New York Times Celebrates FDA's Graphic War on Cigarettes, Modeled on Ghastly 'Halloween' Images
Here's one obvious demonstration of what happens when liberals gave the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco: prominent, gruesome warnings of death on boxes of cigarettes. Apparently, mere text saying smoking can be fatal isn't enough “telling truth to power.” New York Times reporter Gardiner Harris celebrated this development on the front page of the Times Thursday. The headline was “U.S. Wants Smoking's Costs to Stare You in the Face.”
Left out of this nanny-state story: the sinking feeling that the FDA could follow San Francisco's war-on-McDonald's example and start putting toe-tag photos (or maybe just obese-kid photos) on Happy Meal boxes. Anthony Hemsley of Commonwealth Brands tobacco gets a brief chance to suggest the graphic warnings add nothing and only serve “to stigmatize smokers and denormalize smoking.” (In other words, "smokers: the new alternative-lifestyle practitioners it's safe to hate.") But Harris and the Times offer a parade of Obama government officials and public-health experts to explain their gruesome graphics campaign:
-- Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services
-- Dr. Lawrence Deyton, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco products
-- Dr. Howard Koh, assistant secretary for HHS
-- Dr. Margaret Hamburg, FDA commissioner
-- Dr. Richard Hurt, director of the Nicotine Dependence Center of the Mayo Clinic ("he said a higher federal tax and tougher workplace restrictions were also needed.")
Liberal lobbyist Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is also quoted. Ben Blackman, manager of Georgetown Tobacco in Washington, is quoted to argue he might stop carrying cigarettes because the gruesome graphics might hurt his cigar and pipe-tobacco sales. "Such a result, of course, would delight public health officials," Harris added. As might be expected, Team Obama is taking after leftists in other countries:
Among the most arresting of the proposed labels is one in which a man exhales smoke through a hole in his neck. Some smokers who suffer cancer of the larynx must breathe through a tracheotomy instead of their nose or mouth. But the proposed labels are not as gruesome as some mandated in Europe, in which ghastly photos of blackened teeth and decaying mouths give a Halloween aspect to cigarette packs...
The United States was the first country to require tobacco products to bear health warnings, and all cigarette packages now sold in the country have modest ones like “Surgeon General’s Warning: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy.”
But 39 other countries have gone well beyond such brief warnings and now require large, graphic depictions of smoking’s effects. With Wednesday’s announcement, the United States — whose first European settlements in the 17th century helped to create and feed a global tobacco addiction — edged a step closer to joining those nations’ efforts to reduce the centuries-old epidemic of tobacco-related deaths.
It wouldn't be a New York Times story without a whack at America's endangering the world since its capitalist and imperialist inception. Check out Australia's labels. Canada and New Zealand are also leaders in this effort. (New Zealand even lectures men that "smoking can make you impotent," complete with a bent cigarette.) But many countries have only text warnings.
The Times and other liberals loves the idea of warnings of the content of foods, drugs, and tobacco, but absolutely hate the idea of consumer warnings about media -- such as content warnings for children on entertainment programming. (Even then, the TV networks are allowed to assess their own ratings. Can you imagine the government letting the tobacco companies devise their own health warning labels?)
It would be interesting to see the Times reaction if the FCC decided to force television networks to air graphic warnings suggesting they turn the channel, or turn the television off, because television-watching is too sedentary or prevents you from reading books. Then they would sense a war on business and the First Amendment.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
In fact,
Submitted by HockeyKid on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:30am.
TV and sedentary video games contribute far more to obesity than does fast food. And birth is the leading cause of death. Obviously, the radical ZPGers are right: people would be better off if we banned people.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Who wants to bet that after
Submitted by Thoreau on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:39am.
Who wants to bet that after the government bans the private sale of cigarettes, that the government will start selling them. Anyone? Gambling/Lotto perhaps? Hard Liquor?
These people are transparent and pathetic.
Smoke Obama Camels.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:46am.
