BT draws suit against FDA for warning images on cigarette packages

[fray]

http://consumerist.com/2011/08/tobacco-companies-sue-fda-over-new-warning-labels.html

A few BT companies are sueing the FDA for their proposed warning labels featuring pictures of effects of cigarettes. Claim it is a violation of free speech and will cost too much to print.

 

[sqirl1]

honestly I hope BT wins. I don't exactly LIKE BT, but I hate the FDA and BP with every fiber of my being. I'd rather them say they can't put it on cigarettes then have them put it on ST and E-cigs later.

 

[fray]

honestly I hope BT wins. I don't exactly LIKE BT, but I hate the FDA and BP with every fiber of my being. I'd rather them say they can't put it on cigarettes then have them put it on ST and E-cigs later.

I agree. This is maybe the only time I have ever sided with big tobacco. I think the warnings are a little overboard. I don't think they will educate anyone. I would be hard pressed to find anyone who does not know the dangers of smoking.

 

[Uncle Willie]

If the warning graphics causes just one person to not start using analogs or to quit, they will have done their job .. who cares whether BT wants to put them on packs or not .. ?? In a forum that constantly likes to tout the "better health" provided by an e-cig, it's strange anyone would side with anything coming from BT ..

BT convinced us many many years ago cigs were great, cool and harmless .. now, let them suffer in any way possible ..

 

[fray]

If the warning graphics causes just one person to not start using analogs or to quit, they will have done their job .. who cares whether BT wants to put them on packs or not .. ?? In a forum that constantly likes to tout the "better health" provided by an e-cig, it's strange anyone would side with anything coming from BT ..

BT convinced us many many years ago cigs were great, cool and harmless .. now, let them suffer in any way possible ..

When I began smoking I knew they were bad for me. It was drilled into me in school and at home from an early age. I started because i wanted to try it (as well as other things) and I liked it. Phillip Morris didn't dress up like a cool kid and pass out cigarettes. I was never under the impression for a second that they were harmless.

I am willing to guess that these warnings are not so much about discouraging people from smoking as much as a political scheme for a politician. They all need a platform to stand on.

The main reason I am siding with the tobacco companies is because of my own political views about the government.

 

[studio52]

Just another way for BT to pass on the cost to consumers. They wont absorb any costs.

 

[sqirl1]

If the warning graphics causes just one person to not start using analogs or to quit, they will have done their job .. who cares whether BT wants to put them on packs or not .. ?? In a forum that constantly likes to tout the "better health" provided by an e-cig, it's strange anyone would side with anything coming from BT ..

BT convinced us many many years ago cigs were great, cool and harmless .. now, let them suffer in any way possible ..

Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile. if we let them put these obnoxious warning labels on analogs, which don't get me wrong, at the end of the day they should probably be there, they'll put it on smokeless tobacco next, and before you know it..... PV's could be next after that

 

[Uncle Willie]

Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile. if we let them put these obnoxious warning labels on analogs, which don't get me wrong, at the end of the day they should probably be there, they'll put it on smokeless tobacco next, and before you know it..... PV's could be next after that

Yet, what's wrong with that .. ?? Ultimately, it's still the users choice ..

 

[Vap0rJay]

Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile. if we let them put these obnoxious warning labels on analogs, which don't get me wrong, at the end of the day they should probably be there, they'll put it on smokeless tobacco next, and before you know it..... PV's could be next after that

So when do we get to slap one of these bad boys on them?

 

[KDK]

So when do we get to slap one of these bad boys on them?

I agree 100%, that should have been done a while ago. But, we gave them too much power a while ago, and now we are going to have to work, and work hard, to get things back in order. If it's not too late already.

 

[usamare]

If the warning graphics causes just one person to not start using analogs or to quit, they will have done their job .. who cares whether BT wants to put them on packs or not .. ?? In a forum that constantly likes to tout the "better health" provided by an e-cig, it's strange anyone would side with anything coming from BT ..

BT convinced us many many years ago cigs were great, cool and harmless .. now, let them suffer in any way possible ..

Big tobacco eventually did make MUCH safer cigarettes, by vaporizing the tobacco instead of burning it. The FDA wouldn't allow them to point out the VAST improvement in safety. Big Pharma used their puppet organizations to insist that they in fact were NOT safer (pure lies). I almost certainly would have quit smoking ten years sooner if I had accurate information at the time. For that and a few even nastier other reasons, I now realize the FDA and BP are MUCH more dangerous than Big tobacco.

The point is, if someone can throw egg in the face of the evil empire, I'm a little bit happier for it

 

[Vocalek]

So when do we get to slap one of these bad boys on them?

