It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. unveils grim new warning images for cigarette packs

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:59 AM
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused

20-odd years ago, when my then-employer was considering bringing in a smoking ban in the workplace, the smokers in my section brought up exactly the same argument about cars.

Then the workplace ban came in, and it swept Australia, and now there are few locations left for smokers - and the price of cigarettes has skyrocketed and the government controls the appearance of the packaging.

Not the most effective argument, really, the one about cars.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by Ayjay

AyJay - Yes - if you read my original post - I was making fun of the picture of the person with a hole in their throat caused by cancer and the implication that smoking was the CAUSE of the throat cancer. I was making fun of it because BIG PHARMA is trying soooo hard to everyone to pay $400.00 for Guardasil vaccine against HPV if the anti-tobacco crowd are going to continue to claim that smoking is the cause of oral-pharangeal cancers. I wasn't cherry picking anything - I was very specific.

But if you would like me not to be a cherry picker - that is not a problem....

Ayjay - in your anti-smoking mind, how do you explain the fact that incidence of lung cancer has continued to rise 36 years after the incidence of smoking in the population started to drop? How do you explain that the biggest rise in lung cancer has been in woman who have NEVER smoked?

As for epidimiology - there is a big difference between counting the number of times a diagnosis was reported by a doctor and the use of epidimiology (observational studies based on statistical analysis) to determine the CAUSE of a disease. Epidimiology is only supposed to be used to identify paths of potential research. It is not a diagnostic tool.


posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link mean we're supposed to look at the packaging? What if your blind? Do they have pictures in grail?

Seriously, the ninnie nannies need to give it a rest. Next, they'll be putting pictures of overweight people on quarter pounders, or car accidents on beer bottles, or pictures of people in prison for ripping off the tags on their beds, or etc. etc. etc.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:20 AM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Sure, don't reply to my criticisms of your argument, just skip to something else. Lung cancer now.

Here's a thought - how about you put up a solid, referenced argument for a change?

edit on 22-6-2011 by Ayjay because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:26 AM
This is an opportunity.

Create new business.

Contact sig fabricant, ask if you can make sleeve packaging with the brand logo on it. Sell it in the same shop where the brand is being sold. Sleeve bundle of 10pieces cost like 3dollars.

Bam back in business

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:31 AM
Reply to post by Buford2

They enjoy the population reduction but not the costs. It is not efficient enough for them. They prefer war.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by IntegratedInstigator

You know how people like to collect unusual things,
they might start collecting packs of cigs even with the
grossest of images to show their friends...maybe get some
from other countries as well...if the cig companies do it right
they can make a killing off of using the right images to get
collectors to buy their cigs.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:44 AM
reply to post by Ayjay

Not the most effective argument, really, the one about cars.

The whole anti-smoking thing has never been about health, which is what makes it so ineffective. If the issue really was health, common sense would play a bigger role.

You think they use smog level warnings in big cities because of all the smokers?

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:55 AM
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused

Smoking rates in the US have more than halved since the mid-1960s. I call that effective.

You're right - it's not about health. It's about pleasure. Smokers are attached to the pleasurable feelings they get from smoking, and react to any perceived threat to that pleasure with the usual emotions of a threatened mammal. If they were rational about it, they'd look at the data, recognise the mortal threat, and give up the habit.

They'd also realise that they smell like walking ashtrays.

edit on 22-6-2011 by Ayjay because: ahstrays -> ashtrays

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:56 AM
reply to post by Ayjay

Ayjay - I did specifically reply to your post! My post was quite specific to oral-pharangeal cancers. I was not cherry picking, I was making fun of one picture.

Then I moved on to lung cancer because you accused me of focussing on only 1 cancer.

I have referenced everything I said with a link.

What are your specific criticisms?

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:59 AM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

I've been as clear as I can. If you didn't comprehend, so be it. I don't want to rehash it.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:02 AM

Originally posted by deanGI5
everyone today - smokers included - are aware of the hazards and potential outcomes from smoking, but they keep smoking anyway.

It sort of doesn't help that the people who keep telling them that smoking is bad for them are famous for lying.

Boy who cried wolf...

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Ayjay
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused

Smoking rates in the US have more than halved since the mid-1960s. I call that effective.

You're right - it's not about health. It's about pleasure. Smokers are attached to the pleasurable feelings they get from smoking, and react to any perceived threat to that pleasure with the usual emotions of a threatened mammal. If they were rational about it, they'd look at the data, recognise the mortal threat, and give up the habit.

They'd also realise that they smell like walking ahstrays.

And what an individual adult does with their life is their business. I don't like and have a heavy physical reaction to perfumes and body sprays, even some shampoos and detergents. I get migraines and very nauseous when I smell them, so I avoid them when I can but know I can't always. But that doesn't mean I should impose my personal issues with something on someone else simply because I don't like it.

