BT draws suit against FDA for warning images on cigarette packages

[ByStander1]

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.

They knew what their products were doing even then. The strongest information I recall on a pack and the bottom of ads was "SG's Warning: This product may cause emphysema." I could read but didn't know or really care what the "e" problem was. The big "C" was heard about rarely, but disease wasn't the focus of my corner of the planet. Yes, it is the fault of BT for lying about their testing for decades. Reprehensible behavior.

My "particular situation" doesn't exist anymore: Children would have a difficult time buying analogs (even with a note from their mom); hospitals and doctor's offices don't have ashtrays standing by every 4th seat, etc.

You may be right, perhaps these ads would have an impact on children. I have no doubt they would have an impact on the children of smokers: terror for the child that mommy or daddy is going to die; and more guilt (likely expressed as angry defense) for the smoker.

 

[rothenbj]

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.

BS, a quick question or questions, how were you getting them and where did you get the money? I smoked 43 years, but didn't start till I was 19 (oops, my age is showing). I new the full danger back then, but still smoked. I blame myself for starting and BP for marketing all those ineffective products in all my quit attempts. I also place a lot more blame on the government for allowing and the ?non-profit?"health" associations for promoting the idea of no tobacco/nicotine being a "safe alternative to smoking".

It might not be a total lie, but it was an extreme stretch of the truth.

 

[ByStander1]

BS, a quick question or questions, how were you getting them and where did you get the money? I smoked 43 years, but didn't start till I was 19 (oops, my age is showing). I new the full danger back then, but still smoked. I blame myself for starting and BP for marketing all those ineffective products in all my quit attempts. I also place a lot more blame on the government for allowing and the ?non-profit?"health" associations for promoting the idea of no tobacco/nicotine being a "safe alternative to smoking".

It might not be a total lie, but it was an extreme stretch of the truth.

Rothenbj, I will admit that I stole from my mother in the beginning -- rarely. It was easier on my conscience to earn money. I took my first job outside the home when I was 11. Having my money in my pocket was addictive, too. Late 70s, early 80s, buying cigs and alcohol was very easy, exceptionally so in a drive-thru. I will further admit that I was exceptional (lol!). My friends that were 2-3 years older than I was stuck with the stealing and were totally shocked at how I could pull-off driving (illegally) right up to the window, placing my order, and paying for it. Those friends that were too "giggly" either weren't allowed to go with me at all or were dropped off at a corner beforehand. In retrospect, it was probably just the sheer audacity of it that allowed me to get away with it. But, my conscience was clear: I didn't steal what I wanted, and I didn't lie about my age (I just didn't correct their incorrect assumptions). Lastly, I will admit that it began mostly as a game -- "can I get away with it?" And, I did. But, I was still a child.

Yes, BT did know then.

I totally agree with you regarding the BP of the 90's (and now) and their ridiculous, ineffective products. I further agree that the lying, propaganda machine of "non-profit," "in your best interest" groups have demonized smoking, smokers, nicotine, and tobacco. That's today.

So, ultimately, I take no more responsibility for my childhood decision to please peers with my smoking than I would take responsibility had I become an adult dealing with a childhood decision to please "Uncle Bob" sexually.

BT will never be off the hook any more so than "Uncle Bob" would be.

 

[Demarko]

When you're a teenager, the fact of the matter is... If something is wrong, many are going to try to do it. I started smoking because the girl next door wanted to smoke - I don't know what her motivations were. But, if I stole cigarettes from my parents, she'd let me steal kisses. And sometimes more. Kinda progressed from there. If I had smokes, somehow, I'd end up kissing some girl.

Antis could preach to me all day. What they said didn't matter to me. It was about girls. If I was the ONLY guy around who smoked, and had smokes, well... that meant I got more girls. Kangaroo tail logic, I suppose. I also skated down 12 stairs, and did a 50-50 grind down a rail for the same motivation. At that age, there's really only 2 things on a guys mind. Girls, and food.

Tobacco companies really didn't matter. I actually avoided camels and other "kid marketting" smokes. I wanted to be a man, after all - pall mall was my brand! Or winston! Later it was "dave's".

Years later, it did become a habit. And once I became a programmer for a living, I realized that I ALWAYS had a smoke sticking out of my mouth. Always. Cannot program well without one. When I work in an office that doesn't allow smoking (or vaping, now) I cannot program as well. It may be the nicotine, it may be the oral fixation, it may be a combination... but my productivity is down at LEAST 25%. Maybe more. After half an hour, it's always on my mind.

Nowhere, in this BRIEF story does big tobacco advertising come in. Just one logical step after the other.

