know how successful their program will be and how many will quit? If so, have they decided how they will recoup that lost tax revenue to which they've become addicted?
Actually this doesn't whole thing doesn't surprise me. We have a Dept of Agriculture which pushes the sales of cheese. At the same time we have another department which tries to persuade people not to purchase it.
Great examples of "your government at work".
10. Posted by GarandFan | November 10, 2010 11:29 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 23:29
11. Posted by GarandFan | November 10, 2010 11:33 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Another just occurred to me:
California totally funds a children's program (First Five) with a $.50 tax on each pack (thanks to Rob Reiner -aka Meathead).
The state (supposedly) uses tax settlement money to produce and distribute anti-smoking ads. My favorite was the child accusing smokers of "assault with a deadly weapon" - riffing on 2nd hand smoke.
So if the state is 'successful' and eliminates smokers - where does Reiner go to replace the millions he and his co-horts receive now?
Ooops! My bad. Reiner isn't with the group any longer. He got kicked off the board after it was found that he'd authorized the use of MILLIONS of "First Five" funds for political ads promoting a ballot initiative.
Funny how that works out. In the private sector he'd have been prosecuted for fraud and sent to prison.
11. Posted by GarandFan | November 10, 2010 11:33 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 23:33
12. Posted by GarandFan | November 10, 2010 11:42 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Question! Will Nancy Peolsi (vineyard owner) be required to put pictures of diseased livers on her wine bottle lables?
......crickets.......
I didn't think so.
12. Posted by GarandFan | November 10, 2010 11:42 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 23:42
13. Posted by GarandFan | November 10, 2010 11:44 PM | Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
Oh, one more.
Will Planned Parenthood be required to post pictures of aborted fetuses in their waiting rooms and their media ads?
13. Posted by GarandFan | November 10, 2010 11:44 PM |
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2010 23:44
14. Posted by Dodo David | November 11, 2010 1:26 AM | Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
Does anyone dispute the messages of the proposed warning labels?
14. Posted by Dodo David | November 11, 2010 1:26 AM |
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 01:26
15. Posted by JLawson | November 11, 2010 5:26 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Not I, Dodo. But as I pointed out, it's a bit stupid to depend on something like this for revenue, then do what you can to cut out said revenue stream.
15. Posted by JLawson | November 11, 2010 5:26 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 05:26
16. Posted by Hank | November 11, 2010 7:50 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
This is all the proof we need that the FDA is overstaffed and over-reaching.
They might as well raise their hands and say that if we need to trim the federal budget, start at the FDA.
16. Posted by Hank | November 11, 2010 7:50 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 07:50
17. Posted by James H | November 11, 2010 8:24 AM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
All things are a matter of degree. I'm OK with Surgeon General's warnings on tobacco products, and even in laws that ensure said warnings are not in 2-point type. But this is way over the top.
17. Posted by James H | November 11, 2010 8:24 AM |
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 08:24
18. Posted by Rodney | November 11, 2010 8:59 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Didn't Europe try something like this a couple of years ago? The sales to minors went up because the wanted the complete set of warning labels.
18. Posted by Rodney | November 11, 2010 8:59 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 08:59
19. Posted by jim m | November 11, 2010 9:05 AM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Tell the libs that we will legalize pot and then tell them that the same warning labels have to go on the packages of joints.
Sit back and watch the screaming begin.
19. Posted by jim m | November 11, 2010 9:05 AM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 09:05
20. Posted by engineer | November 11, 2010 9:11 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Can we put warning labels on politicians?
Nah, I guess there wouldn't be enough room on their bodies for all the required warnings.
20. Posted by engineer | November 11, 2010 9:11 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 09:11
21. Posted by DEnisej | November 11, 2010 9:28 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
My friend bought cigarettes while in Canada last year, first she had to ask if they sold them - they were in a closed cabinet behind the counter. Then they bought out a binder with pictures of the brands to choose from. the warning on one of the packs was a drawling of a limp male genitalia.
