Scare Tactics and Cigarette Labels

[Brighteye]

Smoking is the biggest public health problem facing the world today, and facing most developed countries.
Smoking kills more than heart disease, malaria or TB.

How might smoking kill? Well, because smoke contains toxic substances. Why might 24 cigarettes in a life not appear to have done any harm? Through not enough exposure.

If, on the other hand, 24 cigarettes are entirely safe, rather than simply toxic in small amounts, it follows that any number of cigarettes is entirely safe, and leaves us at a loss about why smoking kills, since we've decided that all those toxic chemicals are entirely safe.

 

[Mise]

If a tobacco company or lobby group is opposing a change to the presentation of cigarettes, then it would seem a good bet that it's going to reduce sales. Why would they oppose it if it were not effective?

Exactly - they are effective in reducing sales, otherwise tobacco companies wouldn't give a damn one way or the other.

Wait, cigarettes are bad for me? Why have I not been told of this until now?

Well maybe you need to be told again, if you're still asking this question:

I want to see some piece of scientific work that says tobacco is always harmful.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wait, cigarettes are bad for me? Why have I not been told of this until now?

You're sarcastic, but a mere fifteen years ago, the tobacco industry intensely denied the dangers of tobacco addiction and the harms of smoking. Even under oath, they'd aggressively deny it.

They did not willing put warning labels on. They were forced to by regulation and by lawsuits. They did not help with research, testing to see if their products were dangerous, to create a more informed consumer. They obfuscated the issue with every legal and illegal means that they could.

The reason why you can sarcastically point out that you already know that cigarettes are bad is because the government figured it out and educated you on the topic. They taxed the company and created a public good with education. These companies, the ones you're knee-jerkingly defending, they weren't on your side. They were sociopathically against you finding out about the dangers. They'd have preferred that you buy their addictive product and use the profits to obfuscate the harms and rebalance the formula to make the product more addictive. We know this, because that's what they actually did

Screw 'em.

 

[Cutlass]

Add another $5/pack tax, and raise it a further dollar every year until smoking stops

 

[Bill3000]

Add another $5/pack tax, and raise it a further dollar every year until smoking stops

They already cost over $9 here

 

[bhsup]

Either outlaw them, or treat them like any other consumable product. Sin taxes MAKE HULK MAD! I couldn't care less what photo they put on the pack, I'll keep buying it.

P.S. - HAHA New York! I can get a carton of Camels for (with all taxes) under $38.

P.P.S. - Regarding what the cig companies denied, that's kind of irrelevant. Anyone with a brain knows they are bad for you the second you take a puff for the first time, even if you couldn't figure out that inhaling smoke is bad to begin with. Hell, movies in the 30s and forties called them coffin nails and cancer sticks.

 

[Patroklos]

This is ridiculous. People know smoking is harmful, they CHOOSE to do it anyway. The government did its job, the knowledge is out there, this is just them being overbearing.

If the government really wants to discourage smoking, they should make it a disqualifier for health insurance, both public and private. Then the only people it will hurt are those choosing to smoke with full knowledge of consequences.

 

[Mise]

Patroklos, that misses the point. If they did that, there's a risk that more people would die. The way they're doing it now, the worst that can happen is that nothing happens.

 

[SerriaFox]

Smoking Taxes do not raise money. Thus no cancer treatment from raising taxes.
More Tax= Less Smoke for the same total dollars.

Having said that, raise the tax through the roof. I have yet to meet a smoker considerate enough to smoke the entire cigarette under a lid so that the rest of us can't smell it. Of course if they tried it would kill em quick instead of slowly.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

the money can be used to subsidise cancer treatment.

Even if we ignore that this is not what happens, but that smokers are simply supposed to fill holes in the budget, which is also why the taxes only rise in small steps (at least this is how it is in Germany), smokers save the social system money by not getting very old.

Hence: High taxes on cigarettes are nothing but the financial raping of a minority.

 

[Imrahil91]

While I agree that smoking cigarettes excessively is like that tobacco big shot once said "...a right reserved for the poor, stupid etc.", I think it's quite ridiculous to demonize it as much as we do. Tobacco tax will only hurt the poor, because they smoke most already. We all live to die one day anyway, and smoking is one way of making life worth living. People will still drive, do bicycling, base-jump, and move outside even if we taxed it and had posters of handicapped people everywhere.
The sensible thing to do is to ban smoking where it hurts other innocent people. Like in trains, offices etc. And not make it acceptable for children to smoke.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Even after all these years of shaming the tobacco companies, the US government still has no balls confronting it directly and shamelessly. Whereas the tobacco corporations have long known that tobacco is addictive, and therefore don't care so much whether the public realizes it or not, since people will be driven to buy their product anyway, the government still has this naive notion that people will somehow stop addictive behavior just because they are warned sufficiently.

There is still a popular belief that nicotine is just bad for your health but isn't an addictive substance. Studies have amply demonstrated that nicotine is as addictive as heroin. All the warnings in the world, after the fact, will have no effect. Addicts are driven to their cravings and will act on them regardless of their knowledge of them. I don't see why the government doesn't just cash in on this by taxing cigarettes and chewable tobacco at 50%. Addicts aren't exactly hesitant to pay for their addiction.

 

[carlosMM]

the only people it will hurt are those choosing to smoke with full knowledge of consequences.

Luckily, that's true in the US, and is beginning to become true in other places as well, since smoking bans in restaurants and public buildings are on the rise.


but, wait a minute! What about passive-smoking babies?