Or Obama Lucky Strikes. Those names would be enough to make me quit, forget pictures.
Europhiles
Submitted by MadRat on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 6:58pm.
My word Liberals are europhiles! They seem to believe in the superiority of the Old World in every way, don't they? If you ask a Liberal, Europe has a better economic system, a better health care system, better education, more culture, a smarter population and better anti-smoking warnings on their cigarette packaging.
I'm not a smoker and I've seen smoking damage the health of lots of people and if tobacco got banned I wouldn't feel bad. But seriously, smokers know it's hurting them and they know the consequences. Putting a picture of a cancerous lung on a cigarette package isn't going to make a someone say, "Woah, never knew this would happen. I'm throwing the rest of these away and never smoking again!"
ok... so the government wants
Submitted by cmvnyer on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:03am.
ok... so the government wants people to stop smoking.. in this effort.. they are going to horrible pictures on the packs....
on the other hand, there is a movement to legalize marijuana... which you smoke.. so what do you think that they will put on rolling papers to discourage smoking... stupid people?
Cathy
What really killed the dead guy?
Submitted by Mica the Magnificent on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:24am.
Who are they trying to fool?
It is obvious to me the 'dead guy' in the picture was run over by a lawn edger.
I demand a warning label!.
Get off of our labels!
Submitted by Hermano on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:33am.
I am sick and tired of the government getting in the way of people's choices. They believe we are too stupid to research or learn on our own. My parents were smokers for about 20 years and decided one day to quit. And that was it. They chose without having someone else bully them about it. OK, well, maybe us kids did.
Why don't you just outlaw the damn things? Oh wait, then you wouldn't reap the tax revenues. Boo Hoo.
Hermano is Saving the Environment - One Ribeye at a Time! h/t Dr_Liberty
Exactly
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:01pm.
There's no state in this land that can assume to lose all the Tax revenue's that is generated from smokers, with that said I'm sick & tired of smokers (myself included) to be viliified on a continuous bases when those who choose to drive drunk do more harm then someone who smokes, I don't instataneously kill someone when I lite up in while sitting on my front porch or anywhere I might be but that person who decides to get drunk and endanger me and others when he gets behind the wheel puts alot more people at risk of dying then do smokers but there never viliified to the point that smokers are !!!
I say if your going to add these images to pack/cartons of smokes then I say add similar images to cases, 6-packs, 40oz bottles and keg's just the same so that when they decide to drive they'll think long and hard before getting behind the wheel and killing someone instantly !!! I'm thinking maybe images of teenagers with there bidies mangled, or a pic of firefighters scrapping a child off the pavements, or a firefighter using a heat imaging camera to find a body in a corn field I've done it many times it's not pretty but because it's socially acceptable by the masses it's ok but God for bid a person decides to smoke there villified by extreme taxes and to have to bear buying a pack of smokes with these type of images is ludicrce isn't ? I say ban the dam things if your willing to go to this lenght to try to get people to stop but don't play the game of saying your full steam ahead to get people to stop but are so dam afraid to stand up and say lets just ban them all togeather but the Tax implications are too much to lose, it's kinda like a politician saying he's was for the surge before he was against it or vise versa however the saying goes.
Canada
Submitted by ripper58 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:37am.
has grafic pix on their packs...not sure if it works but I DO know that the ciggies sold on the local Reservation is a booming business
Oh Dear
Submitted by fdew on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:41am.
Oh Dear, I don't want to think about the signs the Government will require Planned Parenthood to put up.
Frank
pictures
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:39am.
how about a picture of herpes on condom packs.
We Are The 53%
these people have no idea
Submitted by breese59 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:42am.
it seems to me that there is a large amount on tax income from smokers, it looks like they want to intrued on our lives ,tell us how to live , they ahve already passed no smoking laws in dallas ,a smoker can`t light up in most places .when they don`t pay one cent tward the rent ,or for the saleries of employes ,who the hell do these people think they are (GOD )
who died and said they had the right to tell some else how to live
i don`t smoke ,but what are they going to decide i can`t do next ??
maybe they should remove the beam from their own eye before they worrie about the tooth pick in mine
Yesterday....
