FDA Proposes More Graphic Warning Labels For Cigarettes

In an effort to convince cigarette smokers to quit — and to stop potential smokers from picking up a pack — the FDA’s Dept. of Health and Human Services has proposed a series of larger, more graphic warnings for cigarette packs and advertising.

The three images above (NOTE: That is the FDA’s crude Photoshop work, not ours… for once) are just a sampling of the 36 ideas being considered by the agency. The range of warnings go from the general “Cigarettes are addictive” to the blunt “Smoking can kill you.”

After the final warning labels are selected in June, after which tobacco companies will have 15 months to start including them on the front and back of all packaging.

Additionally, tobacco companies must dedicated at least 20% of each ad to one of the new warnings.

If you want to check out all the possible warnings, here’s a PDF.

Proposed Cigarette Product Warning Labels [FDA.gov]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. sufreak says:

    I hate smoking and sorely disagree with this. If you’re a smoker, you know the risks. Its not an issue of the warnings not being big enough.

    Some dont care, some dont want to quit. Put the money into programs to help those who want to quit.

    • Ben says:

      They know partly because of warnings. Just because people TODAY know doesn’t mean children are born with an innate knowledge of the dangers of smoking. These warnings are important.

      • pop top says:

        Yes, and that is what DARE and other similar programs are for.

        • Gramin says:

          “Other programs” that cost money to taxpayers and aren’t available in every school. This would be a mandate to all tobacco companies at their own expense. And if they pass that expense on to smokers, that’s fine with me. This will help decrease smoking among teens and young adults and I’m all for it. I’m tired of paying higher premiums because of all you damn smokers.

          • pop top says:

            “all you damn smokers.”

            I’m not a smoker, I just think this is a stupid idea. DARE is done (AFAIK) in every elementary school in fifth grade. That would be fine if the tobacco companies paid for it. But really, if all the warnings by now haven’t stopped people from smoking, these pictures won’t either. They do this in other countries and it hasn’t helped. It’s just a lame, pandering way of not actually dealing with a problem.

          • c!tizen says:

            Yeah, and those damn parents and their stupid kids are the reason my property taxes are so high!

          • Saltpork says:

            Pictures & cost don’t discourage people from committing any vice.
            They do it because they either want to or they’re addicted.

            I don’t care if there are pictures or not on a pack of smokes. Most of us don’t.
            You are not going to control behavior this way.

            Education, support, patience, help, and a commitment to quit are how you get rid of an addiction. Not warning labels.

        • Bill610 says:

          The evidence is that DARE doesn’t work anyway:
          http://www.csdp.org/news/news/darerevised.htm

          “The GAO report found that “In brief, the six long-term evaluations of the DARE elementary school curriculum that we reviewed found no significant differences in illicit drug use between students who received DARE in the fifth or sixth grade (the intervention group) and students who did not )the control group).”

      • c!tizen says:

        So when do we start affixing large pictures of burn victims to packs of matches and lighters so that kids understand the danger of playing with fire? Or maybe a graphic picture of a suffocated baby on the package for toys with small parts, so they know not to stick them in their mouth. Or, if we want to stay closer to the game, how about pictures of mutilated bodies from car accidents or diseased livers on every can or bottle of alcohol?

        This is stupid. I don’t smoke anymore, I quit because I wanted to, but I’m sure that full grown adults who know the risk and chose to smoke don’t want to pay an already ridiculous amount of money for a pack a cigarettes so they can stare at some disgusting picture to remind them of what they already know. We already make them smoke outside in most places, pay far too much for a simple plant, and now we need to make them look at nasty pictures. I have a mom, and the government isn’t her.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        If we could pass on knowledge to our offspring genetically, smoking would have been all but eliminated in a generation.

    • Murph1908 says:

      I completely agree.

      I don’t smoke. My dad died of heart issues related to his decades of smoking.

      But I don’t need the government to go this far in telling us how to live our lives.

      What’s next?

      -Graphic pictures on the sun visors of your car, showing what can happen to pedestrians and other drivers if you speed or drink and drive?

      -Pictures of amputee diabetics warning of adult onset diabetes on candy wrappers?

      -Heart attack warnings on packages of hamburger and other red meat?

    • Preyfar says:

      I agree 100%. In fact, I’ll one up that.

      http://www.amazon.com/Queen-City-Candy-Snickers-48CT/dp/B000NMDVBA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1289411186&sr=8-2

      You can buy cases of Snickers or other candies for cheap (cheaper than a carton of cigarettes!). You can literally gorge yourself every single day on chocolates, sweets and everything else. Nobody’ll really say anything, or even care. And doing that leads to diabetes, heart disease and many other complications. There’s no grim, horrible warnings on that ultra fattening candy bar, fast food or any other junk you can buy anywhere. Yet, light up a single cigarette…

      http://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/
      631,636 people died in 2006 to heart disease.

      http://www.lungcancerfact.com/articles/?post_id=22
      158,599 people died in 2006 from lung cancer

      Yes, we’ve gotta warn people this one thing more than anything else is the greater evil! Those fully loaded fries from Outback (with enough sodium to kill a horse) are okay, but damned if we don’t need more warning labels on a pack of smokes. We need to stop the evil of cigarettes, but while people ponder quitting smoking, they can chew it over with Twix.

      • Gramin says:

        FAIL!!!

        Check out this link: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm

        1 out of every 5 deaths is related to tobacco use. Annually, that’s about 443,000 deaths! Nearly 130,000 of those heart disease related deaths are caused by tobacco use. Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

        Complete failure at quoting the facts/figures regarding tobacco related deaths.

        • Bladerunner says:

          Except “tobacco related deaths” is a misnomer…they don’t look to see if the person had other significant risk factors, as a general rule it’s just “did they smoke? Must be smoking related then” unless it’s accidental, genetic, murder, or a medical complication from something else (i.e. gangrene from surgery).

          It’s much like MADD’s made up drinking statistics.

          And before people flame me, I’m not saying that there AREN’T deaths attributable to smoking, I am just saying they use “smoking related” far too often.

      • classic10 says:

        You analogy is completely flawed. Anything in excess can kill you. Just drink 400 cups of coffee and you are gone. Sneakers is food. It has has the purpose of feeding you. If you stop eating you’ll die too.

        Cigarettes have no purpose and are just harmful. There isn’t a collateral damage in discouraging smoking besides saving the country and yourself of medical costs.

        • Preyfar says:

          Flawed? Yes, yes it is, but at the same time, many people smoke for decades and have no issues. Others can get some right away. Point is, they want to take these drastic measures to make this one thing far, far worse than any other.

          A sedimentary lifestyle with foods high in calories and fat, low in nutrition, doesn’t help the situation at all.

          In Canada, cigarette packages say “cigarettes will kill you”. Anything can, but the warnings that we get on cigarettes are far greater than anything else. Alcohol warnings pretty much state that it should not be taken by pregnant mothers (the first warning), generally followed that it impairs driving and “may” cause health problems. Cigarettes “may” cause health problems too, but alcohol doesn’t say “alcohol causes liver disease, and may be poisonous”.