IMHO, parents smoking at home should be prosecuted for injuring their children - unless the go out back or so.

 

[Arakhor]

Raise taxes for the super-rich and severely increase duties on tobacco, alcohol and petrol. It's guaranteed money. You can then actually use the money to look after the people and country you claim to represent.

Anything that cuts down on human stupidity is a good thing.

 

[Brighteye]

Even if we ignore that this is not what happens, but that smokers are simply supposed to fill holes in the budget, which is also why the taxes only rise in small steps (at least this is how it is in Germany), smokers save the social system money by not getting very old.

Hence: High taxes on cigarettes are nothing but the financial raping of a minority.

This is not true. People do cost more in old age, on average, than earlier in life, but that's because old people, on average, are more ill. Smokers are not average young people.

Another way of phrasing the famous statistic is that people cost more in their last year of life than they do throughout the rest of their lives. Smokers, who get heart disease and cancer, cost at least as much as anyone else, and probably a whole lot more.

If we want to save health costs (on the elderly), we should fund research on ageing, so that people die of accidents, and keep working and healthy throughout their long lives.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This is not true. People do cost more in old age, on average, than earlier in life, but that's because old people, on average, are more ill. Smokers are not average young people.

Exactly, they got chronic crap all the time. Smoker have cancer and it is done. Treating cancer is costly, but treating 10 diseases for a decade or two even more so I dare to say.
And even if not - which I highly doubt - bring pensions into the calculation and there you go.

 

[Camikaze]

I couldn't care less what photo they put on the pack, I'll keep buying it.

The point isn't so much to get people who have been smoking for eons to finally give it up, but to discourage newer smokers, those who do not have such an entrenched habit.

 

[Quintillus]

No. As Dennis Leary once said (I'm paraphrasing), you could put cigarettes in a black box with a skull and crossbones on it and people will still buy it.

People smoke despite being fully aware of the risks.

But graphic images are more repulsive than a skull and crossbones. Skulls and crossbones evoke glorified images of pirates from the 1600s. Pictures of horribly scarred lungs are pretty hard to put a positive spin on. From what I understand Australia is the leading example in the effectiveness of this, and Camikaze seems to indicate so as well.

I want to see some piece of scientific work that says tobacco is always harmful. Over the course of my life, I've probably smoked about two dozen cigarettes. What harm did I do to my body, and what are my odds of contracting lung cancer?

That's such a small amount that you could probably do a lot more harm worrying about it than the cigarettes themselves would actually cause. Tobacco, nicotine, and the like tend to have cumulative effects. A single cigarette does do some harm, but it's when people some hundreds or thousands of cigarettes a year that the bad effects really start to add up.

This is ridiculous. People know smoking is harmful, they CHOOSE to do it anyway. The government did its job, the knowledge is out there, this is just them being overbearing.

If the government really wants to discourage smoking, they should make it a disqualifier for health insurance, both public and private. Then the only people it will hurt are those choosing to smoke with full knowledge of consequences.

If smoking could only harm the smoker, that would be an interesting approach, but secondhand smoke is dangerous, too, especially in countries where the smoking rate is high (Greece, Russia, France, China, etc.). And even in countries where the smoking rate isn't especially high, public smoking bans make it easier to avoid secondhand smoke (I've seen this myself as public smoking bans come into effect throughout the U.S.).

The disqualifier for health insurance is interesting, though. I know private insurance companies (at least in the U.S.) do charge smokers more than nonsmokers due to the obvious risks, but I don't know how public health insurance plans typically cover that. It does seem like there should be some type of surcharge for smokers on public health insurance plans. I'm not sure I'd go so far as a complete disqualifier, but charging the same rate certainly wouldn't make sense.

The point isn't so much to get people who have been smoking for eons to finally give it up, but to discourage newer smokers, those who do not have such an entrenched habit.

Indeed. And thus it will both take awhile to see the effect of this change (people won't give up smoking overnight, if at all), and the young people where be where the change is likely to be readily evident first.

 

[naterator]

Either outlaw them, or treat them like any other consumable product. Sin taxes MAKE HULK MAD! I couldn't care less what photo they put on the pack, I'll keep buying it.

P.S. - HAHA New York! I can get a carton of Camels for (with all taxes) under $38.

P.P.S. - Regarding what the cig companies denied, that's kind of irrelevant. Anyone with a brain knows they are bad for you the second you take a puff for the first time, even if you couldn't figure out that inhaling smoke is bad to begin with. Hell, movies in the 30s and forties called them coffin nails and cancer sticks.

Sin taxes are stupid and people who really never thought smoking was bad for them are stupider.
Regarding the PS, that's a mighty impressive $.17/pack tax rate you got there. Almost worth driving from new york.

 

[Xanikk999]

This is honestly the stupidest thing I have heard of to get people not to smoke.

I am not one to ever defend large corporations that are harmful to society, but forcing the company to print pictures of people who are ill from the effects of smoking just seems to be a wasted effort and unfair to the businesses who sell cigerrettes. Note I wouldnt side with them on anything else and no I do not smoke.

Smoking companies have received more scrutiny than other businesses that sell products that harm its user such as Alcohol or Fast Food.

It seems ridiculous to me that we are doing this to get people to not smoke but the people who start smoking already know of the dangers to begin with and probably have seen a heavy smoker. Young adults start smoking for a variety of reasons and they generally don't consider the health risks. I was a teenager too you know.

If we are going to go this route then maybe we should show pictures of morbidly obese people on fast food packages.