 

[fray]

They knew what their products were doing even then. The strongest information I recall on a pack and the bottom of ads was "SG's Warning: This product may cause emphysema." I could read but didn't know or really care what the "e" problem was. The big "C" was heard about rarely, but disease wasn't the focus of my corner of the planet. Yes, it is the fault of BT for lying about their testing for decades. Reprehensible behavior.

My "particular situation" doesn't exist anymore: Children would have a difficult time buying analogs (even with a note from their mom); hospitals and doctor's offices don't have ashtrays standing by every 4th seat, etc.

You may be right, perhaps these ads would have an impact on children. I have no doubt they would have an impact on the children of smokers: terror for the child that mommy or daddy is going to die; and more guilt (likely expressed as angry defense) for the smoker.

Sounds like these images would have been more effective 20-30 years ago than today. It is a lot more difficult for a minor to get a hold of cigarettes today. There is a hefty fine for the employee and business for selling to minors. Because of this I got carded for cigarettes until I was about 24.

I used to sneak my moms cigarettes but never to the point I was a regular smoker. Maybe once or twice a week. More if someone at school had somehow come up with a pack. I became a regular smoker later when I could actually buy them myself and smoke a pack a day.

I think with proper education from parents and the educational system, these images will not be necessary. If I was on my pc and not my phone I would link the statistics, but new/ teen smoking has been on the decline for quite some time.

 

[rothenbj]

Demarko, I can totally relate to the smoking/programming dilemma. Back in the programming years I could really fill an ashtray, that got me up to multi-ppd status that didn't go away until I found myself here.

BS, sounds like WV was a different world.

 

[ByStander1]

Demarko, I can totally relate to the smoking/programming dilemma. Back in the programming years I could really fill an ashtray, that got me up to multi-ppd status that didn't go away until I found myself here.

BS, sounds like WV was a different world.

Wasn't WV, but was in the contiguous... yes, different world nonetheless

 

[D103]

Pain is inevitable...suffering is voluntary. The old saying is really true: "Life is 10% what happens and 90% how I respond."
In the end it matters less what goes on outside of me rather what I choose to do with my life. I can hold a grudge, in which case the weight of it and the poison it contains is my choice regardless of any right or wrong; or I can choose to let it go, live my life, be responsible and aware of all my choices and make new choices.
In other words, if "Uncle Bob" is still, metaphorically "messing with me" it is only because I have chosen to allow it. This is not to say that moving on is by any means easy....but it sure beats voluntarily shackling myself to pain and dampening my spirit with resentment.

 

[ByStander1]

Pain is inevitable...suffering is voluntary.

Absolutely!!!

In other words, if "Uncle Bob" is still, metaphorically "messing with me" it is only because I have chosen to allow it. This is not to say that moving on is by any means easy....but it sure beats voluntarily shackling myself to pain and dampening my spirit with resentment.

Nonetheless, I'll not be inviting "Uncle Bob" to Sunday dinner nor remain silent if I see his name on my neighbor's 'emergency babysitter' list.

 

[Caddyman]

A old friend of mine recently wrote a blog post about this very topic, i find it insightful and entertaining. peruse his other writing, he is a truly great mind.

The True Facts :: If the logic's FLAWED, the STATISTICAL inferences are USELESS!

 

[Bill Godshall]

On another thread on this topic on Legislation News, I posted lots of information about the new cigarette warning labels (which I convinced Sen. Mike Enzi to offer as an amendment to the FSPTCA in 2007 during the Senate HELP Cmte markup session), including the following.

According to cigarette industry sales data:

Cigarette consumption in the UK declined 2.4% annually during the three years after that country required picture warnings on cigarette packs.

Cigarette consumption in Canada declined 1.7% annually during the three years after that country required picture warnings on cigarette packs.

Cigarette consumption in Brazil declined .9% annually during the three years after that country required picture warnings on cigarette packs.

Cigarette consumption in Australia declined .8% annually during the three years after that country required picture warnings on cigarette packs.

I strongly suspect that cigarette consumption in the US will decline by at least 2.5% annually during the three years after picture warnings appear on cigarette packs (now set for September, 2012), although much of that decline is likely to occur due to smokers switching to smokeless tobacco and/or e-cigarettes.

 

[ByStander1]

I strongly suspect that cigarette consumption in the US will decline by at least 2.5% annually during the three years after picture warnings appear on cigarette packs (now set for September, 2012), although much of that decline is likely to occur due to smokers switching to smokeless tobacco and/or e-cigarettes.

There will probably be some decline from the increase in price, because BT will pass the manufacturing cost of all of this on to the smoker. (not including gov't agencies, law firms, bt, etc. weighing-in huge man hours in arguing, preparing, arguing, researching, arguing...)