E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
A pack of Marlboro Menthol cigarettes intended for sale in Australia. As of Dec. 1, all cigarettes sold in the country must be sold in plain packaging with graphic warnings covering 75 percent of the front and 90 percent of the back of the pack under a groundbreaking law.
As countries around the world ramp up their campaigns against smoking with tough restrictions on tobacco advertising, the industry is fighting back by invoking international trade agreements to thwart the most stringent rules.
A key battlefront is Australia, which is trying to repel a legal assault on its groundbreaking law requiring cigarettes to be sold in plain packs without distinctive brand logos or colors. Contesting the law, which takes effect Dec. 1, are the top multinational cigarette makers and three countries — Ukraine, Honduras and Dominican Republic — whose legal fees are being paid by the industry.
The dispute underlines broader concerns about trade provisions that enable foreign companies to challenge national health, labor and environmental standards. Once a country ratifies a trade agreement, its terms supersede domestic laws. If a country’s regulations are found to impose unreasonable restrictions on trade, it must amend the rules or compensate the nation or foreign corporation that brought the complaint.
In the case of Australia’s plain packaging law, the tobacco industry and its allies are challenging the measure as a violation of intellectual property rights under trade agreements the nation signed years ago.
Public health advocates fear the legal attack will deter other countries from passing strong measures to combat the public health burdens of smoking. The “cost of defending this case, and the risk of being held liable, would intimidate all but the most wealthy, sophisticated countries into inaction,” said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington D.C.
The advocates also say countries should be free to decide how best to protect public health, without being second-guessed by unelected trade panels. Moreover, they argue, tobacco products, which kill when used as intended, should not be afforded the same trade protections as other goods and services.
Worldwide, nearly 6 million people a year die of smoking-related causes, according to the World Health Organization, which says the toll could top 8 million by 2030. With fewer people lighting up in wealthy nations, nearly 80 percent of the world’s 1 billion smokers live in low- and middle-income countries.
Marlboro, the world's top-selling brand, is shown packaged under labeling laws of, clockwise from upper left, the U.S., Egypt, Djibouti, Hungary.
Countries have been emboldened to pass more stringent measures by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. In effect since 2005, the treaty has committed about 175 nations to pursue such measures as higher cigarette taxes, public smoking bans, prohibitions on tobacco advertising, and graphic warning labels with grisly images such as diseased lungs and rotting teeth (The U.S. has signed the treaty, but the Senate has not ratified it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ordered graphic warnings for cigarette packs, but an industry court challenge on 1st Amendment grounds has stalled the rule.)
Cigarette makers say they acknowledge the hazards and the need for regulations. “We actually support the vast majority of them,” said Peter Nixon, vice president of communications for Philip Morris International, which has its headquarters in New York, its operations center in Switzerland, and is the biggest multinational cigarette maker with 16 percent of global sales.
Bans on cigarette ads spread
But the industry has watched with growing concern as more than 35 countries have adopted total or near-total bans on cigarette advertising. Its big profits depend on consumer recognition of its brands. Yet in many countries, the once-ubiquitous logos and imagery are receding, leaving the cigarette pack as a last refuge against invisibility.
Now the pack, too, is under attack. Along with plain packaging laws such as Australia’s, countries are weighing retail display bans that keep cigarette packs out of view of consumers, and laws requiring graphic health warnings so large that there is barely any room for trademarks. Tobacco companies contend that countries enforcing such rules are effectively confiscating their intellectual property and must pay damages.
The industry also claims that measures like plain packaging are counterproductive. “We see no evidence — none at all — that this will be effective in reducing smoking,” Nixon of Philip Morris International said in an interview. In fact, he said, generic packaging likely will increase sales of cheap, untaxed counterfeit smokes, thus increasing consumption.
Todd Rosenberg / Philip Morris
Louis Camilleri, chairman and CEO of Philip Morris International.
Louis C. Camilleri, chairman and CEO of Philip Morris International, drew a line in the sand in remarks to Wall Street analysts in November, 2010. The company would use “all necessary resources and…where necessary litigation, to actively challenge unreasonable regulatory proposals,’’ Camilleri said, specifically mentioning plain packaging and display bans.
Up to now, tobacco-related trade disputes have mostly involved quotas or tariffs meant to protect domestic producers from foreign competition.
The key issue now, though, isn’t traditional trade barriers, but whether health regulations unduly restrict the movement of goods. In challenging anti-smoking rules, the industry has drawn on global treaties, such as the 1994 pact known as TRIPS (the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights), that include broad protections for intellectual property and foreign investment.
In the hands of aggressive corporations, such long-standing provisions have become ‘’the ticking time bomb for this century as governments tackle problems like tobacco, the environment, obesity, access to essential medicines,” said Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.
Two recent legal decisions showed that such cases are no slam dunk for the industry. In September, a court in Oslo, Norway, rejected a lawsuit by Philip Morris Norway AS that challenged the country’s retail display ban. The company had claimed that in enforcing the ban, Norway had violated the European Economic Agreement by failing to adopt the least trade-restrictive measures to achieve its public health goals.
The court, siding with Norway’s government, found that other measures would not be as effective in insuring that “as few as possible youngsters begin to smoke.’’
Australia also triumphed in the first round of its legal defense of plain packaging. Rejecting a lawsuit by the four top global companies -- Japan Tobacco Inc. and Imperial Tobacco, along with British American and Philip Morris International — Australia’s High Court upheld the law as legal and constitutional.
The law requires that all cigarettes be sold in drab olive-brown packs, with pictorial warnings covering 75 percent of the front and 90 percent of the back.
The goal is to reduce “the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products to consumers, particularly young people,” a spokeswoman for Australia’s Department of Health and Ageing said in an email to FairWarning.
But two major challenges remain.
Australia law challenged under trade pacts
In one, Philip Morris Asia has accused Australia of violating a 1993 bilateral trade pact between Hong Kong and Australia. Such agreements, known as investor-state treaties, allow a foreign investor by itself to bring an arbitration claim for damages against a country.
The case is before an arbitration panel of the U.N. Commission on International Trade Law.
In the other, Ukraine, Honduras and the Dominican Republic earlier this year brought their challenges before the World Trade Organization.
The complaint in March by Ukraine was a striking paradox. Its trade ministry filed the challenge within hours of Ukraine’s president signing a ban on tobacco advertising, and its parliament voting to ban public smoking — revolutionary moves in chain-smoking Eastern Europe. Trade officials took the action despite Ukraine having no tobacco exports to Australia, and therefore no apparent financial interest in its anti-smoking policies.
But prodded by the tobacco industry, the trade ministry branded the plain packaging law as a violation of intellectual property rights that Australia was bound to protect.
Honduras and the Dominican Republic soon joined the attack on Australia, filing similar complaints with the WTO.
Cigarette makers are paying for heavyweight lawyers to represent the three countries.
As company representatives have told FairWarning, Philip Morris International is paying the firm of Sidley Austin to represent the Dominican Republic, while British American is picking up legal expenses for Ukraine and Honduras.
“We are happy to support countries who, like us, feel plain packaging could adversely affect trade,” said British American spokesman Jem Maidment.
It’s not unusual in trade disputes for corporations to give legal assistance to governments with mutual interests. In this case, however, the three countries appear to have little, if any, direct stake in Australia’s tobacco control policies.
While tobacco exports from Ukraine to Australia are nonexistent, exports from Honduras and Dominican Republic in the past three years have averaged $60,000 (U.S.) and $806,000, respectively, according to figures from Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Responding in April to an inquiry from Ukrainian journalists, the country’s Ministry of Economic Development and Trade said it had “a policy of supporting Ukrainian producers and protecting their interests in the internal and external markets.” In this case, the ministry said, it had “received concerns” about Australia’s law from the Ukrainian Association of Tobacco Producers, made up of the top tobacco multinationals, and from the Union of Wholesalers and Producers of Alcohol and Tobacco Association.