          Give how many people die or have serious complications due to alcohol poisoning…

          My point is that there are many evils. They pick one.

        • Gramin says:

          And don’t forget the medical costs I pay because of those smokers!

        • Bill610 says:

          I’m a non-smoker, but if cigarettes have “no purpose” and are “completely harmful”, then why do so many people smoke them? Might they, perhaps, derive some pleasure from the experience, like many smokers say they do, or they just a whole lot stupider than you and I? Might some smokers weigh the costs and benefits of smoking (not easy, as so many of the costs are now socialized), and decide to smoke anyway? Or are they just gullible fools that will finally give up if the warnings are bigger and more colorful?

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        “You can literally gorge yourself every single day on chocolates, sweets and everything else. Nobody’ll really say anything, or even care. “

        I wouldn’t say nobody would care…

        If you’re obese and/or have diabetes, you wont be able to get health or life insurance outside of work.

      • yzerman says:

        Your logic is flawed. Chocolate isn’t the same addiction that smoking is. It is far easier to put down that snickers bar than it is to stop smoking.

        In fact.. when was the last time you saw someone buy a box of snickers and go through the entire box in a day and a half? people by cigarettes and go crazy smoking a pack a day.

        Personally if putting a dying persons face on a box of cigarettes is going to stop my daughter from having the incentive to light up, I am all for it. When she’s an adult and decides that looking at death each time she grabs one if OK, then thats her decision and she can smoke all she wants, just not around me.

        • RvLeshrac says:

          I was a pack-a-day for a decade, and just stopped a year ago.

          It isn’t hard, you just have to not want to smoke. People make the nicotine out to be a massive problem, but, in the end, the worst part is not having something to do with your hands.

          • magus_melchior says:

            Well, you and my father are alike in that you were able to quit cold turkey with few (if any) dependency problems. But your personal experience isn’t the norm– the fact is, for most people nicotine is addictive; my brother has struggled with quitting smoking, and I’m not sure if he’s off cigarettes yet (he may be, he’s got kids).

            If it were a problem with idle hands and not with substance addiction, I’m sure everyone who wants to quit can find something to do other than the costly habit of smoking cigarettes.

    • classic10 says:

      These warnings aren’t for you. They are for teenagers that aren’t mature enough to understand the risks of smoking.

      • Kryndar says:

        I’d say the solution on that is to crack down on retailers selling cigarettes to teenagers, I assume you mean teens under the legal age. In addition I don’t think putting these images on packs will make anyone heed the health warnings on cigarettes any more than they already do.

        • classic10 says:

          No, what I’m saying is that most of the cigarette smokers we have today began smoking when they were younger than 20. It is really hard to find someone that began smoking on their 30s.
          If enforcement was the solution there weren’t any drugs in the world. The solution is to reduce the demand.
          Cigarettes (as well as alcoholic beverages) are the “grown up” thing to do. The thing you can only do when you are old enough. There isn’t a clear distinction (for teenagers) today that you can only do it when you are older because it is harmful for you and you need to be mature enough to understand that you are doing this at your own will.
          Instead we still have the “cool” as aspect of smoking. It is a dumb thing to do and if people still smoke today it is because we haven’t made it clear enough.

          • Kryndar says:

            Fair enough but I still disagree for the simple fact that I don’t think it hasn’t been made clear enough. I’d say it is more the issue that many, many, people, and younger people in particular, have the additude of “it won’t happen to me, sure others may get addicted but I can stop that from happening to me no problem” and unfortunatly I don’t believe that any amount of education on the ill effects will stop that. Perhaps there is something else we could do but I don’t think that more redundant health warnings the right corse of action. As well, and I fully admit that this might just be becuase of my social circle when growing up, but cigarettes to me and my friends were never to cool thing to do.

          • BlkSwanPres says:

            Have you been in a school in the last 25 years, school children are taught the dangers of cigarettes, alcohol, and illegal drugs from kindergarten. These packs do not say any thing that 13 years of school wont.

      • Hoss says:

        I was a teenager in the 1970s, some C Everett Koop looking government doc did a presentation on smoking. Behind him were graphic medical pictures showing deceased lungs, sick patients, etc., similar to the crash photos we saw in drivers ed. I don’t think it’s the job of gov’t to put crash photos in cars, or medical photos on legal products.

      • duncanblackthorne says:

        Since when do teenagers listen to anyone, especially adults?

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      I am shocked by the large number of responses declaring “we already know the danger of cigarettes”

      And yet, where do you think you obtained that knowledge? Your smoking teenage friends? You parents, to whom you always listened to as a child?

      No. Advertising compaigns such as this, TV/radio ads, and DARE are what taught you, and will teach future generations, about the dangers of smoking.

      • c!tizen says:

        No, I learned about the dangers of smoking from my parents, who learned it from watching their parents smoke and seeing what it did to them. SMOKE. I saw what it did to my grandmother, I knew the risks and I did it anyway. SMOKE. I’ve quit now, but I did so because I wanted to, not because an ad told me to. SMOKE. My parents have never steered me wrong, yet doctors and ad agencies once use to promote the health benefits of smoking, even to mothers-to-be. SMOKE.

        And the only thing I learned from DARE is that Drugs Are Really Expensive, and their shirts are always too big. SMOKE.

    • JakeChance says:

      Agreed. This is sickening.

  2. FrugalFreak says:

    This is BS. They are fighting a war that congress has already settled.

    • Gramin says:

      Huh? How has Congress settled this war? Congress finally gave the FDA the power to regulate tobacco products. Congress gave the FDA the weapon it needed to fight this war. It is far from “settled.”

      • FrugalFreak says:

        It was settled on the lawful vs unlawful. When they gave FDA powers it was in fact stating they will remain legal. thus all the busybodies of this nation can try methods like this in effort, but the victory that non smokers want can not be won. EVER!

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          The busybodies you are referring to are the FDA, which you just said was given the athority. I don’t think are making any sense.

          • FrugalFreak says:

            Yes, but I’m sure some of the top execs within the FDA are non-Smoking advocates themselves. No person that understands and promotes personal freedoms is behind this. It is the FDA in name, but the people behind the curtain with personal issues and opinions are pulling the strings they control.

            • Gramin says:

              I’m sure they are non-smoking advocates. You’d be hard pressed to find any doctor that advocates smoking or the use of any tobacco product. For those doctors, it’s not about personal freedoms. It’s about saving lives and preventing the use of a product that causes death… 443,000 of them a year, to be precise.

              • Southern says:

                I know plenty of nurses, health care professionals, *AND* doctors that smoke.

                In fact, when I was seeing my doctor for a routine physical, he even gave me the “you know you should give up smoking” speech, then said “Now, with that out of the way, step out with me for a smoke? I need a break.”

                I guess it was funnier at the time. :-)

  3. Ben Popken says:

    This is one area in which I think we should be more like Canada.

