Nanny State

What, No Dead Babies?

|

Yesterday the Food and Drug Administration proposed new, bigger, colorized, and illustrated cigarette warning labels. The theory behind the labels, required by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, is that people already know that smoking is bad for them, but they need to be reminded good and hard. The FDA is suggesting a few possible illustrations for each of nine rotating warnings. Below are a few of my favorites.

By contrast, comic-book-style warnings like the one showing a premature infant in an incubator have an air of unreality that undermines the FDA's point, as do the secondhand smoke warnings that show smokers breathing directly into the faces of babies and old ladies. The illustrations showing what you can do when you quit smoking (blow bubbles, wear a T-shirt bragging about your feat, clog your toilet with cigarettes) can be charitably described as uninspired. And I am not buying the second strokes-and-heart-disease guy. Is he having a heart attack or a stroke? The hand to his head suggests a stroke, while the hand to his chest suggests a heart attack (although it's on the wrong side of his chest). Maybe he's having both—or it could be indigestion combined with a migraine. He's got to go.

Will any of these work? That depends on what you mean by "work." Smoking rates have been declining more or less steadily since the 1960s, and last year the share of Americans who were daily smokers fell to a record low of 12.7 percent. In the face of punitive taxes, proliferating and increasingly broad smoking bans, and all the other factors that make the habit expensive, inconvenient, and unfashionable, the impact of more-conspicuous hectoring will be impossible to isolate. But it makes public-health types feel good, which is really what this is all about.

Unlike New York City's mandatory anti-smoking posters, the new FDA warnings (which are scheduled to start appearing on packages in September 2012) are authorized by federal statute. But tobacco companies have challenged them (along with other regulations dealing with advertising and promotion) on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the labels impinge on freedom of speech by commandeering so much of the package.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

159 responses to “What, No Dead Babies?

  1. NO! We need more people smoking, not less! Think of the tax revenue we’re losing!

    1. Tax revenues hell! Think of the Social Security and Medicare savings.

      In this new era of bipartisan fiscal responsibility we should be handing them out to grade schoolers.

      1. Technically, smokers actually save money on the health care system. Healthy people cost more than unhealthy people. While it is true lung cancer (for example) is expensive, they tend to die young. It’s the people that live long, THEN get old and infirm that cost more in the long run.

  2. Smoking rates have been declining more or less steadily since the 1960s, and last year the share of Americans who were daily smokers fell to a record low of 12.7 percent.

    See? It’s working! We can’t quit now!

  3. can we get a link to any economic study detailing if stop-smoking campaigns really save money in the health care industry? i’d bet that more-smoking campaigns could be a good recommendation from the federal debt commission.

  4. Smoking should be illegal, it is as bad or worse than all the other illegal drugs. I think alcohol and caffeine should also be banned. No drugs are good for you. You have not experienced life if you need to be drugged all the time.

    1. Mike… *checks list of known trolls*…hmm…don’t see your name. Have you registered with the proper authorities to be able to assume trolling duties around here?

      1. Who was that chick who used to troll the drug threads and condemn all drug users as blights upon humanity who must be stopped?

        Julie? Julia? Something with a J. I bet Mike knows her.

        1. Juanita? She had some real zingers for a while.

          1. Juanita- that was it. God she was obnoxious.

            1. She hasn’t been around for a couple months now. I wonder if she fell off the wagon.

              1. Methinks she probably never existed, or that she was simply a dramatic re-enactment of your generic anti-drug fucktard.

      2. This isn’t necessarily trolling. I’ve known plenty of people in real life who actually believe this pseudo-logic. “Something bad has happened to me or someone I care about, so we must ban the activity that caused the badness for everyone else for their own good!”

