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.
(Score: 1) by Slartibartfast on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:29AM
This is clearly a shout out to Thank You for Smoking.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:34AM
NOTHING short of outright banning or tripling the price will stop me from buying Newports. If either of those happened, I'd be growing my own tobacco.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @04:56PM
>I'd be growing my own tobacco
And it would absolutely be healthier for you. Cigs are really chemical-soaked these days. Gone are the "pure years" of to-backee being harvested by singing workers, drying in the sun, and stuffing into a pipe.
Cigs are now an artificial item, flavored up to keep you buying.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:34PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes [wikipedia.org]
Looks mostly like extracted oils and solvents to me... Though the main things keeping me from growing tobacco are the necessity of starting seedlings for transplant (not strictly necessary but...) + weak and inbred seed that's used to being coddled with chemicals and is susceptible to many disease, thus requiring intensive management and a long breeding program to get something that grows well + having to refigure the herb/menthol additive mix to get a nice tasting home-grown square. When recreational weed becomes legal in MI (not yet but gonna be coming soon with any luck), I'll be growing tobacco for my blunts but I'll probably keep buying cigarettes until they're prohibitively priced or my lungs give out (plus I hear tobacco and weed intercrop well together, but I doubt growing outdoors will be legal even with recreational except for licensed growers).
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:38AM
I had an uncle who always carried around a notebook full of autopsie pictures of smokers. We'd get together for Thanksgiving or something, he'd pull this out. Keep in mind nobody in my family smoked, he was preaching to the converted. My parents, my sisters. Me? I didn't even have smokers as friends. Yet Al would pull out this notebook at every opportunity and show us his pics of lungs, hearts, esophagus', whatever.
We could either be polite and look at his latest and greatest, or be rude and puke.
I can't really hate the guy, when I was a kid he gave me a copy of George Gamow's 1 2 3 Infinity (which I've been looking for for 10 years now), and a reel to reel tape recorder, with which I recorded the Apollo 11 moon landing. No kidding, stereo tape deck, put both mics in front of the TV, watched the landing live while recording.
First use of that tape deck? Recorded Blazing Saddles off Channel 100. Let me tell you, the sound without the pictures is nowhere near as funny.
He died some 10-15 years ago. Bonnie (dad's sister) called 911 after Al had a seizure, took them 45 minutes to get to her. He was dead by then, this was in Canoga Park (LA suburb).
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:45AM
One of the props was to increase the tax on cigs by $2. I was torn between my hatred of cigarette smokers, and my feeling that giving Sacramento even more money would make things worse. I'm 90% sure I voted to raise the tax, that was one of the harder propositions to decide on.
No on 61, my meds would go up
Yes on legalizing mary jane, should have happened 40 years ago
Fuck no on giving Spanos money to build a stadium
Why do I care if porn folks wear condoms or not, fuck no on that one
I use my plastic bags as garbage bags, they're full of garbage when I toss them. Hell no on that one
Jeez, there were some 20 something of these things and these are the only ones I remember.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @04:01AM
Our constitution is why we can't have nice things. Well, that and crazy judges.
To be effective, the pictures need to change often. They need to show effects on beauty, erectile function, and other aspects of sex appeal. Photos of twins can be really good. Throw in a little bit about harming your kids as well.
Another thing is plain packaging. We mandate the font, the colors, the shape, and more. Better yet, we mandate that companies buy the packaging at auction, using the government as an anonymizer, to prevent branding. Names can be replaced with government-chosen random identity numbers which get replaced weekly. The point is to destroy lifestyle marketing. These products are largely marketed by the image they associate with you via the brand, so that needs to go.
(Score: 1) by In hydraulis on Wednesday November 09 2016, @04:08AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_packets_in_Australia [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by caffeine on Wednesday November 09 2016, @07:57AM
The tobacco companies used a TPP type agreement between Australia and Hong Kong to bring legal action against Australia about plain packaging.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-government-wins-plain-packaging-case-against-philip-morris-20151218-glqo8s.html [smh.com.au]
(Score: 1) by In hydraulis on Thursday November 10 2016, @04:15AM
And they failed in utter, crushing totality.
The tribunal in the arbitration, based in Singapore, has issued a unanimous decision agreeing with Australia's position that it has no jurisdiction to hear Philip Morris's claim.
Philip Morris has slammed the decision, saying it does not validate plain packaging in Australia or anywhere else.
(Score: 2) by hamsterdan on Wednesday November 09 2016, @05:02AM
We've had those for years in Quebec, not convinced people smoke less because of the pictures.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:32AM
Smokers have been ostracized in the US over the years. Not allowed to smoke anywhere indoors, not even in bars. Price gouge them with new taxes, etc. Now, I don't smoke, but this photo thing is just kicking an unpopular group while they are down. How about leaving them a little dignity? It's an addiction and a little photo isn't going to change it; it's just a way for society to show their disapproval.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:26PM
A little photo IS going to change it, that's the point of this proposal and the studies that motivated it.
This isn't about nonsmokers kicking smokers for fun. Nonsmokers will forget about this picture ten minutes after the conversation; spoilers, we do not regularly go find tobacco products and masturbate over how bad the packaging would make smokers feel.
I agree that there could be a more socially friendly way of helping smokers off their poison.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday November 09 2016, @10:51PM
You may be right that a picture won't do a whole lot to get an addict off their addiction, though it may help make the battle a little easier for those who struggling to quit.
On the other hand, it will probably make tobacco a lot less appealing for those young adults who are considering taking up the habit. The current generation may be lost to their addiction, but isn't it worth helping the next generation avoid the same fate?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @04:14PM
I'm French. And like the bad guys that speak French in the US movies, I not only sound like a French but I smoke too.
Smoking ? Check
French-accent ? Check
OK. Here Hollywood means it's the bad guy there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @04:51PM
So cigarettes with graphic images on the package are less deadly? Then you can smoke more of them before they harm you, right? :-)