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

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused

OK. Well, there's a 50/50 chance you'll get to be the ruggedest individualist in the cancer ward.

Of course, the tobacco companies are laughing at you. You make them rich by handing over your hard-earned for a product which hooks you as hard as heroin and degrades your health and appearance - and when people point out that this isn't in your best interests, you fight them off. Philip Morris loves you.

12 years ago, I kicked the tobacco habit that held me as hard as heroin. If you don't have my kind of strength, I completely understand.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks

LOL - so now we know everything aabout Ayjay that we need to know. She is not worried about anyones health!

I'm a bloke, genius.

reply to post by IntegratedInstigator


We have them pics on cig pacs in UK!
If I was forced to put warning pics on cig pacs I’d make them as graphic as possible
so one (2.0 billion people) that is ignorant to the damages of smoking will not look at the grim reality (WARNING) …. Very clever move by the cig companies once again…bravo

reply to post by 111mikesees111


Bravo - you are exactly right! But the tobacco companies didn't do it. Anti-tobacco and the government are forcing tobacco companies to put the pictures on the package by law.

Oh and the picture with the black lung - that is an out and out lie. They took a pig lung and made it black with shoe polish. Smoker's lungs are pink, just like non-smokers and are routinely used for lung transplants.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

reply to post by IntegratedInstigator


Update

Tobacco health labels unconstitutional: U.S. judge
By Jeremy Pelofsky
WASHINGTON | Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:41pm EST
www.reuters.com...

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge sided with tobacco companies on Wednesday, ruling that regulations requiring large graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging and advertising violate free-speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Cigarette makers challenged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's rule requiring companies to label tobacco products with images of rotting teeth, diseased lungs and other images intended to illustrate the dangers of smoking.

"The government has failed to carry both its burden of demonstrating a compelling interest and its burden of demonstrating that the rule is narrowly tailored to achieve a constitutionally permissible form of compelled commercial speech," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said.
www.reuters.com...

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.

Maybe smoking is good for yur health... ?

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.

I heard they put a chemical in it to slow down the burning if not puffed on. Some congress people won't allow those cigs to be sold in their state. Hmm.. I guess they smoke cigs and buy in their home state.

a reply to: Buford2

Tobacco is out, Cannabis is in. If you told someone this 30 years ago, they would call you crazy.

While I am all for legalization, it is odd that tobacco has been demonized while cannabis is being hailed as a cure all medicine.

Maybe they want our brains to be foggy so we don't protest further erosion of our Bill of Rights.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Not true. I have seen the difference of a smokers lung vs a healthy lung in cadavers.

The smokers lung is not only much darker but also much more rigid. A moderate to heavy smoker's lungs(that includes cannabis) are not fit for transplant.

That said, a coal miner's black lung has often been blamed on smoking, as has firefighters whose lungs have been damaged by smoke inhalation so their employer did not have to pay for their damages. Many fire departments have banned tobacco use because of this.

Also, during the era of nuclear bomb testing in the late 1940's through the 1960's, lung cancer cases spiked down wind as a result of the fallout. Tobacco was blamed so they government was not held liable. If someone didn't smoke can got lung cancer, 2nd hand smoking was blamed.

It is also Tabacco companies covering their own backs, People must try to sue them when they get Cancer. So they put a graphic warning on the packet.

a reply to: IntegratedInstigator

I still wait for the day that bottles of booze have graphic images of dead livers and beaten up families , moto vehicle collisions , # like that

it will never happen ever