That is also not an effective argument against smoking.

You can apply pleasure and addiction to anything, even oil. As habitants of this planet, we are addicted to oil and the pleasure of convenience it gives us. If you were rational about it, you'd look at the data, recognize the mortal threat and give up the habit. Replace "oil" with anything, really. Sugar, fat, fast-food, coffee, my beloved Diet Mountain Dew, electronic gadgets, video games, television, whatever. They're all bad. Bad and super addictive. And each one has it's way of affecting the lives of others, unless you're a complete loner and have no family, friends or pets who rely on you and care for you.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by Ayjay

Reply to Ayjay

Yes - smoking has halved since the 1960s. It halved during a time period when public health and the government shared certain information with the public associating smoking with specific diseases. Every individual smoker made a decision to quit for themselves and 50 million of them did it on their own, cold-turkey with no fuss. (Despite the fact the anti-tobacco has now decided that an addiction to smoking is "worse" than an addiction to heroin)

During the same time period - reasonable smoking bans were brought into play. Smoking was banned in public places where people had to go to conduct the ordinary business of their lives. But there was still a great deal of tolerance and compromise on both sides.

Then BIG PHARMA invented "quit-aids" like the patch and gums and needed to sell them. Big PHARMA funded anti-tobacco. This was in the late 1990s.

Suddenly the goal was not to provide accurate information. It was to de-normalize smoking and render smokers into lepers.

All of a sudden - science did not matter anymore. Smoking became the root cause, not only of every disease that is suffered by a smoker but a large proportion of every disease that is suffered by never-smokers. The disinformation became hysterical and out of any proportion of common sense. Smoking bans were now passed for private property where no one needed to go if they didn't want to.

Smokers are being de-humanized. Denied jobs, denied opportunities for housing and taxed beyond any reasonable percentage.

Now the smoking rates are rising again - particularly among the young.

And there is a 400 year history of the exact same thing happening over and over again. Smoking, like most life-style issues are a fad. When it is popular, the puritans (aka Anti-tobacco) stay still and quiet. When it passes out of fashion and the smoking rate falls to a certain level, the puritans pounce and try to eradicate smoking. Of couse, they always over-reach to hysteria and their true motives are always revealed. As the young take up smoking again, the puritans must again keep quite.

This happens about every 70 or 80 years and lasts just about 10 years or so from its peak.

The last cycle occurred in the 1920s, concurrent with alcohol prohibition. A puritan crusader by the name of Lucille Page Gaston made it her lifelong work to eradicate smoking. She founded the anti-cigarette league in 1899. Her campaign went so far as to manage to get the sale of tobacco banned in 17 states in the 1920s. She ultimately tried to run for president. Lucille, ironically, died of throat cancer but she lived long enough to see tobacco prohibition overturned.

Now lets see where anti-tobacco is today:

Because of excessive taxation, there is a thriving black market for tobacco. The black market is unregulated and sells to children as much as to adults. Instead of narrowing the tobacco market with regulation, it is the wild wild west out there and tobacco is more freely available than ever (and at cheaper prices than I seen since the 1970s.

The economy is being affected by smoking bans and private businesses are suffering.

Big Tobacco is thriving with stock prices higher than they have ever been. Even in the economic downturn, tobacco stocks have remained stable.

In every region of the world where anti-tobacco has taken root, for the last 10 years, the decrease in smoking in the population has either stalled or risen. Although its hard to keep track anymore, what with people buying black market tobacco.

Smokers are becoming angry and rebellious to the point of telling Anti-tobacco to "piss off".

Anti-tobacco funding is being choked off at every turn. Anti-tobacco phase is now waning as Big Pharma jumps on the anti-obesity campaign.

And those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.


posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:23 AM
LOL - so now we know everything aabout Ayjay that we need to know. She is not worried about anyones health!

No not all! Like all puritans - Ayjay is having trouble sleeping at night because she is concerned that somebody, somewhere, might be having fun!

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Nice post dude.

That whole thing with the black market really throw a wrench into the statistics.

It is the Laffer curve of tobacco - tax 'em too much and they start actively avoiding the tax and you get negative returns.