Konstantin Krasovksy, a tobacco control official in Ukraine’s Ministry of Health, told FairWarning the countries had allowed themselves to be used. “Honduras, Dominican Republic and Ukraine agreed to be a prostitute,” he said.
Honduran officials, in an April press release, said Australia’s law ‘’contravenes’’ its trade obligations. It noted that the tobacco industry “employs several hundred thousand people directly and indirectly throughout the supply chain in Honduras.”
The Dominican Republic, a major cigar exporter, also said plain packaging “will have a significant impact on our economy.” In a written statement to FairWarning, Katrina Naut, director general for foreign trade with the country’s Ministry of Industry and Commerce, said that if other countries join Australia in adopting plain packaging, it will lead to falling prices for name-brand tobacco products and “an increase — rather than a decrease — in consumption and illicit trade.”
Uruquay vs. Philip Morris
Among supporters of Australia, none is more vociferous than the government of Uruguay. It recently told the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body that the global trading system “should not force its Members to allow that a product that kills its citizens in unacceptable and alarming proportions continues to be sold wrapped as candy to attract new victims.”
Uruguay’s stance reflects its own high-stakes battle with Philip Morris.
The tobacco giant has challenged Uruguay’s requirement of graphic warnings on 80 percent of cigarette packs. Philip Morris is also fighting a rule that limits cigarette marketers to a single style per brand, making it illegal to sell Marlboro Gold and Green along with Marlboro Red.
The challenge by Swiss units of Philip Morris cites a 1991 bilateral treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay. Since filing the complaint in 2010, the tobacco company has also closed its only cigarette factory in Uruguay.
The regulations “are extreme, have not been proven to be effective, have seriously harmed the company’s investments in Uruguay,” according to a statement by Philip Morris International.
Uruguay, with a population of less than 3.5 million and an annual gross domestic product of about $50 billion, seems a poor match for the tobacco giant, which had sales of $77 billion in 2011.
Amid reports that government officials were seeking a face-saving settlement, Bloomberg Philanthropies announced in late 2010 that it would fund the legal defense of Uruguay’s anti-smoking laws. New York Mayor and businessman Michael R. Bloomberg, an ardent tobacco foe, affirmed the support of his namesake charity in a call to Uruguayan President Jose Mujica.
Eduardo Bianco
Advocates fear other countries may have a harder time standing their ground. “Bloomberg has been very generous, but his resources are not unlimited and he can’t pay to defend every tobacco regulation in every country,” said Chris Bostic, deputy director for policy for the group Action on Smoking and Health.
The Uruguay case could be pivotal, said Dr. Eduardo Bianco, president of the Tobacco Epidemic Research Centre in Uruguay. “If they (Philip Morris International) succeed with Uruguay they would send a clear message to the rest of the developing countries: ‘take care about us, you can be next.’"
FairWarning (www.fairwarning.org) is an online, investigative news organization based in Los Angeles that focuses on safety and health issues.
More from Open Channel:
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
"Moreover, they argue, tobacco products, which kill when used as intended, should not be afforded the same trade protections as other goods and services."
Lots of things can kill when used as intended - Alcohol, Bullets - and yet there are no misleading labels on those products.
Misleading??? LOL! Misleading??? LOL! You're too funny, dude.
Brian... I'm guessing you smoke cigarettes. Only a smoker would make a comment like that. Frankly, it's my opinion that the weaselly CEOs who are fighting to keep what's left of their consumer base, by lying, cheating, and doing all they can to circumvent laws, should be brought to trial for genocide. They have killed many more people than the Nazis did in their prison camps, for which they were hunted down, and were eventually put on trial for their war crimes. Didn't our Supreme Court justices, in their infinite wisdom, rule that businesses were people too? If so, shouldn't the justice system bring these "people" to trial as they would any other killer?
You make me laugh with your way out there conspiracy theories.
@mcbarker
I quit smoking but I fully agree with Brian. Your post does raise a good point though. This "anti-smoking" campaign isn't so much about cutting down on tobacco usage as it is about greedy power-hungry libtards waging war on the free markets and gouging smokers with "sin" taxes. The fact of the matter is smokers, including me, chose on their own to start smoking and they can choose to quit, as I did. Does personal responsibility account for nothing these days?
When something infringes on others than it is not just the problem of the smokers now is it, the right always uses that BS take responsibility so how does that work when the second hand smoke kills also, the problem is the Right think they are smart but they come off as Dumb and ignorant.
I don't see how they can attach the statement that they kill when used as intended. Everyone that smokes does not die from smoke related illness. Some do, some don't. Some smoke virtually all their lives and die of natural causes at 90 and some smoke for 5 years and die of lung cancer. So, was it the smoke that caused the cancer, or something else?
I agree that saying that cigarettes kill when used as intended. While heavy smoking can lead to a person's death, smoking is not guaranteed to cause death. There are a great many people who smoke their entire lives and end up dying of something completely unrelated to their smoking. If you are going to make this argument about cigarettes then you must apply the same rule to alcohol. There is no doubt that drinking too much, or even moderate amounts on too frequent a basis, can lead to your death as long term alcohol use has been shown to lead to liver failure, among other things, that can and does kill a lot of people. In fact there are many legal products that when used long term and/or in too high of a quantity can kill you. These laws are unfairly singling out an individual, and still perfectly legal product. I also agree with the argument that these extreme packaging laws amount to a seizure of the intellectual property of the company within that country. By completely prohibiting the display of brand markings, these laws are essentially taking away that brand marking, which has significant monetary and non-monetary value, from the company. In the end, I do not see these extreme packaging laws having any effect on the number of people who smoke and may very well serve to encourage counterfeiting and smuggling of untaxed cigarettes by making it far easier to get away with. In any case, I do not see these extreme packaging laws as having any place in a free and open society.
I stopped smoking. But I really got to ask
Why did/does my insurance company pay for Viagra and will not cover anti-smoking medication? Who are the insurance companies really trying to protect?
I don't think that "shock" advertising works. Up here in chilly Canada they started to put pitiful pictures of people dying of cancer, a woman, near death, smoking through the hole in her throat and always the obligatory morgue shot. Smokers up here simply ask the store clerk to give them a pack of smokes whose labeling doesn't make them puke.
As a former smoker I state right here and now that I do not hold the tobacco industry to blame for the fact that I smoked for 30odd years. It was my choice to smoke,,and it was my choice eventually to quit.
I'm tired of people blaming other people/corporations for their bad actions. They blame the banks when they take out loans they can't begin to afford or rack up charges on their credit cards. They blame the insurance industry for rising costs when they themselves are at the doctors office for every sniffle, and have their hands out for every new "Designer drug" that comes out.
And of course they blame big tobacco for a choice they themselves made. Don't give me that "They started when they were kids" crap either. EVERYONE has known since the mid 60's or sooner that cigarettes are bad for you. We knew, but we made the choice anyway.
Personally I think those graphic pictures they are using in some countries are a kick. I can see teenagers, having grown up on horror movies and video games collecting those pictures as many of us years ago collected baseball cards. See who gets the full collection first.
Grey Wolf Veteran - maybe the cigarette companies are paying the insurance not to cover. The tobacco companies are like a drug dealer. They will do anything to make sure you still get your fix rather legal or not.
The insurance industry is here to make money, not protect us!
