FDA proposes color graphic warnings for cigarette packs
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I tend to agree that the very notion of placing graphic warnings on cigarettes tends to be abusive to smokers, but since the FSPTCA is already signed into law I'm afraid it's too late to do anything other than trying to pick out the especially inhumane ones.
Personally, I don't expect larger labels to make much of a difference either way so to me this mostly only annoys me as a waste of time and resources to accomplish little or nothing. It does, however, serve as an excellent example of the dehumanizing tactics practiced by tobacco Control to "denormalize" smokers in the name of public health.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
I think a bit of history is in order.
In 2003/2004, Phillip Morris negotiated and agreed (to require these same 9 text warnings covering 30% of cigarette packs and ads) in its FSPTCA legislative deal with CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, Waxman, Kennedy. The deal was announced in spring of 2004, with PM and CTFK issuing press releases of support the same hour that Waxman and Kennedy held a press conference announcing it.
After that, Mike Siegel and I exposed many problems with FSPTCA legislation (with my focus especially on harm reduction) and I campaigned to amend and defeat the legislation, got several amendments approved (including the one that required color graphic warnings covering 50% of cigarette packs and ads), and the legislation was ultimately approved last year by the Senate and House and signed into law by Obama.
I also campaigned from 2004-2009 to amend the legislation to require warning labels on cigarettes inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products were less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, to allow smokeless tobacco companies to truthfully claim that their products were less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and to eliminate the "this product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes" warning on smokeless tobacco products, but CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, Waxman and Kennedy vehemently opposed all of those amendmentsm, and I couldn't get the votes needed for those changes.
So I don't understand why all the angst being posted against this provision of the law (or any other provision of the law) and/or against me, as that train left the station a long time ago, and I was one of the last folks (along with RJ Reynolds) trying to derail it.
I don't know anyone who is posting complaints on this forum about the new warning labels (or other provisions of the FSPTCA) doing anything to oppose, defeat or amend the legislation from 2004 to 2009 (when it was considered by Congress).
In 2003/2004, Phillip Morris negotiated and agreed (to require these same 9 text warnings covering 30% of cigarette packs and ads) in its FSPTCA legislative deal with CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, Waxman, Kennedy. The deal was announced in spring of 2004, with PM and CTFK issuing press releases of support the same hour that Waxman and Kennedy held a press conference announcing it.
After that, Mike Siegel and I exposed many problems with FSPTCA legislation (with my focus especially on harm reduction) and I campaigned to amend and defeat the legislation, got several amendments approved (including the one that required color graphic warnings covering 50% of cigarette packs and ads), and the legislation was ultimately approved last year by the Senate and House and signed into law by Obama.
I also campaigned from 2004-2009 to amend the legislation to require warning labels on cigarettes inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products were less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, to allow smokeless tobacco companies to truthfully claim that their products were less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and to eliminate the "this product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes" warning on smokeless tobacco products, but CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, Waxman and Kennedy vehemently opposed all of those amendmentsm, and I couldn't get the votes needed for those changes.
So I don't understand why all the angst being posted against this provision of the law (or any other provision of the law) and/or against me, as that train left the station a long time ago, and I was one of the last folks (along with RJ Reynolds) trying to derail it.
I don't know anyone who is posting complaints on this forum about the new warning labels (or other provisions of the FSPTCA) doing anything to oppose, defeat or amend the legislation from 2004 to 2009 (when it was considered by Congress).
Correct me if I'm wrong. You say that in 2003/2004 a deal was cut mandating 9 text warnings on 30% of the packs. You worked to expand that to graphic labels on 50% of the packs. You see that as an improvement, one you worked hard to implement. You have still not answered my question. Do you support labels such as these for any other activity that can cause the participant/user harm?
Please just answer my question. In the process of formulating your answer to me, you will arrive at the answer you seek from us, why all the angst?
PS. Sorry I wasn't there with you from 2004 to 2009. I was probably just hanging out with my friends, smoking, laughing, and generally treating other people with respect.
Please just answer my question. In the process of formulating your answer to me, you will arrive at the answer you seek from us, why all the angst?
PS. Sorry I wasn't there with you from 2004 to 2009. I was probably just hanging out with my friends, smoking, laughing, and generally treating other people with respect.
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Perhaps BCB can reveal some things that she has done so that anyone who disagrees or dislikes it (or who just wants to post something stupid) can criticize her.
