Poetry Forum

Full Version: Tobacco firms sue FDA over new graphic warning
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(click the image on the right hand side of the article to enlarge. WARNING: they are pretty graphic)

Four of the five largest U.S. tobacco companies are fighting back against 9 new FDA-approved cigarette labels, graphically depicting body parts damaged by smoking and even one depicting a smoker's sewn-up corpse. The labels must be printed on the entire top half, front and back, of the packaging. The new warnings also must constitute 20 percent of any cigarette advertising. They also all include a hotline help number for smokers who wish to quit.

The complainants are saying the labels violate free speech rights, the images were manipulated to be emotionally charged (implying its misleading), and that it will cost them millions of dollars to print these and comply with federal standards.

"Never before in the United States have producers of a lawful product been required to use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally-charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their products," the companies wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Is the FDA going too far? Or is this a necessary step?
under the present laws what's happening is i feel illegal, they don't stick pics of rotten livers on booze, and i've know a few go the way of the fickle liver in my time. the don't plaster pics of smashed up bodies over every car, they don't put pics of bullet wounds on the handles of guns. so. instead of all the picture crap, if the gov thinks them so fucking deadly....ban them, either ban them or STFU. if any single person over the age of 7 isn't aware of the dangers of smoking it's probably because they're locked up in an asylum somewhere. it's an out and out restriction of trade.
Yeah. I think they could keep the hotline number on the label (dial so-and-so if you want to quit smoking and need help) but putting pictures of corpses and such on the label is overstepping and a restriction of trade... even if, I believe, the labels are not meant for the adults but are rather meant for kids who want to try smoking: this makes a bit more sense to me because teenagers are immature and known risk-takers, so I can see why the FDA would think graphic warnings work better on them. The FDA's intentions may be good, but there's a line. As long as tobacco is still a legitimate industry then there's still a limit to how shoddily federal law should treat hem.
It might backfire kids might feel more dangerous and edgy with the pictures. I find that campaigns like this tend to have ironic effects.
thats also possible, todd, all the adults stop and all the kids start.
i think anti drink driving campaigns are good, and also anti smoking campaigns and if necessary
the industries involved should foot part of the bills, but lets make no mistake why both are not banned.
they create too much revenue. they banned booze once and people still drank, that's when they realized that it's better to tax than to ban. i'm surprised weed hasn't been legalised so they can tax that. but thats off topic. laws that ban smoking in public places i agree with but the pics i don't. not only does it seem unfair, it feel a bit hypocritical as well.
Society's stance on cigarettes has been hypocritical for a very, very long time. This new label just highlighted it more. I see your point, if the FDA felt that strongly about it then own up and ban the things.

it quite funny when you think of it, in the uk you can't drink in public places such as roads but you can drink in bars,
with smoking you can't smoke in bars but you can smoke on the street. unless they changed it.

but they won't ban it because it's an income generator. pretty soon if they keep taxing it, only the super rich will get cancer from smoking Big Grin
Wow. Not in the US, but relevant:


The Australian Parliament has passed legislation, to take effect in 2012, that bans the use of logos and brand imagery on cigarette packages (!!!) so the packaging will no longer look glamorous. They will also require they print larger health warnings with graphic pictures of the negative health effects of smoking. The brand names themselves be printed in a small, uniform font on dull olive green packets – a colour the government believes consumers will hate.

possibly graphic image under spoiler...

[Image: smoking-cigarette_1939266c.jpg]

i agree with Bill,the picture thing has gone way out of hand,see the sewer
(11-22-2011, 12:04 AM)MyNemesis Wrote: [ -> ]What bothers me the most about is is, parents will take the pack of smokes home, toss them on the coffee table where the 5, 6 or whatever age child will see the picture, and they don't need to see graphic pictures at that young age.
In their heads, I think Australian lawmakers thought that parents won't leave cigarette packs lying about for children to see and pick up anymore, precisely because it's so offensive/ age-inappropriate. You're right that it's not gonna work like that, though.
In their heads, I think Australian lawmakers are trying to pretend they could make smoking illegal if they were really serious about it, but won't because it brings in more revenue than just about anything else and they're all secretly in bed with the tobacco execs, because regardless of whether the graphic pictures/plain packaging stop a single person from smoking (and I doubt it), keeping the tobacco issue at the forefront of people's minds is exceptionally good marketing as smokers will very vocally champion their right to smoke in the face of "bullying".

In short, it's yet another ploy by a sad and desperate government with no balls and even fewer brains between them.