SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Using prominent, graphic pictures on cigarette packs warning against smoking could avert more than 652,000 deaths, up to 92,000 low birth weight infants, up to 145,000 preterm births, and about 1,000 cases of sudden infant deaths in the U.S. over the next 50 years, say researchers from Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Their study, published online Nov. 3 in the journal Tobacco Control, is the first to estimate the effects of pictorial warnings on cigarette packs on the health of both adults and infants in the U.S
Although more than 70 nations have adopted or are considering adopting the World Health Organization's Framework Convention for Tobacco Control to use such front and back of-the-pack pictorial warnings -- an example is a Brazilian photo of a father with a tracheotomy -- they have not been implemented in the US. Pictorial warnings have been required by law, but an industry lawsuit stalled implementation of this requirement. Currently, a text-only warning appears on the side of cigarette packs in the U.S.
But would such pictures deter fans of The Walking Dead ?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:21AM
Tripling the price of a pack would make people buy 50% less cigarettes.
Murdering all smokers would reduce lung cancer by 94%.
Nuking entire surface of the earth would limit the availability of tobacco by 99.99%
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Wednesday November 09 2016, @04:26AM
So you're joking, but I'll bite. Specifically on the first point. The price of a pack needs to go up far more than triple.
Smoking creates an immense public health burden in terms of expenses. Everyone who smokes gets COPD, everyone is getting serially hospitalized for exacerbations, huge percentages of cancer are directly attributable, it drains the ED and the hospital beds and that's not coming out of the smokers' pockets - everyone's taxpayer/insurance money is paying for it. To the best of my knowledge there has been no good study done to attempt to assess the actual full cost per carton of cigarettes, but I would entirely 100% be behind a tax which would cover this. It should be applied to every pack sold.
Of course, with my back-of-the-envelope math I expect the cost per pack would become something between $20 and $100.
For all of you who just fell off your chairs and/or are racing to your Submit buttons, think about this: the fact that the cost isn't there today, doesn't mean that actual burden went away. It means you, the nonsmokers, are paying it - in your taxes and your insurance. No need to outright ban them, though I'd be OK with that as well, just make sure the full cost is accounted for in the sticker price. Heck, even play that up; "95% of the cost of this is going to support the healthcare you'll need if you use it. Yeah, it's that bad."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by KilroySmith on Wednesday November 09 2016, @05:21AM
So, how did that prohibition (either alcohol or drugs) work for you?
Once the cost of a pack exceeds a certain point, there'll be a black market in cigarettes, with gangs controlling distribution and shooting each other up to expand their territories.
The argument about requiring cigarette smokers to bankroll their own societal costs has huge implications - think motorcycle riders, car drivers, those who don't exercise, those who do exercise, those who have children (a remarkably prejudiced problem, with 100% of those penalized being women), those who grow old. Pity those who fall into more than one category. It sounds good as long as you're taxing someone who's doing something you disapprove of...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @04:53PM
>there'll be a black market in cigarettes
Here, let me help you...
Tobacco, as many products, originally began being used in its natural form. But after being monopolized by big-business the product is "ruined". Fact -> the tobacco inside each cigarette is now merely a sponge for delivering all the chemicals soaked into cigs that are the origin of many of the product's problems.
As an easier comparison think farm to table examples of food vs shelf-life processed food & fast food.
So yeah, not talking about it being prohibited as anyone could grow their own. And that is EXACTLY a better version of tobacco for people, (though at the detriment of tobacco shareholders and why 'homemade' versions of anything are marketed as poor substitutes compared to the commercial version).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:23PM
the tobacco inside each cigarette is now merely a sponge for delivering all the chemicals soaked into cigs that are the origin of many of the product's problems
So smoke American Spirits [wikipedia.org].
Natural American Spirit products are "100% Additive-Free Tobacco", though they include the standard generic Surgeon General tobacco warning on the packs in accordance with federal regulation standards, which currently states "no additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette". This was part of an FTC ruling in 2000 and agreement resulting from allegations that the advertisement of additive-free cigarettes made consumers feel that the product might be less addictive or safer than regular cigarettes.
Oh.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Bogsnoticus on Wednesday November 09 2016, @05:56AM
I'd have to disagree, but my disagreement comes down to locality.
One Australian senator, in 2013, made a speech in the Senate called "Thank you for smoking". In it, he outlined a few facts.
In 2012 smokers cost the health care system $320 million and another $150 million in bushfire control.
In the same year, they added $8 billion to the public purse by way of tax revenue.
So yes, smokers do add a burden to the public purse, but it's a burden we have already paid for many times over.
Source [businessinsider.com.au]
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday November 09 2016, @05:56AM
Actually, smokers tend to be cheaper than non-smokers. They decline fast at the end rather than needing expensive and intensive healthcare for years on end.Beyond that, taxes already make up the majority of the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Funny how neither that money nor all that tobacco suit money made it to patient care costs.
What might help is injuncting the FDA from driving vapers back to smoking.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 09 2016, @07:27AM
I live in New Zealand, where the price of a pack of 25 is about $30 due to taxes that increase with inflation every six months (I think).
We also have the graphic pictures.
It's the price that has reduced smoking rates to historic lows, but with tobacco now costing more than pot, corner stores are now being violently robbed regularly.
Several workers from a cigarette factory have just been sentenced for stealing and selling cigarettes on the black market.
There is also a "goal" to make New Zealand smoke free by 2030 which probably means we will outlaw smoking and start putting smokers in jail, or something clever like that I suppose.