Maybe this is part of the reason e-cigarettes scare tobacco control people so much. As smokers, many (most...) of us accepted what we were told. The organizations doing the telling were, after all, long held sacred. (The American Heart Association? Who'd have thought they were liars? Much less highly esteemed medical journals....)
As vapers, though, we become enlightened. First we see they've lied about e-cigarettes. Then we realize they've been lying all along about smokeless. Then we learn how many of the "dangers" of secondhand smoke are still more lies.
All the while being socially ostracized, accused of child abuse, refused employment, evicted from our homes, paying insane taxes, and systematically denormalized by a small but powerful group of people who are so bloody arrogant they apparently think they can get away with anything.
I don't have angst. I have anger.
And if anyone wants to know what I was doing while all this was going on: I was minding my own business.
Since tobacco control can't seem to manage that (emphasis on the word "control"), I'm going to be minding their business with a lot more attention from now on. And I'll be standing beside (and behind) the smokers when I do it.
As vapers, though, we become enlightened. First we see they've lied about e-cigarettes. Then we realize they've been lying all along about smokeless. Then we learn how many of the "dangers" of secondhand smoke are still more lies.
All the while being socially ostracized, accused of child abuse, refused employment, evicted from our homes, paying insane taxes, and systematically denormalized by a small but powerful group of people who are so bloody arrogant they apparently think they can get away with anything.
I don't have angst. I have anger.
And if anyone wants to know what I was doing while all this was going on: I was minding my own business.
Since tobacco control can't seem to manage that (emphasis on the word "control"), I'm going to be minding their business with a lot more attention from now on. And I'll be standing beside (and behind) the smokers when I do it.
Last edited:
I am not against these colour graphics because pics of cadavers on stone slabs and diseased lungs offends me.
I am against them because they are a complete waste of time and make the smoker more determined to have a cigarette. Smokers don't quit thru fear, if they did there wouldn't be any smokers. They quit because they have made an adult lifestyle choice. Just as they chose to smoke, they also choose to quit.
When I smoked, I emptied my rolling tobacco into a nice green pouch and felt satisfied that I had got one over on the antis. No more insulting pic, no more lecturing. I didn't look at the pic on the packet and say to myself "Oh my, is that really what my lungs look like? I'd better quit with immediate effect!". I said "**** them. If I want to smoke, i'll damn well smoke".
Compassionate, targetted education is what is needed, not lecturing to them like they are silly schoolchildren who should know better.
I am against them because they are a complete waste of time and make the smoker more determined to have a cigarette. Smokers don't quit thru fear, if they did there wouldn't be any smokers. They quit because they have made an adult lifestyle choice. Just as they chose to smoke, they also choose to quit.
When I smoked, I emptied my rolling tobacco into a nice green pouch and felt satisfied that I had got one over on the antis. No more insulting pic, no more lecturing. I didn't look at the pic on the packet and say to myself "Oh my, is that really what my lungs look like? I'd better quit with immediate effect!". I said "**** them. If I want to smoke, i'll damn well smoke".
Compassionate, targetted education is what is needed, not lecturing to them like they are silly schoolchildren who should know better.
Bill, you came onto an e-cigarette forum, and you announced that you actively supported putting graphic color warnings on cigarette packs. Did you really expect us to applaud that simply because it may increase our ranks?
As for BCB's question, you may not like it, but it's a valid one. The question isn't meant to be insulting . . . it's meant to get you thinking. You seem to be struggling to understand why so many of us are critical of these graphic warnings, and that should help you understand where we're coming from.
Last edited:
I'm not certain, but I think that Bill may have been trying to communicate something to us "between the lines". I get the impression that the label requirements were a shot at getting the Big Tobacco companies to back out of the FSPTCA altogether but the Act was signed anyway meaning that regardless of Bill's motivation for supporting it, its kinda too late to argue about it now.
Thad--Here's the first part of Bill's post:
We're not really "arguing" about it . . . more trying to get Bill to understand why we're not as pleased as he is.
Just because someone goes vapor....it doesn't necessarily mean they become anti-smoke. That is a misconception that many people have. Some smokers think we sold out. Antis think we have joined their ranks. Fact is....both are wrong. We simply exercised our freedom of choice (for the moment anyway).
Julie, I was referring to these parts in bold.
Notice that it was Philip Morris pushing for the FSPTCA and RJ Reynolds trying to derail it by bumping the requirement up to 50% and allowing for the warnings to be truthfully reworded. I think Bill is saying that he's pleased that the FDA has acted upon it to keep his stance consistent. This also means that the FDA is actually beginning to do what they were told to do in the act so hopefully they'll get around to the part about fast tracking the approval of Modified Risk Tobacco Products soon!