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:47am.
I was watching Hostel and then Saw 23 or 24? came on. It. Was. AWESOME. After that I was surfin the web and watching YouTube clips of dudes gettin smoked in Iraq, That got boring so then I played some XBox GTA...killed some hookers, shot guys, the norm but it got old so I played God of War 10 or something and cut heads of Greek dudes and monsters and stuff. SWEET. Figured I'd take a smoke break and snagged a pack from the 7-11. Went to smoke one and there was a picture of a dead human being on it!!!!! I WAS SHOCKED. I am never smoking again. My eyes have been opened by that image.
Does this sound realistic???
Can't wait
Submitted by borisbadinov on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:13pm.
I'm going to collect the whole set.
I think...
Submitted by jdlybrand on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:58am.
...they need to put a warning label on Kathleen Sebelius as she makes my blood pressure go through the roof. Oh how they love to scare people. Anyone remember the H1N1 hype?
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
NY Times warning label
Submitted by Mica the Magnificent on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 10:02am.
WARNING: Reading the NY Times will subject you to liberal opinion disguised as news, liberal spin disguised as fact, and omission of the news that exposes liberals as the libtards they really are.
I guess this means President Obama
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 10:17am.
is going to give up smoking, then? Or will we have a president that is comfortable with picking up a packet with a dead guy's picture on it to pop a cigarette in his mouth?
Or is this only supposed to work with the masses?
I think the government ought to post pictures of empty pockets at every government office--that would be fair.
Look, if you smoke...
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 10:25am.
you know it's bad for you. That's really not such a big secret any longer. Even kids know this; they don't light up for the first time because they think it'll improve their athletic capabilities...
I wonder though, given that marijuana has as many chemicals as cigarettes and is much worse for your lungs, would images like this been required on State-sold pot in Cali had Prop 19 passed? For some reason, I doubt it. At least until it had been legal long enough for the proper medical studies to take place and determin the health risk for users. Not litigating Prop 19 here, I'm just hypothesizing the likely governmental hypocracy.
bk
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 10:56am.
No way, maaaan! Pot is like, natural. Unlike tobacco it grows from Mother Earth. It's organic, maaaaaan.
Isn't it a bit insane that a 14 year old in SF can have an abortion without her parents knowing, but the same kid can't get a Happy Meal if accompanied by her parents?
So which is it?
Submitted by ScottyKUtah on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:14am.
Is smoking something so evil and harmful to us sheep that only our government can raise awareness and get people to stop smoking?
Or are the budgets of the federal and state governments dependant on the tax revenue that smokers bring in?
I'm thinking that the Feds really don't want people to quit smoking. Otherwise, the taxes they collect on the cigerattes would disappear.
Then who would they demonize?
Sometimes I feel like starting smoking just to piss the nanny state off.
This is hypocrisy of the
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:22am.
This is hypocrisy of the left, they will out up with gruesome and honest pictures of what smoking does. The ends justifies their means. Whereas if you have gruesome and honest pictures of fetuses for a Pro-Life campaign they have a fit.
p.s. BTW I am not one to support smoking since it is a self distructive habit that has been know to cause cancer for decades now. And I hate the smells of cigarettes.
Meanwhile...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:50am.
They have been doing this in Canada for many years now. And what has this done for the rate of smoking there? Not much from what I have seen traveling in that country...
I don't like smoking either, but I think we can draw the line here. It's to the point where I signed a petition last year to get the stupid nannies to NOT ban smoking everywhere on campus (even outside).
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The NYT SHould have a warning labelm also.
Submitted by celator on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:00pm.
Since the NYTs is so committed to protecting its readers from danger and health risks, they should have their own mandated warning label.