Think how much money the gov could have made if tobacco was not taxed so much. There'd be enough money to provide valium for all the anti-smokers and do everything else.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:58 AM
Ive lost 2 parents, and 1 great grandmother to stage 4 lung cancer. MY parents, were my mom, 2001, 54, my dad, 2007, 59. tumors spread via the lymph nodes to brain, other lung. i smoke a pack a day...the reason?> addicition* nicotine addiciton. marlboros are the strongest, next to lucky strikes. Every year, the tobaco industry spends hundreds of millions of $$$ simply on thier nicotine formula, to keep people addicted. Winston ciggs and american spirit ciggs advertise thier brands as ciggs without the junk in them..natural ciggs. so makes one wonder maybe its true..marlboro and others actually use things like ammonia, formalyahyde, licorice, dioxin, hexofluroide, things like that, in thier 'brew'.
Thier was a news report maybe like 6 months ago popularized on all local news channels, about tobacco. all said 4-5,000 ingreidients are added or found or detected by some docotrs. imagine that! all harmful ingrideints* Thier are 2 webistes i had found, with a lsit of at least 500 of the ingreeideints..marlboro uses to keep people toxicly addictced. sick world we live in*
The problem i have understanding is...if the companys want too sell thier product..then why advertise oral cancer, or some guy smoking through his neck? it would kill the business* have a problem understanding what thier getting at* profiting through addidciton so people die, and then advertising what it can do healthwise too you..makes em sound lost confused and somewhat bi polar*

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Buford2
reply to post by IntegratedInstigator

This is one Conspiracy that needs to be studied and debated. Why are the Elite now worried about tobacco when they enjoy the lower population. This makes no sense. They poison our food, water, man made poisons, alcohol on every corner but the tobacco must go.

2012, new society, new rules? /speculation

Indeed it makes little sense.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by IntegratedInstigator these gruesome pictures and negative messages really contribute to a reduction in smoking; Or are they merely an inconvenience that current smokers must overcome?

It's a magicians trick. You see, the mind does actually control the body.

It's a way to make people manifest their own diseases. Big money in sick people.

BTW, watch out for the occult symbols they'll slip in there too...

Now, that is crazy, i hadn't thought of that. Crazy but very potentially true, cant help it we live in a crazy world.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:09 AM
What will they say about electronic cigarettes? I have smoked them for almost two years. I switched to roll your own when fire-safe came about, and then later after the massive 2300% tax increase for loose tobacco, I begin to study the e-cigarette.

During the last two years:

My health has improved greatly. I no longer hack up a lung when i wake up. In fact, I rarely cough at all.
I do not stink anymore, and neither does my house or my closet.
My pocket-book has swelled. I spent around 5$/day on regular cigarettes, now i spend about 1/2 $/day.
I save more money on drinks and small purchases that I would normally make along with my daily cigarette purchase. I have no reason to go to a convenience store anymore.
I purchase the raw ingredients and make my own e-liquid and save 100's of dollars/month.
I get the same satisfaction that I used to get from my regular cigarettes in the morning.
I can smoke anywhere. Even if it is not allowed it is so easy to go into stealth mode, I vape anywhere I want.
I can experiment with 100s of different flavors. At first I just wanted tobacco flavor, but later i began to experiment.
I have stocked up enough e-liquid (cheaply) to operate for at least 2 years!
I plug my e-cig into my solar panel and instead of leaving butts everywhere, I utilize free solar energy.
I don't have an ash tray to dump anymore.
And best of all:
I don't pay any taxes. I haven't paid any tobacco taxes at all. Not a single penny for almost two years, not even sales tax.

I have found my solution at least for now. I encourage others to try these devices out because they are life savers. I won't say it is exactly the same, but with the right device, it is very similar.

edit on 22-6-2011 by GalacticJoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by ziggy1706


I am so sorry for the loss of your parents. And at such a young age.

However, this discussion cannot be lost to emotion. A disease occurred (lung cancer) and the victim was a smoker. Those are facts. But there are 40 known causes of lung cancer - with HPV making it 41.

I can tell you, beyond any doubt, that there is absolutely no way of knowing what caused any particular case of lung cancer but it is unusual for two people in the same household to get it at the same time. You see, lung cancer is actually a rare cancer that affects less than 2 % of the population. And it only rarely strikes when the victim is under the age of 60. And the vast majority of people who get lung cancer before the age of 60 are never-smokers.

For these reason, I suspect that the cause of your parents lung cancer was NOT smoking but something else that both had in common. One obvious suspect is asbestos and another is radon gas. Have you checked the house they lived in. Did it have broken old linoleum tiles or exposed insulation or is the insulation in the attic made of asbestos.

Further - you can buy a cheap radon testing kit at any hardware store. Please for the safety of whoever is now living in that house, I strongly suggest that you check these things.

As for your assertion that the tobacco companies add formaldehyde, metals etc to tobacco. Please be addressed that these contaminants are not added to tobacco by anyone. These contaminants are the byproduct of combustion. These same contaminants are found in the smoke anytime an organic is burned (ie candles, wood, petro-chemical products, bbqs, food cooking).


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in