You should put that on a T-shirt.

 

[Pamdane]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

 

[rolygate]

Apparently there is often a sales spike when these warning pics are first put on cigarette packets. People collect them, and buy more packs to get more. It must be because everyone knows it is dangerous, and they get a kick from getting a 'badge' for it.

I think this process is more about the denormalisation of smoking and smokers than reducing sales by any particular method. If smokers can be portrayed as sub-human, then it is OK to exterminate them or whatever else is deemed acceptable.

 

[DC2]

I now realize the FDA and BP are MUCH more dangerous than Big tobacco.

Exactly.

Big Tobacco lied to us, but never pretended to be the good guy.
Big Pharma is lying to us while pretending to be the good guy, and while funding others to advance their agenda.

It is clear to me who is more dangerous.

 

[D103]

With all due respect, anyone who was "convinced" many, many years ago that smoking was, in fact, harmless, is either extremely naive at best or, more likely, unwilling to take personal responsibility for their choices.

We all, or at least the vast majority of us, got into smoking with our eyes wide open - so to "cry foul" and demonize BT several years later is disingenuous and illigitimately feigning victimhood. Grownups take responsibility for their actions, children blame someone else when things go badly.

I believe most people on here speaking out against the FDA re: graphic warning labels are responding to not only the gross hypocrisy but also the governmental overreach on the part of the FDA in mandating labeling that is not only dishonest but actually serves to impose a sort of "hidden" tax increase in that they are fully aware that this additional cost, that could prove sizeable, will be passed on to the consumer and subsequently warrant (in their view) increased taxation.

 

[ByStander1]

With all due respect, anyone who was "convinced" many, many years ago that smoking was, in fact, harmless, is either extremely naive at best or, more likely, unwilling to take personal responsibility for their choices.

We all, or at least the vast majority of us, got into smoking with our eyes wide open - so to "cry foul" and demonize BT several years later is disingenuous and illigitimately feigning victimhood. Grownups take responsibility for their actions, children blame someone else when things go badly.

Okay, and kinda not...

I was at the ripe age old of mature decision making at 11 when I first started smoking. I was up to 2 packs a day by the time I was 14. That was a child making those decisions. The adult learned the difficulty/impossibility of living without nicotine. The folks making them +20 years ago knew what it was doing to me. I didn't. Yeah, I hold a grudge.

 

[Vocalek]

Well, I don't because the Tobacco Companies had nothing whatsoever to do with my taking up smoking. My first cigarettes were smoked on rare occasions with my best friend when I was 14 of 15, as a way to sneak around and do something that we knew would upset the adults. She was pilfering one or two from her father's pack.

I became a daily smoker my first year of college, because that was the sopohisticated thing to do. Part of sorority rush was to demonstrate how lady-like you looked when holding up a cigarette. A lady didn't leave a cigarette dangling from her lips. She held it between the first two fingers, like the glamorous female movie stars. A lady was supposed to place her hand lightly on the hand of the man who was being a gentleman and lighting her cigarette.

It was strictly social influence in my case.

I was not at all influenced to start smoking by Tobacco Company advertising because I didn't even own a TV set until after I graduated from college. I was too darn busy to try to watch the one set that was down in the lobby of the dorm, and too broke to buy and read newspapers and magazines. There were no cigarette ads in my text books.

 

[fray]

Okay, and kinda not...

I was at the ripe age old of mature decision making at 11 when I first started smoking. I was up to 2 packs a day by the time I was 14. That was a child making those decisions. The adult learned the difficulty/impossibility of living without nicotine. The folks making them +20 years ago knew what it was doing to me. I didn't. Yeah, I hold a grudge.

20 years ago i was in first grade and was educated about the dangers of smoking in school and at home. I knew for as long as I can remember that cigarettes caused cancer and other icky illnesses. The drug education classes in my kids school are more intense than I was a kid.

It sounds like during your upbringing you never heard that they were bad for you. Is that the fault of BT? Yes in part because they made the product, but I would say it is more the fault of parents/ guardians and a lacking educational system that did not inform you.

A large image of a cancerous tar filled lung on the pack may help people in your particular situation.

 

[Demarko]

If the warning graphics causes just one person to not start using analogs or to quit, they will have done their job .. who cares whether BT wants to put them on packs or not .. ?? In a forum that constantly likes to tout the "better health" provided by an e-cig, it's strange anyone would side with anything coming from BT ..

BT convinced us many many years ago cigs were great, cool and harmless .. now, let them suffer in any way possible ..

Because, ultimately, this is still america - what works in other countries may NOT work here because of our constitution. If it is, in fact, a violation of the constitution it should not be allowed.