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      What does Canada do about cigarettes?

      • Kryndar says:

        We have the same type of pictographic warnings. No only on cigarettes, they also have them on my pipe tabbacco.

        • thedarkerside.to says:

          In Canada? I have seen some small stickers on some of the boxes, but I tend to buy mine loose so it comes in a little plastic baggy without the sticker.

          • Kryndar says:

            Granted they are not the same size but there are pictographic warnings, honestly I don’t smoke cigarettes so I have no clue if they are stickers. I know on my pipe tabbacco tins/packages they are stickers but I think that is because they come from out of country so they just slap on the warnings. http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/Canada-warnings.htm that’s a site with most, if not all, of the warnings. I don’t think people are allowed to sell cigarets of pipe tabbacco without one of these warnings. That being said I don’t think I’ve every gotten one on a cigar.

            • thedarkerside.to says:

              I think if they sell them lose it’s different. The last 5 pack I bought also had a small sticker on it, but hey, who cares, right?

              I really hope for all those “smoking kills” types that they are never in the vicinity of an open flame or fire, never roast marshmellows on a camping fire or drive a car. All of these also produce the carcinogens, yet for some reason it’s going to be cigarettes that are going to kill us all.

              • Kryndar says:

                I’m going to admit that the only loose cigarettes I’ve ever heard of have been ilegal cigarettes so I can not speak to those at all.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        Politely asks residents to stop.

      • Fafaflunkie Plays His World's Smallest Violin For You says:

        Canada in general, and Ontario in particular, taxes them to the roof. What do Canadian smokers do? Find our way to native reservations to buy smokes made on the reservation for literally 1/5th the price. Or the national brands for a good 33% off.

    • Kryndar says:

      I live in Canada and I disagree.

    • denros says:

      Look in the comments. This is why we can’t have nice things, America.

      • FrugalFreak says:

        What does that even mean? if smoking went away, insurers wouldn’t lower premiums and the system that inflates medical costs wouldn’t disappear. It would just transfer to another faux enemy of the people.

        • Gramin says:

          That’s not true. Companies that enact no smoking policies actually have lower insurance costs, for both them and their employees. Insurance agencies are willing to lower the costs if you’re smoke free.

        • denros says:

          In what way is something that kills half a million people every year a “faux” enemy?

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      Canada has labeling like this – has for a long time. Gruesome pictures of all kinds of nastiness on tobacco products up in the Great White North.

      …want to take a guess at how much of a dent that put into tobacco sales? Qualitatively…none.

      People who want to smoke are going to smoke. It wouldn’t matter if you nailed a dead possum to each pack of cigarettes – people would still buy them, and then you’d just have a big pile of dead possums in front of every store in the country.

      You want to put cringe-inducing photos on tobacco products, you just go right ahead. Just don’t be foolish enough to expect it to have any effect.

    • Hooray4Zoidberg says:

      I stopped in the duty free shop on my way back from Montreal a few years ago back when I still smoked. I picked up a carton of cigarettes and they had a picture of a really long ash hanging off a cigarette meant to look like a flaccid penis. The warning said “Smoking causes impotence” I put the carton back down and walked away without purchasing it. I quit for a good a few months later. Most effective anti-smoking picture ever.

  4. Scurvythepirate says:

    God, those generic packs remind me of the design on the bottles and packaging of Astoglide.

  5. Torchwood says:

    If it wasn’t for all of the tax revenue that the states get from the cancer sticks, they would have been outlawed ages ago.

    • ConsumerPop says:

      EXACTLY.

    • FrugalFreak says:

      prohibition does not stop usage. If it was outlawed, I’d find other sources. I know it is bad, But I don’t smoke around other people, I live alone so it should not be an outright ban. Personal liberty is really taking a hit in this country lately from Busybodies pushing for what THEY don’t like.

    • Gramin says:

      Exactly wrong. The costs of smoking far outweigh any tax revenue received from sales. In 2008, $16.5 billion in tax revenue from tobacco was collected. However, the annual health care expenditures from smoking are $96 billion. There is NO BENEFIT to smoking for anyone but the tobacco companies.

      • lawnmowerdeth says:

        I like smoking, that’s a benefit to me.

      • thedarkerside.to says:

        Just curious, have you looked at the cost of old age? That’s a much higher expenditure in healthcare than cancer treatment is.

        • Gramin says:

          Old age isn’t preventable. Smoking is. What don’t you understand about this? I’m completely confused as to why you thought that was a valid argument.

      • NeverLetMeDown says:

        From the perspective of a nonsmoker (and putting aside the secondhand smoke issue), it would be financially better if everyone else smoked. While they would consume more health care services, they’d die younger too, so they’d get less in Social Security payments.

        Philip Morris did a study on this the Czech Republic, that created a huge firestorm, although not because anybody disagreed with the _analysis_, but rather that they thought that making the point was somehow icky.

        http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Philip-Morris-Czech-Study.htm

      • Tombo says:

        “In 2008, $16.5 billion in tax revenue from tobacco was collected. However, the annual health care expenditures from smoking are $96 billion.”

        The problem with this analogy is you are assuming if people don’t smoke, they will incur no health care costs in their lifetime. We both know that isn’t true. In fact, smokers tend to die faster (read less expensively) than people who die from non-smoking related disease (read everything else).

        Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

      not always the tax revenue. sometimes it’s more direct. i live in a tobacco growing state. the farmers, the factory workers, the truck drivers who transport the tobacco: they all vote.

      • Hoss says:

        But can you smoke at work or at a restaurant in your state? If not, someone’s voting the other way

        • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

          smoking at restaurants was only banned last year and it was a close vote. you can smoke outdoors at your work place unless your employer makes a specific employee policy against it.

  6. Alvis says:

    Warning: this is going to make you look cool as hell*
    *-effect may not last past high school

  7. ovalseven says:

    Wanna help me to quit? Stop making the quitting aids (patch, gum, lozenges, etc) more expensive than the cigarettes themselves.

    Yes, I know that I’d save money in the long run, but right now I can’t afford to. I buy the cigarettes because they’re cheaper.

    • EtherealFlame says:

      EXACTLY!

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      This.

      Also, a radio host I used to listen to was addicted to the lozenges. He hadn’t smoked in two years but he couldn’t give up the “cure”, which, he frequently pointed out, were really expensive.

    • MercuryPDX says:

      Don’t worry. Pretty soon your state will apply enough “sin tax” on cigarettes that this will be a reality.

    • Blueskylaw says:

      They know they have you over a barrel, that’s why they charge such high prices.
      Would you say no to a drug that was going to save your life, no matter the price?

    • Ben says:

      That’s a pretty lame excuse.

      • ovalseven says:

        Got a better idea?

        I’m just saying I think the FDA would do better if they spent that money helping people to quit, rather than convincing them that they should.