It's a deadly cycle that keeps everybody in business. You pay insurance, you smoke, you get sick, you see the doctor, the doctor gets paid, the doctor prescribes treatments / medicine and that make more people get paid. It's just a deadly cycle on paper that creates money in other peoples pockets
What happened to MY freedom of choice? Since when did YOU get to decide how I live? I just hope that they do too booze what they are doing to tobacco. See how YOU like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Yes, I'm a smoker and a non-drinker. So in the spirit of equality, your time is coming and quickly. I grow my own tobacco, no taxes, no extra chemicals, pure smoking taste. Just remember, when they are done with people like me, they will turn their attentions to people like you.
I wouldn't mind smokers if it didn't also effect everyone around them. With booze, you're the only one getting drunk. With smoke, however, everyone suffers. You can scream and whine and cry about "your rights" or "libtards", or whatever the hell else you wanna sob about. At the end of the day, it's about you wheezing out smoke that causes anyone nearby to have burnt lungs from second hand smoke.
You're basically taking away my right to clean air. So don't give me crap about "rights". You have none when you take mine away, and I happen to greatly enjoy oxygen, thank you very much. Also Janine, PLEASE don't turn this into a "big bankers" or "the oh so poor, innocent CEOs!" post. We already proved that the banks were lying to their customers so they could walk away with a new house to throw on the market, and repossess everything bought, or driving people into loan terms they couldn't fight against. It's called PREDATORY LENDING PRACTICES.
Hey Sam, therein lies the personal responsibility thing. I enjoy the "second hand smoke kills" argument. You can choose not to be around me when I smoke. Just like you would (or would not...I don't know you) choose not to go into a crack house if you didn't want to do crack. I do agree with most laws which limit smoking in the workplace, bars, and eating establishments though. It's just common curtousy to not partake in habits such as this in mass groups where you don't know who is or who is not a smoker. Outside, in the public though, I think should be ok considering that you have a constant source of fresh air. Unfortunately, we still kill off and cut down the worlds only natural air filtration system by the day, so there's no telling how much longer you'll have that source.
Yes, I am a smoker. I am polite enough to understand the feelings of non smokers and not partake when in their company. I do not blame a tobacco company, it's representatives, it's advertising, it's CEO, or my parents for it. I knew what I was getting into when I started smoking. I have no false pretence about it. But there again...personal responsibility. And freedom of choice.
I think you're right Brian, bullets do kill when used as intended. Grain alcohol, on the other hand, is suppose to anaesthetise when taken internally though. You know, watch the onld western movies. "Give him a shot of whiskey before I remove the bullet". Of course, people who drive while under the influence are doing something comparative to brain surgery on ones self.
My views aren't based on the bias of whether or not I smoke. Just a huge George Carlin fan and into the advancement of Counter Culture.
Not allowing a company to show its name or logo is taking things too far.
Showing pictures of what might happen on the back is fine but I don't need children seeing graphic pictures at the 7-11 sitting on a shelf.
Stop treating people like children, smoking kills but we all die at some point. At least let us live in peace. Can't the gov't spend its money more wisely??
If $6-$10 a pack doesn't deter you from smoking a picture sure won't , also if everyone stopped smoking where will all the taxes generated by big tobacco come from?? Rather have a country of smokers who die quickly and pay taxes than a bunch of sissy whipped Obese welfare people draining the life out of this country.
Wake up America its almost too late.
Addicts will ALWAYS justify their using. Previous smokers I hate to break this to you. But, by smoking you have already damaged your cells are are more susceptible to cancer even after quitting than a person who never smoked.
Once the cells are damaged, they replicate damaged code - smoking breaks your DNA and once broken can not be "fixed".
People have the right to do what they want, but not at the expense of others' rights.
That's the same idiotic nonsense as "guns kill people". No one put the cigarette in thier mouth. They did it themselves, knowing the danger. There is a demand for cigarettes. People supply it.
People love to cry about second hand smoke. But the fact is, some people just get lung cancer. Even if they're never around smoke. Genitics play a much bigger roll in getting cancer than smoking does.
If you're around second hand smoke, and get lung cancer, there's a 99.997% chance that you were going to get it anyway.
So then you would be all for placing pictures of dismembered bodies of alcohol related auto accident victims on all alcoholic beverages then?
Yeah right Randy... So... "you" don't need "children" seeing graphic pics of the results of smoking eh... If a close relative of "that child" is consumed by lung disease as a result of tobacco, do you then "not need" that child to see the final result of tobacco on their loved ones life?? I have four childeren and have NO problem with them seeing true to life pics of what tobaco can do, or in hiding the FACTS. If people want to smoke it is absolutely their right to do so. Anyone placing a "liberal" or "conservative" tag on an individuals view on the subject is a moron, PERIOD. As a society it should be paramount that we do everything in our power to turn the next generations off to tobacco use. Including closing loopholes such as this in international trade laws that will result in miserable death and huge health care and insurance costs. You mention $6-$10 per pack.. and your right that is a start, but young kids who don't smoke also don't understand the $ involved. But they will understand graphic TRUE photo's. Your stupid rant about sissy Obese welfare people??? Well.. what about your boy Chris Christie?? Most likely the next fair haired boy of the GOP?? Not sure if he smokes, and I'm sure he's not on welfare.. but he certainly fits the rest of your stereotype.. hahahahaha... very typical far right response to one of the biggest health concerns in the world today... "hand off feds..." let people die the way they choose. What an idiot... clearly you need to wake up...
Seriously. Do you believe what you write? Do you understand basic economics. The answer to one of those questions is NO.
A bank loans you money to buy a house. When they foreclose, they have a house they have to sell, and a vast majority of the time, a foreclosure sells for less. Banks lose money on foreclosures. A bank would much prefer that you make your payments. That's how they make their money.
People love conspiracy theories. But use your brain, instead of just regurgitating the libtard nonsense that uninformed people spew.
Spencer you just topped Randy... in stupidity..
"People love to cry about second hand smoke. But the fact is, some people just get lung cancer. Even if they're never around smoke. Genitics play a much bigger roll in getting cancer than smoking does.
If you're around second hand smoke, and get lung cancer, there's a 99.997% chance that you were going to get it anyway."
Could you possibly be less informed?? Many types of cancer are genetic, lung cancer is not one of them... the FACT is 80% of lung cancer is caused by smoking and over 90% of ALL lung cancer is enviornmental.. WOW... the facts aren't hard to find.. it's called simple research try doing some instead of sounding SO fn stupid
Here's my thoughts. If cigarettes are bad enough that they deserve this sort of packaging then why the hell haven't they been outlawed for human consumption?
It's simple really. If they are so deadly and bad for you that they should not be used, even as intended by the manufacturer then the government should simply rule that Tobacco is an illegal substance and lump it in with cocaine and pot.
However if the government chooses to keep it legal for human consumption then they have no right to dictate how a private company packages their product beyond the simple warning label already on the package and to make certain they don't have false claims in their advertising like "Marlboro's will make you smarter!"
Look, I'm an ex-smoker. I can tell you that no one who smokes is unaware of how bad they are for you. I used to joke that I might die sooner but it's all off the back-end.
The thing is, people can not quit unless they want to. It doesn't matter if you nag them, beg them, show them dead people or clogged aortas. Unless and until they make a decision to quit on their own for reasons that outweigh their enjoyment of tobacco, they will continue to use. All this packaging is going to do is drive sales of cigarette cases.
I didn't smoke Camel Lights because of the wrapper, I smoked them because I liked the taste/experience better than Marlboro and other brands. I thoroughly enjoyed smoking. A lot. I tried to quit for my health when I had bronchitis, went back to smoking when I felt better. I tried to quit for my husband (non-smoker) when we first moved in together, but snuck cigarettes. So when did I finally quit for good? When I got pregnant. That was the first time that the cons of smoking outweighed my enjoyment. It wasn't my health or body that I would be hurting, but my son's. I never went back because of the risks of SIDS and Asthma in babies with moms who smoke. Then after awhile, I had quit for so long that I just figured I might as well stay a non-smoker.