I completely agree that the warnings are unnecessary and potentially harmful, but we've had warnings on cigarettes for decades and they haven't fixed anything. When these bigger labels attract MORE rebellious teenagers to cigarettes, maybe the FDA will eventually figure out that more of the same scare tactics will only get them more of the same failures to actually improve public health.
Notice that it was Philip Morris pushing for the FSPTCA and RJ Reynolds trying to derail it by bumping the requirement up to 50% and allowing for the warnings to be truthfully reworded. I think Bill is saying that he's pleased that the FDA has acted upon it to keep his stance consistent. This also means that the FDA is actually beginning to do what they were told to do in the act so hopefully they'll get around to the part about fast tracking the approval of Modified Risk Tobacco Products soon!
I completely agree that the warnings are unnecessary and potentially harmful, but we've had warnings on cigarettes for decades and they haven't fixed anything. When these bigger labels attract MORE rebellious teenagers to cigarettes, maybe the FDA will eventually figure out that more of the same scare tactics will only get them more of the same failures to actually improve public health.
What we can be assured of, or should I say what smokers can be assured of is that the cost of said warning labels will be borne by the cigarette smoker. They can just as reasonably be sure that there will be a "premium" added to the cost that will add to the bottom line of BT.
Now I'm curious, would the axis of evil or government, have supported using MSA funds, to generate this "smoker education" program of graphic labels? I would guess not. I believe most on this forum have a recurring theme, we got here as some have said, out of minding our own business. We found E Cigs for a variety of reasons, from cough to cost, but we got here. Some found god here, some needed to find heaven in other alternatives (can't let my snus get forgotten). However, the one common denominator for most of us is that we were pretty confirmed smokers and have a pretty good idea of how the smoker of today thinks. Forty some years of hard core war against the smoker has left all but the new ones pretty well entrenched. If TC hasn't gotten the kids to understand the issue, what's it going to take?
Higher Taxes? That's worked pretty well up till now, but we've got to be getting pretty close to what they're experiencing in Canada- black market starting to take market share and the suppliers don't check drivers licenses. Graphic images or maybe they could go with visual smoking bans were you could be fined for being seen smoking. Heck, at the rate laws are being generated that can't be far off.
Personally, the best solution I can see is honesty from Tobacco Control and that would require a change of name, something like Tobacco Education as a start. In fact, as I'm thinking and typing, let's get rid of "Tobacco" in the name totally. The new descriptor should be Risk Education. Take all those Tobacco products and assign relative risk. Tax based on some logical formula rather than "We need more money in government coffers and the tobacco users will accept anything". After that's worked out add food and drink and watch the good citizens scream about excessive taxes for awhile. After all, obesity is the leading cause of preventable disease today.
Now I'm curious, would the axis of evil or government, have supported using MSA funds, to generate this "smoker education" program of graphic labels? I would guess not. I believe most on this forum have a recurring theme, we got here as some have said, out of minding our own business. We found E Cigs for a variety of reasons, from cough to cost, but we got here. Some found god here, some needed to find heaven in other alternatives (can't let my snus get forgotten). However, the one common denominator for most of us is that we were pretty confirmed smokers and have a pretty good idea of how the smoker of today thinks. Forty some years of hard core war against the smoker has left all but the new ones pretty well entrenched. If TC hasn't gotten the kids to understand the issue, what's it going to take?
Higher Taxes? That's worked pretty well up till now, but we've got to be getting pretty close to what they're experiencing in Canada- black market starting to take market share and the suppliers don't check drivers licenses. Graphic images or maybe they could go with visual smoking bans were you could be fined for being seen smoking. Heck, at the rate laws are being generated that can't be far off.
Personally, the best solution I can see is honesty from Tobacco Control and that would require a change of name, something like Tobacco Education as a start. In fact, as I'm thinking and typing, let's get rid of "Tobacco" in the name totally. The new descriptor should be Risk Education. Take all those Tobacco products and assign relative risk. Tax based on some logical formula rather than "We need more money in government coffers and the tobacco users will accept anything". After that's worked out add food and drink and watch the good citizens scream about excessive taxes for awhile. After all, obesity is the leading cause of preventable disease today.