    • nitelion says:

      Or, make the freaking insurance companies (who really only want to “help” us) pay for drugs like Chantix just like they would pay for Viagra. Really. The ungodly amount of taxes on cigarettes should at least mandate that small concession from the insurance companies. If they aren’t going to help me quit, then screw ‘em. I’ll get my taxes back in medical bills later. Seems to be what they want.

  8. You Can Call Me Al(isa) says:

    When I was traveling in Australia and New Zealand for 7 months, I was smoking about a pack a day, (something I didn’t do before or since being there). There were graphic photos of lungs and fetuses, etc on the packs and it didn’t deter me at all. I highly doubt that adding photos to the packs will deter smokers from smoking.

    • Bibliovore says:

      I think it’s less to deter current smokers from smoking — after all, current smokers are almost all already addicted, at which point pictures can do very little — than deterring new smokers, particularly kids, from starting to smoke.

  9. Arcaeris says:

    How about instead they use some money to make nicotine gum or electronic cigarettes cheaper? Or other quit-smoking aids?

    • Tombo says:

      Ya that’s what’s so aggravating. The government won a record lawsuit against the tobacco companies and what do they do with the money? Buy Truth commercials. Do they subsidize nicorette? No, they subsidize tobacco. It’s all a big money grab and it’s done with the use of well made propaganda.

  10. pecan 3.14159265 says:

    Appealing to logic most likely doesn’t work. People know smoking can cause cancer. People know that they’re ingesting toxins – it’s called an addiction for a reason. Maybe appealing to people’s fickle, vain side is a better tactic.

    • Ben says:

      They know partly because of warnings. Just because people TODAY know doesn’t mean children are born with an innate knowledge of the dangers of smoking. These warnings are important.

      • Gramin says:

        Agreed.

      • Kryndar says:

        Okay, how much of the common culture do you think would have to be changed in order to make these warnings the first that kids hear about cigarettes being bad. If adults currently know that cigarettes are bad for you and these warnings were not there before how did we become aware of it? Won’t children therefor learn about the ill effects of cigarettes by the time they become adults, i.e. the time where they are actually able to buy cigarettes?

    • Excuse My Ambition Deficit Disorder says:

      Smoking doesn’t cause cancer….it contributes to the development of cancer!

  11. sonnetfm says:

    Hasn’t this been talked about for a long time now? When I was a smoker I remember reading about this and laughing. There was no picture in hell that could’ve kept me from buying my damn Camels.

  12. EtherealFlame says:

    You know, I don’t smoke and I don’t like being around those who do WHEN they are actually smoking but this is just getting ridiculous. If people haven’t gotten the message by now that smoking isn’t the healthiest choice, so be it. Are they going to propose putting photos of dying AIDS patients on condom boxes next?

    • psm321 says:

      Wouldn’t that be more like putting the graphic cancer pictures on quit smoking aids?

      • EtherealFlame says:

        No, not exactly. It would/should work the opposite. Use these or this will happen to you sort of scare tactic.

        • Gramin says:

          Logic fail. Both examples require me to look at the product before purchase. With the cigarettes, the goal is to stop the purchase. With your condom example, if I’m going to have unprotected sex, I’m not looking at a pack of condoms.

          To get the same effect, everyone would need a tattoo on their v/p with the warning that unprotected sex can lead to STI/STDs.

    • redskull says:

      Um… condoms don’t cause AIDS last time I checked, so graphic photos on condom boxes wouldn’t make any sense.

      • Gramin says:

        Haha… love it. I was trying to think of a good response to his ignorant comment and you nailed it. My sincere thanks to you good sir.

      • EtherealFlame says:

        Um, if you think about it, it actually does. It’s a scare tactic just like this. The only difference is one word.
        Condoms: Use these OR you’ll get AIDS (or any other choice STD)
        Cigarettes: Use these AND you’ll get caner. (or emphysema or other smoking related illnesses)

  13. SimplyStating says:

    This has been being done in Canada. When I lived there they had pictures of the heart of a smoker and the lungs. It never made me quit. I just bought a different pack to put them in.. But yeah it is hard to look at. We as smokers know it is bad for us. But at the same time it is up to US to quit.

  14. ConsumerPop says:

    I am not a smoker, and I think this is disgusting.

  15. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Just demand they rebrand them as cancer sticks.

  16. rubicthecube says:

    For some odd reason, I want a cigarette now.

    • Quixiotic... Yea it's a typo (╯°□°)╯彡┻━┻ says:

      “Ok son, I’ll buy you a pack, whats your brand?”

      “ANYTHING SLIM!”

  17. pop top says:

    At this point, everyone knows cigarettes are bad for them. It’s a lifestyle choice and frankly, as long as smoking is banned in public places like bars and restaurants, I don’t give a damn if people smoke. Some people complain about higher insurance costs; why not have the insurance companies mandate that smokers are required get a supplemental form of health insurance and then not have the non-smokers pay extra for them?

  18. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    YES! Now there are trading cards! Smoke-e-mons! Gotta smoke em all. Emphysemar, I choose you!

  19. bsh0544 says:

    Seems like wasted effort. Most everywhere I see cigarettes for sale these days they’re not on display but behind the counter or locked in a cabinet, in either case not on display. Once you’ve already asked for them you’re not likely to read the warning label and change your mind, and when you’ve got them at home or in the car or wherever, why would horrifying pictures stop you?

  20. maruawe says:

    Smoking may be bad ,But this is government stupid to the Nth degree. packaging probably will not make a dent in the smoking public reception of cigarettes. I seldom look at the package except for the name and type(100′s) ect. peer pressure does not make a difference, Critics don’t have the faintest idea how to avoid starting or quitting for that matter. K2 is an example of legislative advertising for something that is not good for you. After the first week of telling people not to smoke K2 –sales went UP 42.5 percent. The more this is on the air or in the papers or on the internet you will have an increase in traffic to that product……

  21. Pooterfish says:

    Why stop there?

    How about graphic photos of liposuction procedures on potato chip bags? Rotted teeth on candy packages? Amputated toes due to diabetes in donut shops?

  22. PLATTWORX says:

    As someone who’s parents smoked and who’s mother is now has lung cancer in her mid-60′s i can’t agree enough with this.

    I am stunned at the number of people in their 20′s I know who smoke. What on Earth is going on?? I wish stop smoking patches, meds and classes were free to anyone who wanted to quit.

    Yes, my mother had a choice and I wish she stopped decades ago (she stopped a year before being diagnosed) but it’s a drug addiction and should be treated as such.

    • evnmorlo says:

      By mid-sixties everyone suffers heavily under the side-effects of eating and moving for so many decades. Life: end the addiction.

  23. Mira Mi Huevo!!! says:

    I don’t smoke or drink, but this is the most hipocritical/idiotic thing I have seen in a good long while…

    Why are these FDA Dildos putting so much pressure and resources in screwing the tobacco industry and smokers by proxy???

    I would be able to smoke a whole pack of cigarrettes (which btw cost more or around the same as a six pack of beer) and drive home safely and without causing any accidents the only damage (whether long or short term damage occurs) is to me and other consenting adults around me if they chose to stay near me.