I've thought about taking it up again, but I probably won't. That decision isn't being based on any packaging or graphically gross commercials or tobacco Nazi yelling about the dangers of lung cancer. What's mainly stopping me is I don't want to model smoking for my son and I'd probably get sick the first couple of times I'd smoke anyway.
So anyway, that's my 2 cents. There are plenty of things in this world that are bad for you and cause disease. It's legal, people enjoy it, everyone knows how bad it is - they just don't care. Stop caring about what other people do to themselves. No one cares or wants to hear about your dad/mom/brother/sister/son/daughter/aunt/uncle etc. who smoked since they were 14 and got cancer and it was horrible and they wished they hadn't and blah blah blah. No one cares except the people who already care. No one is going to quit for you. Get over it and move on. Please. Because frankly I'm sick of hearing you whine about it.
trust2112- GREAT avatar!! Sorry to hear that you smoke.. and it is absolutly your right... and your choise to grow your own.. very cool. But tell me truthfully, are there times when you wish you had never started smoking??? And regardless of your choise isn't it our societies responsibility to do what we can to keep our kids off of tobaco... would it be ok with you if your own kids started smoking?? I hope you would say you would want more and better for your own childeren...
I do not believe that government, especially the US Government has the right to protect us from ourselves; yet they are doing so and have been for sometime now. Also, since they have rejected global warming and environmental hazards to our health, one must consider that the are scaring us into believing that cigarette smoking is the leading cause of cancer. There are other factors as well; like job related cancer; coal, sawdust, lint, etc. If you are predestined to get cancer you will, even if other under the same circumstances do not.
I'd agree, though a fair amount of conservative, church-lady types are engaged in this type of behavior as well. The public has been informed about the dangers of smoking for decades. Smoking has been banned in public places (in most states) since at least the mid 90's. These kinds of taxes and laws have nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with trying to punish behavior that activists find morally reprehensible.
For instance, in this thread alone I've seen at least two references to NAZISM in reference to smoking. One would think that this kind of bullying and intimidation would have no place in a discussion about tobacco, but again, this is strictly about activists being emotionally invested in a "cause" and their need to lash out at their perceived enemies.
life is full of choices, just make sure you have really good health insurance, I don`t want to have to chip in to pay your million dollar hopital bill. Everything should be legalized, Than those who chose to shorten they`re lives, So be it...If your truely smart?..you`ll have little to worrie about.
i agree %100 huskergal our gov. has no right telling us what we can and cant do.
they need to keep there noice out of our business.
there just a bunch of over payed greedy power-hungry liers
i have never and will never trust or have any faith in our gov.
mckajc you want to be a gov. ass kisser you go right a head.
i am not going to let our gov, or any bible thumper tell me what i can and cant do.
if i want to smoke i am going to smoke.
if i want to play poker i am going to play poker,
call me antgov, if you want cause you will be right
we need less gov. not more
huskergal - part of what you say is true. But LUNG CANCER is over 90% enviornmental not genetic. I don't nessesarily disagree with your statement about the government protecting us from ourselfs. It's a bit of an obstinate argument... but to each his own. But it's not so much about current smokers as it is about future smokers... tobaco companies are and have been criminal in their approch to adict and attract customers... how much freedom does an addicted person really have????
Tobacco is one of those products which have almost know redeeming qualities.
As a person who used to smoke, and is still addicted to nicotine, I know that tobacco companies lied for two centuries (or more) about tobacco. There aren't too many companies whose best customers are the very people their product literally kills.
In an ever dwindling market, the companies are fighting every effort under the sun to keep what few customers they have. Like Standard Oil facing the prospect of electricity replacing kerosene, Tobacco faces their market increasingly dying. Unlike Oil, tobacco does not have alternative uses.
Hey pokerknite....you're absolutely right! Nobody can tell you what to do....probably the same nobody that will have to watch over you as you wither away. The same nobody that will have to wipe your butt and clean your having messed yourself as you struggle with a SLOW SLOW process of suffocation. Nobody will have to try and ease your panic as the breaths come harder and harder with less and less effect. I feel sorry for the nobodies in your particular case.
Yup...nobody can tell you nuthin...I have no doubt!
Why attack the cigarette packaging? It's true that product packaging is important to marketing a cohesive brand, but it is not how the product is advertised. Nobody looks at the plain red Marlboro pack and says "wow that looks cool." No, they see a celebrity smoke a cigarette and they say "wow that looks cool."
As there is no evidence that this packaging image ban would actually deter new smokers, I think it's a completely ridiculous waste of resources. There are much better ways to prevent new smokers from starting, like PSA's and advertising restrictions which has been effective here in the US to lower rates.
trust 2112 (comment #1.12)--if you genuinely, really DO grow your own tobacco, then at least you aren't getting all the crappy additive chemicals the tobacco company puts in their cigarettes - some of those additives put in there on purpose to make them more addictive. And if you are smoking someplace where non-smokers are not exposed to the smoke, then good for you--I have no problem with you. It's your body after all, and as long as no one else is being harmed, it is your choice.
None whatsoever. The cigarette owns the person. Actually the addiction owns the person.
The people comparing cigarettes to other products are forgetting something - cigarettes are the only product made today (legally) that have a highly addictive drug - nicotine - added to them. Nicotine is harder to quit than heroin. It behaves in the exact same way as an opiate does.
The "natural" levels of nicotine in tobacco degrade after the leaf is picked within hours. The nicotine that is added to cigarettes nowadays is in its purest form, and a single drop of it will kill you if it contacts your skin.
This is the equivalent of adding heroin to Snickers Bars, and then yelling "It's MY RIGHT to use heroin if I want to!"
Any industry that adds one of the most addictive chemicals known to man to a product that slowly kills you should be regulated into oblivion for all I care.
Tobacco products kill 6 million every year, that's 1 Holocaust every year.
It kills thousands of times more than all illegal drugs combined.
Tobacco is the most dangerous drug and should be illegal.
http://www.inforesearchlab.com/smokingdeaths.chtml:
So trust2112, what gives you and you smoker types the right to cause the death of 50,000. Probably most of them the children of smokers stuck in homes, or workers stuck in areas where smoking is permitted. Plus, a personal pet peeve, most smokers treat the world as their one big ashtray, throwing their butts where ever they want... the street, out a car window, the beach, etc.
Funny thing about smoking, you light one up and you don't die! Get in a car and you can die in a crash the first time. First time use of illegal drugs can kill. First time stabbing with a steak knife can kill too. So can playing football, skydiving, running, and if fact most things.
Can you quit smoking? Sure, millions of people have! Can you quit without help? Sure, millions of people have. Is quitting difficult? Sure, and for some people it is more difficult than others.
I guess if you think the government is smarter than you and should decide what you should and shouldn't do, then by all means, agree that government should ban smoking or advertising, etc. I guess there isn't a product around that someone can't say should have an ugly label on it to discourage people from using it. Maybe all cars should have plastered all over them scenes of fatal accidents with mangled bodies instead of being painted white, blue, red or whatever.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people want the government to take over total control of their lives. Fortunately for you, you're getting your wish! Wait until you see how Obamacare progresses. You'll be amazed! Not impressed, but amazed, none-the-less.
The war on the tobacco companies have gone overboard.Next we'll see pictures of people who were killed by a drunk driver on a bottle of alcohol.How about a picture of an obese diabetic on a bag of chips or a carton of ice cream? This is nanny government at it's best.Before all the non smokers jump in,your choice of a vice,beverage or food will be next.
Monkeh wrote: I wouldn't mind smokers if it didn't also effect everyone around them. With booze, you're the only one getting drunk. With smoke, however, everyone suffers.