21. Posted by DEnisej | November 11, 2010 9:28 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 09:28
22. Posted by epador | November 11, 2010 9:39 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I agree this is silly. However, as an experiment, I shall e-mail one to my wife every day for a month. I'll let you know if she tries to quit (again). Or if my MacBook finds itself forced into one of my orifices, slammed against my head, or Mail spammed with pictures of dead baby otters.
22. Posted by epador | November 11, 2010 9:39 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 09:39
23. Posted by boolag | November 11, 2010 10:56 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"Nah, I guess there wouldn't be enough room on their bodies for all the required warnings."
One would be enough, "Warning!! Hazardous Waste!"
23. Posted by boolag | November 11, 2010 10:56 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 10:56
24. Posted by Stan2 | November 11, 2010 11:13 AM | Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Anyone who still smokes needs a wake-up call. Maybe a graphic image of a child suffering will wake the moron up.
24. Posted by Stan2 | November 11, 2010 11:13 AM |
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 11:13
25. Posted by 914 | November 11, 2010 11:47 AM | Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
Maybe Stan2. Although I dont know what a suffering child has to do with a pack of smokes? On the front of planned parenthood clinics, yes. Smokes, no.
25. Posted by 914 | November 11, 2010 11:47 AM |
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 11:47
26. Posted by GarandFan | November 11, 2010 2:21 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
"Maybe a graphic image of a child suffering will wake the moron up."
Better yet! A video of a fetus aborted in the 3rd trimester - struggling to breath while left to die in a closet of a Chicago hospital.
Why just use a still picture when you can show actual video WITH SOUND.
Obama can do the intro!
26. Posted by GarandFan | November 11, 2010 2:21 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 14:21
27. Posted by Stan2 | November 11, 2010 3:32 PM | Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
"Although I dont know what a suffering child has to do with a pack of smokes?"
The hazards of second-hand smoke are well documented. Anyone with children who smokes in the house or in the car with the children present should be arrested for child abuse.
27. Posted by Stan2 | November 11, 2010 3:32 PM |
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 15:32
28. Posted by 914 | November 11, 2010 4:00 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"The hazards of second-hand smoke are well documented. Anyone with children who smokes in the house or in the car with the children present should be arrested for child abuse."
Good luck with that. I think the statute ran out. My parents both smoked in the car and house as I grew up and I suffer no ill effects of any kind from anything. So stick your statism nanniness up your ass.
28. Posted by 914 | November 11, 2010 4:00 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 16:00
29. Posted by GarandFan | November 11, 2010 6:21 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
"Anyone with children who smokes in the house or in the car with the children present should be arrested for child abuse."
You remind me of the gentleman who objected to a 45mph speed limit on a local collector artery (traffic engineer lingo). There are no homes on that road. Yet this gentleman was upset because he took his daily walks there (on the sidewalk). One day he came up with a solution. Those driving 45mph were engaged in "assault with a deadly weapon" and he therefore had every right to "defend" himself.
After several minutes it was obvious I wasn't going to change his mind. Just told him, talk to a lawyer before you do something stupid.
And then there's the local maven who objects to the continued existence of the town's airport. She tried the 'terrorists will use it'. That didn't work. Now it's "there's a school 1 1/4 miles from the end of the runway, that's against the law!" (the law was passed years after both the airport and school were built).
So her plea now in the local rag is that "sending a child to that school is child neglect and all the parents should be arrested."
As Ron White has observed, "You can't fix stupid!"
29. Posted by GarandFan | November 11, 2010 6:21 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 18:21
30. Posted by olsoljer | November 11, 2010 7:54 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I doubt the smoke made the kid cry, but the SOB who burned her, to make her cry, should be prosecuted.
GarandFan - does that mean Stan2 is broken forever?
30. Posted by olsoljer | November 11, 2010 7:54 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on November 11, 2010 19:54