    Now if I were to buy and drink a six pack and get somewhat buzzed or drunk and possibly maim and/or kill (with my car/truck/motorcycle) everyone that happens to be on the streets that particular night (without their consent or even acknowledgement of my degree of drunkenness).

    I think we are blaming the wrong vice here…

    • Gramin says:

      $96 billion annually. That’s how much the United States spends annually in health care expenditures caused by smoking. And that comes out of my pocket, too. I have higher premiums because of you. So, if you don’t mind, can you send me a check for $616? That’s the average cost per household.

      • pop top says:

        You know, the people who disagree with you on this issue aren’t necessarily smokers. Stop stereotyping everyone. The person you’re replying to specifically said they don’t smoke. Are you not reading what you’re replying to or are you so rabidly anti-smoking that your brain automatically counts everyone not on the same side as you as an enemy?

      • Southern says:

        And people that live in hurricane areas (florida, Louisiana, Texas, etc), Tornado areas, Earthquake prone areas, etc. all cause MY insurance premiums to skyrocket (Hurricane IKE sure did!). Would you mind moving to Illinois so my home insurance premium will go down?

        Thanks.

      • NeverLetMeDown says:

        Gramin. Sure, you can get that $616 back, but you’d have to pay more than that extra in Social Security taxes.

      • Tombo says:

        You most certainly do not have higher premiums. Smokers have higher premiums. Also at $50+ a carton, smokers are paying YOUR taxes.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      What vice REALLY causes lung cancer and second-hand smoke?

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      You think smoking causes no damage to the people around you? That’s almost adorably naive.

  24. mannyvel says:

    What’s obvious is that the “health authorities” have no idea why people smoke. Here’s a protip: people smoke because they enjoy it.

    If the government wants people to stop smoking, they can just ban it or jack the price up so high that it’s unaffordable. This kind of BS is just a waste of money.

    • PLATTWORX says:

      No people smoke because they are drug addicts. Many did become so by being told lies by tobacco companies, but the end result is the same.

      Sadly, it is not PC to just table smokers as drug addicts which would scare many of them… but it is true and treatment should be cheap or free.

      • pop top says:

        People don’t start smoking because they’re drug addicts though. They have to choose to start smoking before they become addicted.

        • Mercutio_Jones says:

          and if you do a little research, you’ll find that they generally start smoking as teenagers….you know, when we all made our best choices.

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        “No people smoke because they are drug addicts.”

        Speak for yourself. I enjoy a cigar about once every 2 or 3 months because I enjoy it, not because I’m addicted. It’s way too expensive of a hobby to do so more frequently.

      • Clobberella says:

        It’s not as though you smoke one cigarette and suddenly become addicted. It’s not crack. It takes quite a while. You wouldn’t keep smoking before the addiction set in if you didn’t enjoy it. And I don’t know what you mean by “it’s not PC” to label smokers as drug addicts (which we are, which we know we are, and which doesn’t particularly “scare” most of us). There is nothing that is off limits or culturally unacceptable when it comes to labeling and trying to shame smokers. You can call a smoker a disgusting drain on humanity and people will cheer for you, but say the same of an extremely fat person and you’re a bigot. If you’re an alcoholic or a heroin addict, you can claim you have a “disease”, thus absolving yourself of all blame for your own condition, and people will totally buy into that, but they wouldn’t ever believe the same of a smoker, even though the addiction is just as bad or worse.

  25. rmorin says:

    What is the goal of this initiative? If it is to completely end smoking then why not just ban cigarettes? If it is to educate, I’m pretty sure anyone 18+ knows that smoking is not good for you and some shock pictures will not cause anyone to learn anything more. If the government is going to such lengths to get you to not smoke (which graphic images would lend one to believe) why not just try to ban it? I do not at all agree with banning them, but attempting to make them so aesthetically vile looks like a clear attempt to end smoking outright.

    Bonus: I can totally see kiosks in the mall starting to sell cigarette holders/covers so that people can cover up the images, thus again making the outward appearance “cool” again, foiling their plan.

    • Tombo says:

      If the government really wanted to end smoking, they would ban cigarettes to anyone born after a given date (say today). They don’t. They get too much taxes from it. They use it as a scapegoat for grossly mismanaged healthcare laws. They use it as a distraction from other things they do (like miserably failing war on drugs – but hey, we just did a Truth commercial!).

  26. gemiwing says:

    This is not news to smokers. Want people to make people quit smoking? Tough, you can’t.

    You can ban them, brand them and even arrest people who smoke. We can build smoker prisons, shoot smokers in the foot on sight and STILL people will smoke. It’s an addiction to chemicals. Even if we make cigarettes illegal, a black market will form and people will still smoke.

    So make smoking cessation products cheaper and then walk the hell away. If smokers want to smoke- then they will smoke. Addicts think like addicts- they’ll get their fix until they are ready to quit. No one else can make them do so.

    • FrugalFreak says:

      +1 comment so true. I enjoy it, don’t smoke around people so the only person I’m hurting is me. I should choose what I partake and how I may die.

  27. Cantras says:

    So my grandfather genuinely didn’t know smoking was bad for him until I was in DARE or whatever and pestering him about it, by which time he’d been smoking since approximately the Stone Age and had never tried to quit. He’s tried to quit a couple times since then, no success yet.

    So I know we all say the labels are on there already and people already know, but… some people less so much. Do you think the person who didn’t see the “15 items or less” sign or the guy banging on the door when we’re closed or pushing the “pull” door or ignoring the “no right turn on red” sign is inspecting the pack in his shirt pocket for warning labels?

    I know people can still ignore the warnings. I know we’re better about telling kids this these days than they were back then. And I agree that we should be subsidizing the shit out of “smoking-cessation aids.” But I don’t think it’s a *bad* thing to make the warnings bigger and scarier.

  28. RxDude says:

    “Holy shit! These things are bad for ya? I thought they were good for ya. I thought they had vitamin C and stuff!”

  29. myktag says:

    The last 3 ads aren’t really warnings are they?

  30. dr_drift says:

    “You mean you understand the risks and do something anyway? Wait, I have more things I want to show you! Here, look at these! They’re SUPER GRAPHIC! Here, this one is a DEAD FETUS, that means a baby! Here–NO! Look at it! I have so many more things, too! Your mind isn’t really made up until you watch this seventy-two hour hospital surveillance footage of a guy in his final stages of lung cancer dying. And if you want these cigarettes, you’ll have to attend the funeral of a guy who died of cancer, too. And then you have to get in the coffin with him for 45 minutes. We’ll close the lid and bury you. THEN you’ll think twice about lighting up! Wow, am I ever better than you.”

  31. chaesar says:

    Warning: Cigarettes caused 9/11

    boom, no more smoking

    • dr_drift says:

      But then did Jews cause cigarettes? Sorry, I’m having a hard time reconciling your creepy insane beliefs with my creepy insane beliefs.