Sorry Monkeh, you couldn't be more wrong. Tell that to the families who have had members killed by drunk drivers. Tell that to the families who have been beaten and abused by drunks, or tell that to the families who have been forced out of their houses penniless because os a drunk heading the family.
Alcohol is a much bigger problem than smoking and drugs combined. But you'll never see an attack against the liquor industry like what's being done to the tobacco industry because we are a nation of drunks. That includes doctors and law makers who like having a couple drinks at the end of their workday.
@bear, you just made their argument...the entire point of adding graphic pictures is to show them something to see...just as celebrities show people that smoking makes you look so chic...therefore, people's subjectivism is connected to images as well, no?
Yea, so smoking kills. Guess what, so does drinking. How many DUI's kill people other than the drunk? Just as many cancers for drinkers as smokers, so how is smoking worse than drinking again? At least when I'm smoking and driving, I'm not a risk to other people on the roads and crossing streets.
The undeniable fact is that Tobacco firms and the people who work there are MURDERERS. Through out the world trillions of dollars are added to health costs to care for people who are affected through smoking.
The FDA and Obummer should ban 100% smoking. Smoking does not give any benefit to the consumer. The FDA routinely removes drugs that exhibit too many side effects.
Here the U.S. government has the obligation to protect the population even though smoking had been accepted for many years. There is an old I Love Lucy commercial with Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz proclaiming the "BENEFITS" of smoking.
Any drug or instrument that leads to millions of people getting killed every year should be banned.
There was a study not too long ago that revealed how much insurance premiums would drop if smoking was banned. Why do the non smokers have to pick up the insurance tab for non smokers?
Roodles A glass of red wine a day has been shown to be beneficial to the health of an individual. If you are publicly drunk or do something under the influence of alcohol you do get punished as the individual in Texas who was given 8 chances not to drive drunk was sentenced to life imprisonment.
If all people who smoked would renounce health insurance and not DEMAND the the public pay for the illnesses that they create for themselves and not affect other people with their second hand smoke, then I would gladly let them shorten their lives, live in excruciating pain and suffer the consequences.
But as the same person who lights up demands that other people pay more for their health insurance in order to pay for the best doctors, hospitals, surgeries to keep that person alive due to his own desire to slowly kill himself, then I object completely to smoking.
No one in my family has ever smoked. Not one of my friends smoke. I only know one person who smokes. I will not pity her when she lands in the hospital and demands the best attention for the effects of her smoking behaviour.
I am glad to hear that. Smoking is an addiction and the one you know who smokes is addicted. Showing her no pity is not right. Maybe she will show you no pity if you are sick or hurt and demand the best attention while in the hospital. Remember, you reap what you sow.
I started smoking when I was 16 years old and I had asthma. No one forced me to smoke, My parents didn't want us to smoke, not because it was harmful to our health,but because it was harmful to their pocket. I smoked till I was 32 years old and I always read out loud what the surgeon general's warning on the side of the package was. I probably read that over a billion times. When I turned 30 years old, I saw the price of smoking was going up from 50 cents a packet to 75 cents and at the same time the gallon of gas was 33 cents then it began to go up $1.00 a gallon and bread was 50 cents and it went up $1.00. I saw the signs and I said I'd rather eat then starve, I raised 3 son's and they don't smoke and we all either walk to work or ride our bikes when the weather is nice. The gas is higher and the cigerates also and the bread is higher than the gas and all my boys are grown up and married and they have taught their children how to plant a garden and walk to school or take the school bus and dad or mom either take the bus to work or walk or ride the bike and we even are more humbled we all take our lunch to work or school. George Burns the comedian smoke cigars when he was 10 years old and he lived a long time and died of natural causes. So you can't blame the cigerate companies when you get cancer or the drinking industries when you lose your job or get put in rehab. I do believe that when it comes to drugs and drinking that the first time you get pulled over for dwi or under the influence of drugs, It should be manditory that you get your license taking away immediately before some pays the price with their life . How you get to work will be your own problem, buy a bike or walk and if you get busted for drinking while your on your bike or walking and our drunk, then you need to go to jail for 1 whole year, and still be made to work, people can be dropped off on their work site and be picked up at their work site, plus be made to pay for your stay in the good ole county jail and that hopefully will teach your ass a lesson. as for smoking, that your personal choice, you run the risk of harming your own body and we don't need the government telling us how to take care of our lungs, we know better, and if you don't know by now, give me a break and go tell someone else your excuses for not taking care of this body and mind that God gave us.
Actually the taxes and education and warnings and limitations on where you can smoke are working.
Smoking dropped by over half from1965 to 2006,,,in NYC they have dropped over 10% year to year since Bloomberg began the campaign to end smoking.
and it is the un-educarted who are more likely to smoke (IE EDucation works!)
Also those in poverty (Likely due to a lack of education as the two are linked)
Australia has not banned smoking, they have just stopped the murdering cigarette companies from making them glamourous and misleading them about the health risks. Remember the Cigarette Companies used to use advertising with doctors and celebrities touting the healthy aspects of smoking. Even Ronald Reagan appeared in such ads.
Doctor ad:
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&sa=X&tbo=d&rls=en&biw=1600&bih=780&tbm=isch&tbnid=c9XPujTLnhEXtM:&imgrefurl=http://www.prettymotherearth.com/the-vintage-posters-of-glamorous-cigarette/&docid=uXCPXrqDV0_a4M&imgurl=http://www.prettymotherearth.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/vintage-posters-cigarette1.jpg&w=600&h=779&ei=DSC7UO3HNMqt0AHBt4CABQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=619&vpy=94&dur=8424&hovh=256&hovw=197&tx=88&ty=103&sig=112147685372050478606&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=104&start=0&ndsp=44&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0,i:105
Other ads including one where a baby asks her Mom to smoke
http://www.quitsmokingpainlesslynow.com/category/cigarette-advertising/
Desi Arnaz, Lucy Ball, Humphrey Bogart, Tallulah Bankhead, Yul Brenner, Johnny Carson, Bette Davis, Walt Disney, Burl Ives, Hubert Humphrey, Boris Karloff, Don Knotts, Michael Landon, Groucho Marx, Walter Mathau, Dean Martin, Lee Marvin, Pat Nixon, Roy Orbison, Ed Sullivan and many others died from Lung Cancer bought on by cigarette Smoking. Also my Mom, who won the Miss Leaf (TObacco Festival) Beauty Pageant as a Teenager.
Cigarette Industry Workers and Tobacco Farmers are murderers.
These people smoked when Tobacco companies were advertising their products as healthy,until just a few year ago Tobacco companies added nicotine to get people hooked....they are nothing more than filthy drug dealers.
Nicotine is more addictive than sin like when your Done poking your Brothers wife dont you just want to Light one up and blow smoke up her buttt I swear I do everytime
I bet once marijuana is legalized and sold through Marlboro in joints, they'll have to put a picture on the package of someone sleeping on their couch with a bag of chips in there hands LOL
Smoking is always unhealthy. Tar is carcinogenic. This doesn't change for marijuana either. Vaporization or just eating it is safer.
Oxygen is a corrosive. Our bodies manage to somehow process that into something useful.
While I'm not trying to negate your arguement, just thought I should point that out.
JD -1203795, yes, our bodies use oxidative phosphorylation and antioxidants, but in many people it has very insufficient protection from tar. Sure, there are some genetic exceptions, also mentioned below that may stay protected indefinitely from it, but I imagine they are few and far between.
AB - your wrong. I'm not a pot advocate but 10 year studies have shown that carcinogen in pot is over 85% lower than in tobaco.. so it does exsist but at a far lower level and because pot smokers generally consume far less than tobaco users the carcinogen level is reduced even more. But I don't disagree with the general health claim you make
mckajc - Have you ever cleaned the resin out of a well used bowl? That sticky tar is a by-product of smoking herb same as tobacco. It's in your lungs too. The main difference is that the average pot smoker isn't going to smoke 20 joints a day so they have less exposure to tar from pot smoke over time than a cigarette smoker who smoked a pack a day.