WARNING: The news article you are about to read reflects the radical left point of view only. Do not rely on the NYT for an information source.
WARNING: The NYT has been known to hire reporters who lie, i,e, the Jason Blair syndrome.
WARNING: The NYT newsroom is a nest of lefty radical whackjobs who despise readers who don't share their worldview.
Something like that.
Non-smokers have every right
Submitted by robert108 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:01pm.
Non-smokers have every right to defend themselves from toxic cigarette smoke in public. These laws are not "nanny state", but are for the benefit of the 80% of the population that doesn't want tobacco smoke forced on them in public places. I think smokers have the right to kill themselves, but not others. Give it a rest. These pictures won't affect the tobacco addicts, though. It's the nature of addiction.
BTW, we pay more in taxes for all the tobacco subsidies than we collect from the addicts.
robert108
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:37pm.
Interesting point of view. How do you feel about DADT?
Changing the subject already?
Submitted by robert108 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:01pm.
Changing the subject already?
Well, yeah.
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 10:58pm.
It's fairly obvious why I made the correlation, are you unwilling to answer the question?
You made no correlation, you
Submitted by robert108 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:05am.
You made no correlation, you implied one, without any declarative statements to justify it. The subject is smoking, and you tried to change it to military policy.
I see robert108
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:15am.
So, it's safe to say that you are tapdancing around my question. Maybe I should expound.
Since you seem to think that if 80% of a group -in this particular example, non-smokers (of which I am a member) should not be forced by government decree to bend to the will of the minority 20% (smokers), is it fair to say that this is a rule of thumb by which you subscribe? Or this is an anomaly that relates only to this particular example (smoking)?
This isn't a difficult question and I was just curious how this position applied in the generic -relative to another issue of similar scope. I'm not implying anything.
"Since you seem to think that
Submitted by robert108 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 3:03pm.
"Since you seem to think that if 80% of a group -in this particular example, non-smokers (of which I am a member) should not be forced by government decree to bend to the will of the minority 20% (smokers), is it fair to say that this is a rule of thumb by which you subscribe?"
In the first place, you misstate my position, which is that smokers are responsible for the harm they inflict on those around them; I never mentioned any "govt decree". So, my "rule of thumb" is that people who do harm to others should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Wrong premise, wrong conclusions.
Mothers are responsible for the harm they inflict on infants.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 6:25pm.
Studies show breast feeding is better for babies. robert108 is now all for Government forcing mothers to breast feed their infants. Mothers that do not breast feed from here on out will be thrown in jail.
whiny baby bottle troll robert108: So, my "rule of thumb" is that people who do harm to others should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Idiot.
"but are for the benefit of
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:10pm.
"but are for the benefit of the 80% of the population that doesn't want tobacco smoke forced on them in public places."
Now if we could only get a law to protect us from stupid people like yourself, this country might actually have a chance.
Not really a counter
Submitted by robert108 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:02pm.
Not really a counter argument, is it? When you have no facts, go for the personal attack.
Facts??
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:16am.
Did you use any in your original post? Maybe one but I'd like to see a source for the 80% figure. Yep, smoking is bad. Is it being "forced" on non-smokers? Hardly. If you have recently been pinned down and had smokers blow smoke into your lungs, please report that to your local law enforcement agency.
Still trying to justify your
Submitted by robert108 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 2:58pm.
Still trying to justify your personal attack and lack of facts? Shame on you!
LIE. robert108 LIES. Right in your face. LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 1:21am.
robert108: ...we pay more in taxes for all the tobacco subsidies than we collect from the addicts
LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE
There is NO tobacco subsidy!One of the most misunderstood facets of tobacco is the government price support program, sometimes incorrectly called 'the tobacco subsidy'. Critics denounce a bureaucracy which - they say - gives money to farmers to grow the leaf while it discourages tobacco smoking. In fact, there is no tobacco subsidy. There never was. So how could the government's farm and anti-smoking programs conflict?