  32. zifnab0 says:

    Why does Consumerist hate children? Don’t you know that the expanded S-CHIP program (providing free health care to children of poor families) is funded through cigarette taxes?

    Maybe if Consumerist didn’t hate children so much, they would push for more people to smoke – so more kids can get life-saving treatments.

    Jerks.

    • DerangedKitsune says:

      Conversely, if you look at the demographics who use that kind of program and match them to smokers, you’ll find a high correlation.

      What Consumerist is then in effect trying to say is “Stop smoking and use the money saved to feed your damned kids instead of having the goverment do it for you!”

  33. dulcinea47 says:

    Of all the people you know who have quit smoking or who want to quit smoking, of all the reasons they would give you of why they should quit, would any of them be “because the cigarette pack told me to”? No. This is stupid.

  34. TacomaRogue says:

    Really?! I’m pretty sure this isn’t needed at all. Smokers know the risks they are taking and non-smokers smugly remind them almost daily.

    @Ben: the other day my 6 year old nephew told me I shouldn’t smoke because smoking “makes people sick and gross.” I’m pretty sure kids get that it’s not a good thing to do, the warnings aren’t needed at all.

  35. seamer says:

    Get a cancer-ridden lung from a chain smoker, squeeze out the tar into a glass and give it to a 10 yr old. Tell them if they smoke, they will be coughing up and drinking that crud every day for the rest of their lives. :)

  36. The cake is a lie! says:

    As if seven bucks a pack wasn’t reason enough… Smoking isn’t just bad for your health, it is also financially irresponsible. I can’t believe electronic cigarettes aren’t bigger in the states. Much cheaper than cigarettes and much less dangerous. And you can use them indoors instead of freezing your ass off outside like the smokers in my office are doing right now. Blu cigarrettes for the win!

  37. The cake is a lie! says:

    As if seven bucks a pack wasn’t reason enough… Smoking isn’t just bad for your health, it is also financially irresponsible. I can’t believe electronic cigarettes aren’t bigger in the states. Much cheaper than cigarettes and much less dangerous. And you can use them indoors instead of freezing your ass off outside like the smokers in my office are doing right now. Blu cigarrettes for the win!

    • brianisthegreatest says:

      Hmm are you some kind of reseller perhaps? I ask that jokingly, but I was outside on a smoke break when someone approached me and started asking me if I liked electronic cigarettes. He showed me his tobacco, and he showed me the “e-cigarette” he called it, as if he just downloaded it from his digital cigarette inbox. Then he gave me a card with someone website with a url ending in his name. It was… interesting.

  38. SecretShopper: pours out a lil' liquor for the homies Wasp & Otter says:

    yes cigs are bad, but won’t someone think of the post coital interludes?!?

  39. Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

    Taxing the living hell out of them hasn’t worked. When you’re addicted (me too, BTW) you don’t care about the costs, financial or otherwise. They could glue a piece of bloody lung to the front – as long as there’s cigarettes inside, I’ll buy them.

  40. wonderkitty now has two dogs says:

    Eh, there are huge written warning on packs in Europe. I don’t think this deters anyone.
    Neither does the “sin tax” here in NY state. It’s over $4, making a pack of cigs ten bucks. I think it only hurts people already strapped for cash, instead of encouraging them to quit.

  41. Groanan says:

    The FDA should ban the commercial sell of cigarettes.
    They are not a food.
    They deliver a drug.
    Their delivery system includes toxins that are unnecessarily dangerous for human consumption.

    Assuming that there is a benefit to nicotine, and there very well might be, there safer ways to get the drug, and if the FDA banned cigarettes, those who need their fix will be able to get the alternatives cheaper because of the spike in demand.

    The whole point of the FDA is to protect the American public from bad food and drug companies that poison us for profit, now that there is a way to get nicotine without the smoke, tar, and other harmful substances, there needs to be a re-evaluation of the legality of selling old fashion cigarettes to people.

    If the FDA is not going to ban the delivery system of this drug, there is no point in changing the labeling from a written notice to a picture; everyone already gets the message – “the government approves the sale of these goods so they must not be that bad”.

  42. IT-Princess: I work in IT, you owe me $1 says:

    Oh please.
    How about stop spending money on this crap and do something productive, like, I don’t know, make cessation products affordable for people who want to quit.
    Oh wait, the government makes too much money off cigarette sales so that won’t happen.
    Insurance companies cover rehab if you’re addicted to crack, but no help for the everyday guy who wants to try quit smoking.

  43. brianisthegreatest says:

    I guess this is a good warning to show new smokers what the effects can be. I’m sure that a lot of smokers already know the issues that smoking can cause. Soon non smokers will have the world they wish, with bubbles floating around in the air and sunshine and happiness, because no other issues in the world exist outside the realm of tobacco it would seem. (California anti-smoking ad seen in many movies)

    Seeing the response to these posts on Consumerist from non smokers who hate smoking, I’d really like to know how many other vices they escape, or they’re perfect, which is completely understandable. I’m wondering how throwing away this pack of cigarettes will wash me clean of my sins and make the world so much better.

  44. Hollasa says:

    These are the Canadian package graphics:
    http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/legislation/label-etiquette/graph/index-eng.php

    So who picks up the bill for this – smokers and tobacco companies?

  45. Sword_Chucks says:

    I’ll take brand.
    which brand?
    oh, god, uhh give me oxygen mask, no, zombified cancer dude

  46. thedarkerside.to says:

    Can we get similar warning stickers on cars?

    “Every time you turn the engine on you blast carcinogens into the air that kill our children.”

  47. Bella_dilo17 says:

    Just do it like how they do it in the Netherlands; very blunt, yet large, images.

    “SMOKING CAN CAUSE LUNG CANCER.” and other various warnings on the display. Honestly, people don’t care. I know this, so I don’t smoke.

  48. Bella_dilo17 says:

    Or… put those on commercials or billboards. Not on cigarettes themselves.

  49. Brunette Bookworm says:

    I feel the need to quore Denis Leary here so hopefully no one is bothered by the language.

    “There’s a guy- I don’t know if you’ve heard about this guy, he’s been on the news a lot lately. There’s a guy- he’s English, I don’t think we should hold that against him, but apparently this is just his life’s dream because he is going from country to country. He has a senate hearing in this country coming up in a couple of weeks. And this is what he wants to do. He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger. Yeah! He wants the whole front of the pack to be the warning. Like the problem is we just haven’t noticed yet. Right? Like he’s going to get his way and all of the sudden smokers around the world are going to be going, “Yeah, Bill, I’ve got some cigarettes.. HOLY SHIT! These things are bad for you! Shit, I thought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff!” You fucking dolt! Doesn’t matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarrets that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block going, “I can’t wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm” Doesn’t matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we’ll break into your houses to get the fucking cigarettes, ok!? They’re a drug, we’re addicted, ok!? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm *wheeze*”

    Smokers know that cigarettes are bad for them. Warnings don’t change it. People will do what they want to do.