Xina, most of that is actually the cutin from the leaves and sap. It's not mostly carcinogenic tar.
Xina - I haven't, but I've seen and I understand what your are saying. But patrick is right it's about the carcinogen level.
Since pot is safer than tobacco then I don't see what the big to do is about not legalizing it.
yea and some PB and J sandwiches and a Beer any old beer would do after a fatty and a PBJ sandwich Mmm mMM mM m m mM M oh and a cigarette of course why not you doing everything else what's that gonna hurt oh and get some Milk Im dieing for some cheerios
Or a guy on a couch flipping his finger at his parents as he's watching TV and they're looking at him in anger, Warning: "The consumption of this product can lead to apathy."
Not necessarily.I know people who smoked pot and became very creative and others who detailed their cars etc.Everybody who smokes pot does not morph out unless they are already an unmotivated person.
And I know 5 people who began by smoking pot who died from Drug Overdoses...Pot was their entry into the drug world.
Pot and drugs are not cool, they simply destroy lives.
Only if you cant spell ESAm what the fook is that you forgot to finish that jack Daniels didnt you
Sez who? No international agreement should ever allow corporations to supersede national sovereignty.
Another thing....all tobacco company executives should be required by law to be, at minimum, 1 pack per day smokers.
Your President ratified the WTO agreements; just like your President will never sign any laws to keep American companies for exporting jobs overseas. Don't blame the tobacco companies; the politicians have made tobacco legal and will keep it legal just as beer and foreign aid.
Should the CEO's of Liquor companies be required to drink a 5th or a sixpack or whatever of the product they sell? That's just foolishness.
Idiot anti-smoking nazis will just never give up, will they? If it's SO bad and SO harmful, BAN IT! Make it illegal, fools! Oh, but then you couldn't bleed the companies for money tp fund your socialist health care system, like Bozobamacare! How sad for you anti-freedom morons!
well the Nazis were the best on knowing how to kill...you should have the GOP to close out the FDA and the EPA while your at it...
Speaking as a person who smoked for 28 years, cigarettes promote bad health. And bad health ends up costing the tax payer money and increases your health insurance premiums.
Despite the fact that quitting is very difficult, more and more people are starting to understand this and giving up smoking. The fact that here in NYC a pack can cost $10 or more helped me to give it up. So, I'm all for raising the taxes on them as much as they can.
As for banning them, that would end up costing the tax payer as well with the huge number of court cases and then imposing sentencing for those convicted. You would also be creating a new criminal enterprise in the process. From a political standpoint, it would disenfranchise a voting demographic ( but that is of little concern to me.)
One thing I would not miss if banned, cigars. There is only one thing that smells worse than someone smoking a big cigar-- that is a filthy hobo who has not bathed in months-- smoking a cigar. I am not exaggerating. Anything you can think of has a smell preferable to a cigar.
rotting fish trumps cigars on rancid smell.
The healthcare systemis burdened with the costof caring for people with cancer and other cigarette related diseases. There is also the cost of disability Social Security for them, the cost to their families when the parent dies from smoking.
The taxes on cigarettes do not come close to covering that. Actual costs of smoking are hard to pinpoint of course but:
Be happy to trade the taxes on cigarettes for a smoke free society. Note I chose the more conservative media source Fox News
any other product that knowing kills would be taken off the market...the 2nd hand smoke can kill...but seems some are okay with this so they should bring back other items that are known killers...
But, won't the second-hand smoke argument derail the movement to legalize marijuana?
My mother smoked when she was 7 and died at 78, I have smoked for 50 years and still smoking. This campane states a high rate of deaths, but thats not possible, only 27% of americans are smoking and with the claims of these studies are ture then we would all be dead already. We should spend more time on keeping beer out of reach from our kids that are killed by driving drunk and yet no one is trying to stop that or the regular drunk drivers that kill innocent familie's, drinking kills more people young and old then smoking.
AMEN TO 'MERLIN GRANBERG'!.... OLD AGE RULES IN THIS "SMOKING~FAMILY" = GRANDPA SMOKED AND CHEWED EVERYTHING FROM BULL DURHAM TO ROLL YER OWN AND DIED IN HIS CHAIR SMOKING @ 92????.... MY DAD SMOKED FOR 65 YEARS AND DIED OF OLD AGE @ 89??????.... FYI, I FIRED UP IN 1953 = 2 PACKS A DAY = STILL SMOKIN @ 71 = AND I CAN WORK WITH ANY ANTI YUPPIE NON SMOKIN TWITT TODAY!.... my knees are killin me %FROM WORKING% = my back is achin a lot %FROM WORKING%, but, my offer stands! ................... i dont see any screaming antis lining up to "T R Y" to OUTWORK ME TODAY????? = TO BUSY SMART MOUTHING.......................
My Grandfather smoked for 65 years and died at 92, my mother smoked for 32 years and died at 45 from lung cancer, my uncles smoked and all four died befere they were fifty all for from lung cancer. BTW my grandmother did not smoke and she died at 93. So you wnat to take a chance you are the exception rather than the rule?
Not everyone who smokes dies just like not everyone who has unprotected sex gets A.I.D.S.
I did an experiment at a local park. I put a small signs in a 50 foot line 10 feet apart that stated "Walk towards me until you smell cigarettes". Most people stopped at 20 or less and SWORE they smelled cigarettes until I showed them it was an electronic cigarette.
Big tobacco is under attack and trying to save profits. Apple does unfair trade tactics and it's ok.(Apple products don't kill consumers just the people who make them and that's ok huh?). The packages that cigarettes come in are their branding, when you mess with a companies branding you directly effect profit. Try to force Coke or Pepsi to change packaging.. or Dorritos..
I suggest you put a picture of some fat ass on every piece of junk food.. How about some liposuction pics?
I follow the rules; I smoke where "allowed", how about everybody stop pissing in my ear and tryin to tell me it's raining? Mind your own business and you wont have time to mind mine...
Dave-2478570, nicotine itself does have a smell, though it's mild relative to that of an actual cigarette.
Mr Granberg, you're living proof that it's always better to be lucky than smart. It's true there are some few people who can smoke with impunity but those folks are few and far between. In my father's family every single one of them died from tobacco-related cancer, all 7 of them. The only one left is my uncle and that's because he quit smoking when he was 30.
When I was 17 my father died and that was the end of my family. My mother was gone and my life has been difficult as a result. Smoking destroys families. I was adopted and I've had health problems all my life. Although I don't smoke I wonder whether my health problems are due to my parents smoking heavily in my presence from the time I was adopted at 2 weeks of age.
Loss of my father at such an early age predisposed me to lifelong depression. I hate tobacco, cigarettes and everything about them. I don't allow people to smoke in my home. If someone smokes I can smell it on them 2 meters away. None of my friends smoke. I can't bear to be in the presence of smokers. It brings back memories of nursing my mother and my father on their death beds. I have PTSD from those experiences.
Smoking ruined my life. It made me an orphan. It took my beloved father from me. Why should I bear it?
My uncle, who did not smoke or drink, died from a heart attack at 45 (he was also in very good shape). What's your point? We're all gonna die, let the smokers die the way they want to.
love, that works up until the smokers kill other people. And your point about the heart attack? He probably ate too many bananas or high-mercury fish, or he had a genetic disposition. Choices have consequences, so let's remove the worst choices or make them so unappealing no one will ever choose them again.