There is a government price support and production control that guarantees farmers a minimum price for their tobacco in return for strict limits on production, much as similar programs do for corn, rice, peanuts and cotton - 13 different commodities altogether.
~
There is no tobacco subsidy.
In the 50-year span during which the tobacco program ran it's relatively modest loss, purchasers of tobacco products paid federal, state and local treasuries more than $254.8 billion in excise taxes (as of 1992).
So there is no tobacco subsidy
The subsidies are for growing
Submitted by robert108 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 2:56pm.
The subsidies are for growing tobacco, and have been in place since colonial times. Educate yourself.
Back it up
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 12:11pm.
It would be nice if you decided, for once in your life, to back up your assertions. Your word is not the Holy Writ on NB, contrary to your beliefs.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Why is it....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:04pm.
that if a conservative doesn't like doing something, he just doesn't do it. But, when a liberal (NYT) doesn't like doing something they want to ban everyone from doing it?
almostacowboy77...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 1:37am.
Probably for the same reason that when liberals think something is a good idea (giving to the poor, buying health insurance, etc.) they decide to force everyone to do it.
I'm not exactly sure WHY they do it. Maybe they really do believe they are smarter than everyone else and feel justified in forcing people to behave a certain way. Or maybe they're just jerks.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
What I find hypocritical about this is............
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:36pm.
the government bangs the drum "smoking bad, smoking bad", and they tax the hell out of it. Just for the sake of arguement, lets say the government succeds..............My wife was a smoker up til 6 months ago, she tried the new "E cigarette" which gives you a water atomized ammount of nicotine, no smoke, no tobacco, no smell, completely safe. She hasnt touched a cigarette since. The government is already in a huff because they cant figure a way to tax it like a real cigarette, they cant use a sin tax because it is safe. So, lets say everyone switches to "E cigarettes" what then Feds??? They tell you not to smoke, but dont want to ban it, because they want THE TAX MONEY!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
I agree pictures wont stop
Submitted by TerryWest on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:10pm.
I agree pictures wont stop someone from smoking, demonizing them only causes more stress and low esteem.imo smokers need their own specific rehab program and facilitys, including in patient options, attempts such as phone calls to help you stop (crisis lines) packets of information in the mail, scary pictures and the like are ineffective to the majority of smokers.
Treating smoking as if it were an addiction lite and one can stop if only they want to while treating other addcitions such as drug and alcohol on a higher leval and more seriously is the fatle flaw and dosent send the right message. Smokers are addicts, lets use honest straight forward langrage and approaches to better allow a person to confront the issue and truth and find realistic help if they wish to be addcition free, not scary pictures.Time for a warning label on life
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:44pm.
Because living will kill you.
I am 100% against the federal
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 4:04pm.
I am 100% against the federal government making money off of addicts, (i.e., sin taxes). I am also against these pictures on cigarette packages because, hey, they aren't that attractive of pictures. Couldn't they hire professional artists? Heck, the guys on CSI Miami would have done better work and you know no-one watches that crap either. So, how effective are these pictures going to be (hint: not at all). So, it is just posturing by our overlords.
Seriously, I am against the federal government overreaching in this area. I am not, by the way, that much against a city doing whatever it wants to do like this (such as banning smoking in public places, etc.). I think that is the way things are supposed to be done in the USA, that is, local governments deciding how they want to live. If the local people want to elect mini-me overlords, so be it.
I don't fault the campaign at all... technically.
Submitted by JLin on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 4:06pm.
Since the Federal Government has created massive dependency/entitlement programs in Medicare and Medicaid, they have the obligation to figure out how to cut costs. A huge contributor to those costs are the healthcare needs of obese, alcoholic, smokers with AIDS. Get my point? Even for the spendthrift government politician and bureaucrat there is a price to pay for all those entitlement votes. They have no choice but to initiate these kinds of campaigns. This is the perfect illustration why government should not have entitlement programs at all. Can you say unintended consequences?......