    • webweazel says:

      Thank you! This Denis Leary shtick was the very first thing I thought of reading the article. And how true it is!

  50. Nonbuyer says:

    This won’t work. Actually reading about this sort of thing in a book called Buyology, and the author noted that graphic pictures like this on cigarette packages actually ENCOURAGED smokers to smoke more, out of a guilt complex. It’s kind of like if you’re on a diet, have banned chocolate from it, and sneak a piece of chocolate cake– the guilt from doing something you know is wrong makes it that much more satisfying, so to speak.

  51. DragonThermo says:

    You’re kidding me, right? That is just a mock-up site created by the Cracked.com people for one of their user-submitted photoshop comedy pieces, right? That surely can’t be intended to be serious by serious people, seriously.

    How about if Congress just cut off tobacco farmers from their taxpayer-funded subsidies? That will remove profit from growing tobacco, causing tobacco prices to increase, causing cigarette prices to increase, resulting in higher tax revenue. Unless the higher cigarette prices causes people to stop smoking, in which case tax revenue will hold steady or fall. Problem solved.

  52. DerangedKitsune says:

    I mean, honestly, have these things been shown to have any effect?

    Smokers KNOW how those things can screw them up. There have been PSAs for decades. At this point, really, anything that happens is their own damned fault.

  53. Ahardy55 says:

    I think this it does a pretty sold job of making it look a hell of a lot less cool. Face it, leaning against the wall and pulling out a box with a giant picture of a cancer victim on it makes you seem far less cool, doesn’t it?

  54. Dont lump me into your 99%! says:

    Instead of spending money on designing these packages and whatever else they are going to spend money on, they should put it towards researching ways to make it easier to quit. I have tried for 10 years to no success, and even with having COPD at age 28, I still cannot quit. And the one thing that has helped me quit for 3 months (E-cigarettes), the FDA is doing everything they can to shut down, so I say fuck the FDA and their government hippy loving asses.

  55. Hoss says:

    “Tobacco smoke can harm your children”

    Good reason for them to move out before age 40

  56. Rachacha says:

    Many people have commented that the warnings are targeted at teens because mature adults know the dangers and either choose to ignore them or can’t quit. The problem is that these ads feature 50 somethings or older in most cases, therefore young kids will continue to think that they won’t be harmed by cigarettes. As I approach “middle age” I think back to when my parents turned 40, and how old I thought they were (I was 17-18). Now that I am nearing 40, I don’t think it is that old, and I realize how out of touch I was with the real world. If the goal really is to reach out to teens this ad won’t work. They need to change the imagery to show younger people who have had negative impacts because of smoking. What I think would be better would be a phone number or text number or website that smokers can go to to learn how to quit and what support is available to them

  57. KrispyKrink says:

    Apparently these morons at the FDA like to ignore the factual obvious. In countries where they have graphic warnings like these, the smoking population INCREASED, especially among new younger smokers.

    So, with that fact in mind it is obvious this move is about money, someone is getting paid to support and implement this. And, it’s being done to INCREASE the smoking population.

  58. Krislee98 says:

    Canada has been doing this for years. I’m a former smoker and I still have a pack of Ultra Lights with a picture of a biopsied lung in a closet somewhere.

    If nothing else, they may turn into collectors items.

    “Hey! I’ll trade you a crying second hand smoke victim for a cancer patient?”

    Too soon?

  59. eetonaee says:
  60. EmanNeercs says:

    WOO this is awesome! I always get bored while smoking and now I’ll have something to stare at!

    …But in all seriousness this is retarded, and a complete waste of money and time. I’m not saying it isn’t good to keep everyone informed about the dangers of smoking, but what was wrong with the old warning? Making it bigger and more flashy isn’t going to do anything. Like many other comments stated, if that’s the mindset, then why not put equally disturbing pictures on ALL potentially hurtful products? Total. Waste. Of. Money.

    Also, a question for anyone who knows: Is it REALLY the tobacco that might cause cancer, or all the other nasty little chemicals they mix in there with it? Because, if it isn’t the tobacco, and rather all the other junk, why not just take all that other stuff out? Sure, the shelf life might be shorter, but then I think a price increase would actually be justified instead of them just increases [death] tax on it…

  61. RioPuerco says:

    Kids see pictures of venereal diseases and still have the sex. As an ex-smoker I knew the risks of smoking and still chose to smoke. You want to know why? I enjoy(ed) it. Smoking was a social, stress relieving, and enjoyable activity for me. You could put a picture of gnomes humping my grandma on my menthols and I still would have smoked the shit out of them. I stopped smoking for my kids, but not because someone scared me with bigger warnings or obnoxious teenagers; it was my time and I knew it.

    I don’t appreciate people telling me what to eat, if I should smoke after, or what day of the week and what time I should be able to buy a beer. I am an almost 30 year old woman that makes very responsible decisions, but I firmly believe it is my fucking right to make some bad ones if I want to.

  62. bubbs says:

    I do not see the reason everyone wants to push there views on people that smoke. I smoke but do not drink and think that drinking is bad but do not push my views on people that do drink.

    Coming from a family with a alcoholics grandmother, mom , dad and brother my view drinking is much worse than smoking. For those that complain about the costs of tobacco look at the costs of alcohol as a whole. From drinking and driving, fights, liver kidney failure, stds, broken homes, accidents and police responding to calls involving alcohol .

    If you do not smoke, drink, eat fatty foods, vote for someone that dose or do any of the other hundreds of things thats bad or dangerous for you and still want to complain I say good for you. For the rest that want to control someones else’s freedom of choice look out.

    Before i do get flamed i do agree that smoking is bad for your health but so are lots of other things should we put labels big labels on everything? Salt? Sodas? Candy? Fast food? Cars? Where dose the madness end.

  63. paul says:

    They already do this in Singapore, with much more graphic photos than the examples above:
    http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/Singapore-warnings.htm

  64. Chaluapman says:

    They already do this in Singapore.

  65. lostalaska says:

    I’m waiting for all junk food/fast food to start having pictures of horribly obese naked people on them, or pictures of a heart cut open with the “fat” plaque dripping out of it’s arteries. Just saying obesity is going to overtake tobacco soon for annual deaths and when it does I figure the anti-tobacco nannies will choose that as their next moral crusade. Probably won’t happen as quickly since the majority >50% of the US is overweight so it’s not as easy to get the bills passed when it affects the majority of the US and those crafting the laws.

    Waiter to customer: I’m sorry, I can’t serve you that hot chocolate sunday as you are obese and I could be held criminally liable for aiding you in your decision to slowly kill yourself. Anyways haven’t you read the reports about obesity? Your killing yourself and your children by living this way!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States

  66. Cicadymn says:

    Why not just make the entire box warnings with a small brand seal in the corner.

    Hey! While we’re at it, let’s make the paper that the cigarettes use warnings as well!