All the "I smoked for 50 years and smoking hasn't impacted me" rants are laughable. I come from a long line of smokers. I've watched it take down my mother, an uncle and an aunt. All long time smokers. All died relatively young after long bouts with COPD. All their families were basically forced to stand by and watch them slide down the slippery slope of this addiction while there was little they could do but watch and wait as their loved one SLOWLY suffocated; losing more and more energy until there was none left. I've watched them powerless over the urge to smoke to the point they are smoking....while on oxygen...literally. Standing next to a tank with tubes in their noses barely able to talk but still smoking....yeah...nothing addictive going on here...lol...
I myself struggle as an on again off again smoker and see how it affects me as I cycle on and off. I can tell if my youngest son is smoking or not (he struggles and is on and off the smokes as well) by the rattling nagging little cough he develops. I have another aunt who is a long time smoker and she is well down the path to COPD land.....
And it's not even as though I argue with the right of a person to smoke or not.....but the crap in the smokes these days is bunk. There's not even any alternatives....no additive free smokes on the market.
You can bulls#$t yourself but not those around you. They think you stink, are sad to watch the progression of the addiction and wonder at the cost both in money and quality of life. But by all means do carry on....like stinky yellow toothed lemmings...lol...
Reading my own comment I was reminded of another disturbing aspect of the last stages of COPD....that was the onset of panic as my family members edged closer and closer to not being able to draw a breath. And it WAS panic....y'know that panic you may have felt as a kid when a sibling or friend covers your face as a joke? It was nothing like that....it was sheer terror!!
At times they were all fatalistic in their "ya gotta go sometime" or "smoking is all I have left" mentality....but lemme tell ya when death came breezing by to check on their progress they were terrified. Absolutely terrified at not being able to get a breath. Terrified right till the end yet at that stage absolutely powerless to stop until they were in an extended care facility at which point they were just waiting for the end as the disease had progressed to far to turn back.
At one point my mother was at a stage where she was still eligible for a lung transplant.....under the proviso that she stop smoking before she could get on the list. She couldn't / didn't....
So yeah...smoking is awesome!
@ AB 1981; Yes, nicotine has a smell. The amount used in an electronic cigarette can very rarely be picked up by the human olfactory glands.
In North America tobacco has been around LONG before the white man, were talking thousands of years. Now, in the past 60 it has become a severe problem? What side of bull@!$%# don't people understand?
I pose this question; If smoking is so horribly bad for you, then why is it that over 1/3 of the "health care industry" smokes? There are companies that are 100% smoke/smoker free but not the hospitals where all of the cancer ridden smoking asthmatics die.
Dave....as to the smoking tabac for thousand of years and only in the past 60 has it become an issue. No chance I suppose that there are many many additives in the cigs that weren't there before corporate greed starting steering the ship huh?
Should we outlaw cars because lousy drivers kill people? Should we outlaw snack foods because some people eat too many of them? the argument about smokers harming others is idiotic as we all pay in one way or another for other peoples choices.Higher auto and medical insurance for starters.
@Stupidhuman; And cancer has been around as long as mankind... as well as asthma..
Do yourself a favor; take a chart of US deaths from cigarettes from 60 years and overlay it which a chart of chemicals produced in the US over the same time frame... Corporate greed is correct, from DOW Chem, Monsato etc..
I am not saying cigs are safe but, I do believe there are other environmental agitators in a lot of cig related illness/death.
When cigs were fist packaged and sold they were marketed like Cracker-Jacks, they came with a prize, the one prize that took off were little cards with stats and pictures of baseball players. Yes, collectible sports cards were born from cigarettes..
Cigarettes vs. obesity
If your going to re-band cigarettes you might as well do junk food as well.
37% of adults in America are obese yet, only 19% are smokers... Those are CDC stats people, not mine.
Pick a better fight and let me smoke in peace..
If I were weatlhy I would quit smoking too. Why smoke when I can take a jaunt to another country in my jet.
I don't understand the connection between being rich and quitting smoking. Actually if you quit you would be richer as smoking is a very expensive habit.
I quit a couple of years ago, and I save a good $35.00/week. It may not be alot, but it helps.
That's a non sequeter. You're lying to yourself, Howmanyfingers. You're an addict. In another country you'd still be an addict and you'd still smoke cigarettes, you'd just be a smoker in a foreign country.
This is called denial. Every addict experiences it. The sooner you face up to it the sooner you can overcome it. You're a nicotine addict.
No idea how tobacco company CEOs and employees sleep at night knowing that their product unquestionably kills hundreds of thousands a year---- and of course there is not any evidence that graphic photos decrease smoking because they haven't been on the packages long enough to have statistical data available----unreal---the sadder thing is that I can understand why someone on their 50s smokes, but everytime I see a young person light up, I realize just how stupid a lot of our children are and more so how powerful mainstream media and advertizing are---
Yeah yeah..They pick on the smokers..Then it will be the Fat People.Then it will be the people that drink to much..The list goes on and on.The truth is, you are going to die from something it dont matter what age..
I say we get the ball rolling on the population control. Make it mandatory that everyone above the age of 12 is hooked on meth, heroin, and/or crack.
Or at least make all drugs legal. More taxes and less carbon.
@ uGAY A better plan for population control would be to encourage young people to try the homosexual lifestyle! They can die from AIDS, syphilis and whole host of other nasty diseases spread by your ilk!!!
AB- don't forget; Less Crime, also
jimmy, anyone can get STDs. Just because aids patient 0 happened to be a very loose french canadian bisexual man doesn't mean gays should be blamed for AIDS. The laws of chaos (a branch of highly ordered, unintegratable mathematics) show HIV would have come along one way or another.
AIDs started out as a heterosexual disease in Africa, so yes, it would have eventually spread as a heterosexual disease even if there were no gays at all in the world.
Patric--I don't know about the chaos theory, other than the fact that it sounds a lot like Murphy's Law......
It's a shame what we've made of a terrific nicotine+MAOI combo. If used correctly, the combo can elevate us to unachievable heights, but if used incorrectly, such as by smoking tobacco, it kills. Few will ever know and understand.
Nicotine itself does not cause cancer ( as far as anyone knows). So, if there is a benefit to including it with monoamine oxidase inhibitors, that is not a problem. No one has proposed making therapeutic nicotine unobtainable.
Hal-2824511, yes, nicotine may not be a carcinogen, but it metabolizes partially into carcinogenic nitrosamines, including NNN and NNK, although these are easily countered by good-quality extended-release vitamin C. I suspect full-spectrum vitamin E may help as well.
AB-1981 - Ah, I didn't think of it from a precursor perspective.
cell phones cause cancer also, perhaps graphic images with warning labels should be put on all cell phones.
scott- I would hazard a guess that cell phones cause more deaths than tobacco; more people have car wrecks using a cell phone, than do people smoking a smoke.
You mean like these? http://electromagnetichealth.org/images/WarningLabel_copy.jpg
... and these https://www.aulterraglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/Cell-Phone-Warning-tab-image2-1024x337.jpg
there is 0 proof that cell phones cause cancer. They can cause temporary sterility in males, but that's it. Any articles saying they do have so far been based on quack science.
My old Blackberry had a cancer warning, but my new RAZR MAXX points you to studies that do not conclude a cancer risk including pages at FCC.gov and cancer.org.
Some of you folks probably wont see tomorrow.Who knows you can die today from any cause..Now if you excuse me i need to have a cig! haha
oh so true; if you live in fla., chitcago,detroit,denver, calif. wash. state, your chances are even better.
@cowtowntrucker; I suppose where you live is the beacon of hope and perfect in every way..
Stupid news media, writing a stupid article. Bitching and crying about the ineffectiveness of their idiotic, frivolous libtard law that serves to do NOTHING but infringe on someone else's freedom and personal choice to legally do what they want, on their own time, and space. It is THEIR business, when it does not affect others. Not that of a douche-bag doctor, lawyer, or lawmaker schmuck, hell-bent on lining their fat wallet, so they can buy another fat side of steak to clog their arteries with.