Last edited:
Bill Godshall said:
Okay. I want you to really think about how you felt when you posted this. The feeling you have? That intense frustration that people are just. Not. Getting it? That is exactly how many of us feel about this. I am really glad that you have worked for some of the things you have. And you should be proud of them. I know I appreciate it. This is just not one of those things. IMO, and if I may be presumptuous enough to assume your frustration with we vapers for the past few days. I understand, I do. I just hope you will understand our POV also.
EDIT: Wow, rothenbj, I really really like the concept of Risk Education. Apply the education about risks to the most common risky behaviors and make it a thorough enough curriculum for the average person to be able to weigh risk/reward effectively for all their behaviors. And make this a part of High School education. I like it.
Last edited:
I personally am thoroughly disgusted that someone would put these types of images on Any packages. I also don't understand why it is that Smokers have been made into such leapers, when there are just as many other deadly legal vices out there (wine, beer, liquor, caffeine, junk foods..etc..etc..etc.) These images will no serve their intended purpose in my opinion they will more than likely have the opposite effect than what is hoped for.
My son is 16 years old, he has watch as I struggled to quit smoking, I have shown him pictures of smokers lungs I have talked to him about the effects of smoking, and you know what? I busted him smoking, When I asked him why did it, he said it was because he wanted to know what it was like.
Most teens could give a rats a** about a warning, they just want to satisfy their curiosity. And when you put up warnings and tell kids no, sometimes it makes them want to do it all the much more. These images will probably do more harm than good, as as far as adult smokers go, give me a break, we all knew the implications it's been crammed down our throats for years. Smokers quit when they decide to quit and no amount of fear mongering is going to make it otherwise.
My son is 16 years old, he has watch as I struggled to quit smoking, I have shown him pictures of smokers lungs I have talked to him about the effects of smoking, and you know what? I busted him smoking, When I asked him why did it, he said it was because he wanted to know what it was like.
Most teens could give a rats a** about a warning, they just want to satisfy their curiosity. And when you put up warnings and tell kids no, sometimes it makes them want to do it all the much more. These images will probably do more harm than good, as as far as adult smokers go, give me a break, we all knew the implications it's been crammed down our throats for years. Smokers quit when they decide to quit and no amount of fear mongering is going to make it otherwise.
Last edited:
Yeah, Rook, they'll do that right after they initiate the mandatory four years of courses in Personal Finance I, II, III and IV. In fact in my world, the training would start way before high school. I was fortunate that, thru no direct effort of their own, my parents gave me a good foundation for money management. The general training is get the paycheck, spend more than you can afford. That's what got us where we are today.
However, Risk Education does stretch beyond health. That is part of the more advanced courses in Personal Finance and correlates pretty closely to this topic. Buying a house and using some form of nicotine/tobacco may actually be a benefit. Using nic/tob may provide effective physiological benefits that avoid the need for pharmacological solutions. If it were understood which products would address these needs with the least risk, it would make it possible to make rational decisions. Whatever that decision may be should be the decision of the individual, not the government.
Purchasing a house might be the best decision that you ever make. However, the last few years have shown how it can also lead to the financial destruction of one's life. Over extending based on a run of unrealistic year over year home value increases combined with overextended credit lead to the countries current mess. Would placing a set of graphic pictures over 50% on both sides of credit cards of people pushing grocery carts down the street with all their possessions discourage credit abuse? Would 50% graphic illustrations on a home for sale sign of a woman and her kids outside in their car packed to the hilt crying that they had no place to go now convince people to realize the risk? Maybe we could add the husband standing behind the car, psychologically destroyed, with a gun to his head. Is that enough to scare people to rational thought or would it be better if the kids were in the car crying, with the wife behind the car with her husband lying in the street in a pool of blood. We should really take a look at and make comments about the various graphic illustrations proposed that could be used to alter human behavior in the financial choices we make as members of the well oiled machine we call society.
However, Risk Education does stretch beyond health. That is part of the more advanced courses in Personal Finance and correlates pretty closely to this topic. Buying a house and using some form of nicotine/tobacco may actually be a benefit. Using nic/tob may provide effective physiological benefits that avoid the need for pharmacological solutions. If it were understood which products would address these needs with the least risk, it would make it possible to make rational decisions. Whatever that decision may be should be the decision of the individual, not the government.