    You know for a little extra we could probably invent cigarettes that send out smoke signals while burning that cigarettes are bad for you!

    YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

  67. Timbojones says:

    As a smoker I am for this, though the FDA’s proposed pictures are a little tame are cartoony.

    Thailand puts extremely graphic pictures on their cigarette packages and it’s awesome. When I was there for a few weeks I collected the whole set! Too bad the cigarettes all tasted like dust.

  68. zombie70433 says:

    They’re going to warn us that cigarettes can cause cancer? What next? Gasoline can cause explosions?

  69. H3ion says:

    I smoke and I know the dangers, full stop. Now if the government really believes that smoking is hazardous to my health and that of others, they can grab the bull by the horns and make tobacco products illegal, the same as marijuana, cocaine and a bunch of other drugs. If the government doesn’t think that tobacco is all that hazardous, then the government ought to shut the hell up. And if the government really believes smoking is hazardous, but doesn’t want to give up the tax revenues from tobacco, then they are doing their best to fulfill my expectations of a crowd of pigs slurping at the trough.

  70. valen says:

    I think I saw this idea in the movie Thank You For Smoking:

    Senator Lothridge: Mr. Naylor is not hear to testify on the goings on of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. We’re hear to examine the possibility of a warning label on cigarettes. Now, Mr. Naylor, I have to ask you out of formality, do you believe that smoking cigarettes, over time, can lead to lung cancer and lead to other respiratory conditions such as emphysema.

    Nick Naylor: Yes. In fact, I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who really believes that cigarettes are not potentially harmful. I mean – show of hands – Who out here thinks that cigarettes aren’t dangerous?

    Senator Dupree: Mr. Naylor, there’s no need for theatrics.

    Nick Naylor: I’m sorry. I just don’t see the point in a warning label for something people already know.

    Senator Dupree: The warning symbol is a reminder, a reminder of the dangers of smoking cigarettes.

    Nick Naylor: Well, if we want to remind people of danger why don’t we slap a skull and crossbones on all Boeing airplanes, Senator Lothridge. And all Fords, Senator Dupree.

    Senator Ortolan Finistirre: That is ridiculous. The death toll from airline and automobile accidents doesn’t even skim the surface cigarettes. They don’t even compare.

    Nick Naylor: Oh, this from a Senator who calls Vermont home.

    Senator Ortolan Finistirre: I don’t follow you, Mr. Naylor.

    Nick Naylor: Well, the real demonstrated #1 killer in America is cholesterol. And here comes Senator Finistirre whose fine state is, I regret to say, clogging the nation’s arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese. If we want to talk numbers, how about the millions of people dying of heart attacks? Perhaps Vermont Cheddar should come with a skull and crossbones.

    Senator Ortolan Finistirre: That is lu – . The great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!

    Senator Lothridge: Mr. Naylor, we are here to discuss cigarettes – not planes, not cars – cigarettes. Now as we discussed earlier these warning labels are not for those who know but rather for those who don’t know. What about the children?

    Nick Naylor: Gentlemen, it’s called education. It doesn’t come off the side of a cigarette carton. it comes from our teachers, and more importantly our parents. It is the job of every parent to warn their children of all the dangers of the world, including cigarettes, so that one day when they get older they can choose for themselves. I look at my son who was kind enough to come with me today, and I can’t help but think that I am responsible for his growth and his development. And I’m proud of that.

    Senator Ortolan Finistirre: Well, having said that, would you condone him smoking?
    Nick Naylor: Well, of course not. He’s not 18. That would be illegal.

    Senator Ortolan Finistirre: Yes, I’ve heard you deliver that line on 20/20, but enough dancing. What are you going to do when he turns 18? C’mon, Mr. Naylor. On his 18th birthday will you share a cigarette with him? Will you spend a lovely afternoon – like one of your ludicrous cigarette advertisements? You seem to have to have a lot to say about how we should raise our children. What of your own? What are you going to do when he turns 18?

    Nick Naylor: If he really wants a cigarette. I’ll buy him his first pack.

  71. toastydoc says:

    This sounds awesome! I want to START smoking just so I can collect the pack backs!
    “Hey, Do you have Old Man with Iron Lung?”
    “No, But I have Child playing with blocks and coughing”
    “SWEET! I’ll Trade you Mother driving and smoking with windows up!

    Coming soon, Graphic warnings in Limited Edition Holofoil Variants!

  72. tacitus59 says:

    Well … the campaigns against teen smoking clearly aren’t working. The is from observation … but this is not going to help. As others have said I could easily see collecting the packages. If you you want to stop teen smoking – you need to start teen caning …. seriously. Most older folks who smoke that I know have at least tried to stop.

  73. Kensuke Nakamura says:

    I’m pissed that after decades of slow progress on reducing smoking, that now there are Hookah bars popping up and people look at that as a hip cultural experience. It’s still smoking and it’s still gross.

  74. Bladerunner says:

    To quote Denis Leary:

    “There’s a guy- I don’t know if you’ve heard about this guy, he’s been on the news a lot lately. There’s a guy- he’s English, I don’t think we should hold that against him, but apparently this is just his life’s dream because he is going from country to country. He has a senate hearing in this country coming up in a couple of weeks.

    And this is what he wants to do. He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger. Yeah! He wants the whole front of the pack to be the warning. Like the problem is we just haven’t noticed yet. Right? Like he’s going to get his way and all of the sudden smokers around the world are going to be going, “Yeah, Bill, I’ve got some cigarettes.. HOLY SHIT! These things are bad for you! Shit, I thought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff!”

    You fucking dolt! Doesn’t matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called warnings. You could have cigarettes that came in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called “Tumors!” and smokers would be lined up around the block going, “I can’t wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm” Doesn’t matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we’ll break into your houses to get the fucking cigarettes, ok!? They’re a drug, we’re addicted, ok!? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm *wheeze*”

    And I’m sick and tired of SOME health risks being demonized, while others get off scott-free. I don’t smoke anymore, but geeze, people act like it’s the worst thing ever. Any non-nutritive drug has the same “not good for anything but killing” logic to it, like booze, a lot of medicines. And even the ‘nutritive’ ones are stretching it… don’t judge my smoking (or, for the last 7 years, lack thereof), and I won’t judge your weight and snickers eating, or your diet soda drinking (gives rats cancer! just drink water!) or your HCFS drinking or your trans fats or your excessive sun exposure.

    • Bladerunner says:

      …annnnnnnnnnnnd I just saw that I apparently missed that someone had already quoted the Denis Leary bit. Sorry for the repost!

  75. Fafaflunkie Plays His World's Smallest Violin For You says:

    Welcome to 2000, FDA! Canada’s been forcing graphic warnings on our cigarette packs since then. I’m sure there have been many previous posters (haven’t gone through the 205 comments posted here before this one), but I’m glad you’re coming on board with warnings smokers will handily ignore and the tobacco lobby will vehemiously oppose and buy a few Republican senators’ votes to keep those warnings off. Thanks for playing!