What is with the "libtard" label? Just how do you figure this is a liberal law?
I know tobacco is not good for people , it is still a legal product, alcohol gets a free ride for it kills as many people if not more than tobacco.
less than half. Nice try.
There has to come a time when people start looking at the real causes of cancer in this country, it is not the cigarettes you smoke and it is definitely not the Tobacco Plant's fault.
Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating cigarettes, they stink, but their effects on cancer numbers are blown way out of proportion.
By 1970 nearly 50% of all Americans smoked yet 1 in approx. 70 got cancer of any kind, here it is 2012 and less than 17% of Americans smoke yet 50% get cancer.
If one researches in any depth you will find the real causes of Americas cancers is our food, but if the feds come out and admit that then they will ultimately be held responsible for declaring the things farmers spray on our food to be suitable for Human consumption.
Do some research and you will see the finger pointing drift from RJ Reynolds to the USDA.
If smoking had not slowly and painfully killed my father, you could explain that to him. He didn't die from cancer either. It was emphysema.
Yes, Hal, my mother too got emphysema which led to a stroke and finally to death. It's not just lung cancer that results from smoking. Also, what about the people who get gangrene in their limbs from smoking?
It is hard to imagine in 2012 that people still choose to smoke and even stand up for smoking. People love to list all their relatives who made it to 90 after smoking for 75 years, but if they would look at the statistics they would see those relatives were not the norm. You also have to wonder about the quality of life of those people in their later years.
mhender, what's wrong here? People have performed a rigorous analysis of the probability of cancer with and without smoking, and have found a strong connection. Sure, there are many other causes of cancer too, but they in no way take the blame away from cigarettes. Also let's bear in mind the emphysema mentioned above.
mhender, yes, the USDA has it's problems, which does NOT mean that the tobacco companies are faultless!! I both raise as much of my own fruits/veggies/eggs and buy grassfed/rangefree meats or hunt/fish my own meats as possible, but I also do NOT smoke--but I was raised by 2 parents who smoked and eventually died with COPD, and I have Reactive Airway Disease thanks to the second-hand cigarette smoke.
ANTI-SMOKERS = BRAINLESS IDIOTS! = so danged jealous over our LEGAL-HABIT = it is KILLING THEM ROTFLMFAOOOOOOOOOOO........
wonder what they will attack next.....IF WE ALL QUIT SMOKING??????
they just have to BITVH about something.........they dont talk about how many die in vehicle accidents from driving brain dead playing with a cell phone or cant read SPEED LIMIT SIGNS.......
Brain dead! That's something coming from a smoker. Five, six dollars a pack, nothing wrong with that brain.
By all means smoke up, man. Please. The more, the better.
Sure they do, just as a separate topic though. There is a reason why it is illegal in so many places to text and drive, and why it is illegal everywhere to ignore the speed limit.
Smoke up all you can, but not near me. My freedom of choice includes the freedom to breath clean air not polluted by soecond had smoke.
Amen, serenewatcher!! A smoker's right to smoke ends where a non-smokers nose begins!
I think if they are going to bash the tobacco industry, they also need to attack alcohol companies. Last I checked, smoking cigarettes didn't cause car accidents or domestic violence like alcohol does. If they are to do statistical bashing, look into alcohol abuse. Drinking and driving, violence, passing out, ODing on alcohol, families torn apart (whether in 3rd world countries or in our own). I am a smoker, someday soon, I hope not to, but I don't think governments should only pick on one deadly addiction and spew how expensive it is medically without picking on the other ones as well. Alcohol is not harassed by government nearly as much as tobacco, not taxed nearly as much or exiled as much. If they pick on one, pick on all of them. Last I checked, alcohol is a "sin" too and should be taxed accordingly. Second hand smoke... Lets pick up the paper today and see how many accidents and domestic abuse cost families/government. How much money a year to we spend in courts dealing with manslaughter cases because of the drunk driver that just killed a mother of 4 as an example. Yes, smoking is bad, but so is alcohol. I would much rather smoke than drink any day! I find it rather sad when I go to the local liquor store and can pick up a 12 pack of beer cheaper than I can a 12 pack of soda. Spread the "sin tax" around, it should not burden only smokers.
No, smoking does not cause accidents, it just slowly, ever so slowly takes your breath, walking up the stairs becomes drudgery, walking through the house becomes a chore, can't go out and run and play with the grandkids, not to mention, that gray look, and wrinkles, and fuzz on your face, making you look years older. Oh, smoking is so cool, you stink, your cloths stink, your breath stinks. Both of my parents died from complications involving the lungs, I've heard all the excuses. Pay the taxes and enjoy.
" Last I checked, smoking cigarettes didn't cause car accidents or domestic violence like alcohol does"
Well here's a funny story for ya-While I was trying to quit, I would undergo sudden and enomous fits of anger & irritability. So instead of ripping off my husband's head and banging it against the wall for good measure, I would go back to the computer room to kill monsters instead. One time I was in such a hurry I misjudged my step and broke my toe. Took my mind off of the cravings, though. Been quit for 47 months now.
Yay Barbara!!! Good for you, you go girl! Congratulations on the 47 months!!!!!
BTW, great funny story--and you found a constructive way to burn off those fits of anger...:)
Thanks!
Smoking kills lt killed my Father, My Mother and four of my uncles.
These thugs in Armani suits act as if they are just ordinary and respectable businessmen. They are not!
These people are the worst of the drug cartels, causing the death of millions of people world wide every year buying influence in governments, writing laws to their own benefit, and pulling every sleazy trick they can to hook our children with their deadly product And anyone who claims that this is just "free enterprise" has a very deep seeded need to know nothing of the way this world works
I agree, mhender. The highest incidence of smoking and lung cancer occurs in factory and farm workers. They are exposed to toxic chemicals on a daily basis. Yet, according to the cancer researchers I've discussed this with, occupation is not fully weighted in the studies and that when properly weighted the incidence falls below accepted scientifically accepted standards. I fully acknowledge that smoking has adverse effects, primarily on ones heart. But the witch hunt against smokers is based on smoke and mirrors. Drunk drivers cause actual harm, where is the call for pictures of victims on liquor bottles?
It's too bad individuals that choose to smoke are to Weak and Mentally Challenged to quit, knowing everyone they light up is killing them.
It's your choice to be judgemental, and it's my choice to smoke.
it should not be your choice to smoke near other people who choose to not smoke. That's 2nd degree murder in enough quantity.
It's a shame lawyers don't have to take an oath not to harm the human race before being allowed to work at their trade. As with any other substance humans use, if prohibited or taxed beyond reason, a black market will pick up the slack fueling organized crime. Good for lawyers, bad for society. Education of our youth is the only way to have impact on these markets. The free market and the social pressure will reduce tobacco use more effectively than the rulings of any greedy, self interested group of lawyers.
Or we could just use agent orange on the tobacco fields and incineratte missouri since that's all its good for.
Since when does a brand name or packaging effect health aspects? Some of our food products have more drugs than actual food value yet no one complains about the side effects. It's all about money and who pays for it which is usually the consumer. Packaging accounts for 60% of the cost of any product, whether it's gum or tobacco. If you take the time to examine product contents of any brand they are basically the same. So, what's left? Packaging! If everything were sole in plain wrappers companies would save big bucks by not paying for different dyes just to color the package. Health warnings should be on ALL products as well as the side effects. If you don't like fair trade laws then maybe you shouldn't do any trading. Get a life!
Why doesn't anyone mention the pharmaceutical industry? When you hear comments about side-effects and the risks might not outweigh the benefits it's time to check the ingredient! So many man made chemicals in a prescription oriented world makes me wonder why the finger only gets pointed to tobacco products and alcohol consumption.