Purchasing a house might be the best decision that you ever make. However, the last few years have shown how it can also lead to the financial destruction of one's life. Over extending based on a run of unrealistic year over year home value increases combined with overextended credit lead to the countries current mess. Would placing a set of graphic pictures over 50% on both sides of credit cards of people pushing grocery carts down the street with all their possessions discourage credit abuse? Would 50% graphic illustrations on a home for sale sign of a woman and her kids outside in their car packed to the hilt crying that they had no place to go now convince people to realize the risk? Maybe we could add the husband standing behind the car, psychologically destroyed, with a gun to his head. Is that enough to scare people to rational thought or would it be better if the kids were in the car crying, with the wife behind the car with her husband lying in the street in a pool of blood. We should really take a look at and make comments about the various graphic illustrations proposed that could be used to alter human behavior in the financial choices we make as members of the well oiled machine we call society.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Julie wrote:
Did you really expect us to applaud that simply because it may increase our ranks?
I posted it because its an important change, and I provided some historical background information, and I suggested that folks can submit comments to the FDA (whether you like them or not). Instead of attacking the messenger, anyone who doesn't like some, most or all of the proposed warnigns should tell the FDA (instead of attacking the messenger).
Besides, if you don't like warnings on cig packs or don't like the text of these 9 different warnings, your anger/blame should be directed at Philip Morris, CTFK, Waxman, Kennedy (as they agreed to them in 2003/04, and they agressively lobbying to enact it into legislation from 2004-2009 (while I campaigned to defeat the legislation from 2004-2009, and to amend it along the way so that it would actually reduce smoking).
I didn't (and still don't) care if others dislike the larger color graphics that accompany the text warnings. Wen Enzi and I pushed it through the Senate HELP cmte in July 2007, it was viciously attacked (as was Enzi) by CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA (because it violated their secret deal with Philip Morris, which they honored to the end).
Julie also wrote:
As for BCB's question, you may not like it, but it's a valid one. The question isn't meant to be insulting . . . it's meant to get you thinking.
No it wasn't valid, as my views about warnings on other products have nothing to do with on e-cigarettes, cigarettes or anything else related to this forum. The question was only asked so that the inquirer could subsequenty express her disagreement with answer.
Besides, the purpose of this forum is to discuss issues involving e-cigarettes, not to have anonymous cowards engage in personal attacks and cyber bullying of others with whom they disagree (especially when the disputed policy will increase e-cigarette sales and usage, and when the person they attack has been busting his ... to keep e-cigarettes legal and affordable).
Did you really expect us to applaud that simply because it may increase our ranks?
I posted it because its an important change, and I provided some historical background information, and I suggested that folks can submit comments to the FDA (whether you like them or not). Instead of attacking the messenger, anyone who doesn't like some, most or all of the proposed warnigns should tell the FDA (instead of attacking the messenger).
Besides, if you don't like warnings on cig packs or don't like the text of these 9 different warnings, your anger/blame should be directed at Philip Morris, CTFK, Waxman, Kennedy (as they agreed to them in 2003/04, and they agressively lobbying to enact it into legislation from 2004-2009 (while I campaigned to defeat the legislation from 2004-2009, and to amend it along the way so that it would actually reduce smoking).
I didn't (and still don't) care if others dislike the larger color graphics that accompany the text warnings. Wen Enzi and I pushed it through the Senate HELP cmte in July 2007, it was viciously attacked (as was Enzi) by CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA (because it violated their secret deal with Philip Morris, which they honored to the end).
Julie also wrote:
As for BCB's question, you may not like it, but it's a valid one. The question isn't meant to be insulting . . . it's meant to get you thinking.
No it wasn't valid, as my views about warnings on other products have nothing to do with on e-cigarettes, cigarettes or anything else related to this forum. The question was only asked so that the inquirer could subsequenty express her disagreement with answer.
Besides, the purpose of this forum is to discuss issues involving e-cigarettes, not to have anonymous cowards engage in personal attacks and cyber bullying of others with whom they disagree (especially when the disputed policy will increase e-cigarette sales and usage, and when the person they attack has been busting his ... to keep e-cigarettes legal and affordable).
I totally agree Sherid but you need to add "GREEDY LUNATICS" to your comment. It's the greed at any expense including human life that fuels this so-called free nation. I've already paid for a football stadium with analog sticks and wasn't allowed to smoke there back in the early 90's. If we don't wake up to this taxation without representation with complete controlled rebellion, we are a lost nation on the verge of becoming a third world country. It astounishes me that anti-smokers don't get this at all. But if you're a lunatic, I guess you wouldn't get a lot of things that are common sense. "Common sense is not always common"....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