        1. Depends what class of Trolling license he wants:

          Class 1 trolls actually believe the shit they say.
          Class 1A – repeats what he has read or heard on Balloon Juice/Huffinton Post/Olbermann
          Class 1B – repeats what he has read or heard on Limbaugh/Dobbs/National Review.
          Class 2 – trolls who just say things to get people mad.
          Class 2A – Non-trolls who are snarking.
          Class 3 trolls who consider name-calling (‘libertards’; ‘libertopia’, ‘Kochpuppets”, etc) to be witty and insightful arguments.
          Class 3A – trolls who consider themselves the TRUE STANDARDBEARERS OF THE ONE TRUE LIBERTARIANISM. Reverts to namecalling by their third post on a thread.
          Class 4 – starts out with what appears to be a legitimate question but reverts to 1A, 1B or 3 upon a response.
          Class 4A – same as class 4, but claims to be ‘libertarian.’

          It is possible to hold multiple licensing types, but I can’t recall anyone who holds both a class 1A and 1B license, though such may exist.

          1. Agreed. I mean libertards should be reserved for liberal; libertarians would be libertaritards, no?

            Either way, I find it difficult to not call out ‘tards on ther ‘tarddom, used and beaten as it may be.

      3. I thought it was more satire than trolling, particularly the “no drugs are good for you.”
        Ask a kid with ADD how he likes his amphetamine (excuse me, Adderall) or how someone with terminal cancer appreciates opioid patches. Plenty of abusable drugs have been found medically useful.

    2. At least it’s a consistent position. A position you can stuff up your ass, as if I don’t have the right to ingest what I’d like to or that something should be illegal because it’s not “good for you”, but consistent regardless.

      1. I suspect he’d also be against stuff being shoved up people’s asses.

        1. I present to you the dawn of the back alley colonic.

          1. Dawn of the Full Moon?

    3. Correction: you have not experienced life if you don’t feel the need to be drugged all the time.

      1. Pretty pessimistic for an Objectivist, no?

        1. Ayn_Randian is hardly an Objectivist. His inconsistencies make him more of a libertarian.

      2. Didn’t Rand say that mind altering drugs, including alchohol, are immoral?

    4. You have not experienced life if some arrogant health fascist has made all your decisions for you.

    5. So long as ALL drugs are banned I will go along wiht this. Aricept, Lipitor, Insulin, all that crap that keeps the elderly going like energizer bunnies. That way we’ll end the problems with Social Security and Medicare as well.

  5. Smoke up kids! Collect the whole set!

    “Hey Billy, I’ll trade you a cancer for a throat hole!”

    1. I want a special collectors edition Yul Brenner talking package with Magnificent Seven theme music

  6. “But tobacco companies have challenged them (along with other regulations dealing with advertising and promotion) on First Amendment grounds..”

    Isn’t that cute – they think the Constitution matters!

    1. The tobacco companies think their profit matters, and they’re willing to drag the Constitution in to keep their profits up,if they can.

      Whatever the personal liberty issues, the fact remains that these people are peddling an addictive poison. I do admit they are cute, in the way that a baby alligator is.

  7. Although I don’t have references handy, I’ve seen studies showing that smokers reduce costs to the health care and social welfare systems (because they die earlier). It’s those damn nonsmokers that are eating up the Medicare and Social Security dollars.

    1. I can’t find a link yet but I recall such a study was done by the Clinton administration, in an attempt to gather evidence supporting some new way or other of fucking with smokers. The study actually showed the opposite–smokers save society money in the long term because they die earlier. And smokers are somewhat less likely to get Alzheimer’s or Parkinsons.

  8. Makes you wonder what marijuana packaging would have looked like under Prop. 19.

    1. 45-year-old pudgy balding guy in a t-shirt crashed on a couch?

      “Warning: Pot can make you just like your Dad was when he was your age.”

      1. 45-year-old pudgy balding guy in a t-shirt crashed on a couch?

        …clutching a large bag of Doritos.

        1. Worse than that – Bravos.

          1. …clutching a large bag of Doritos…

            …and totally bummed out that he can only afford basic cable.

            1. No. Video games would need to be involved.

              Of course if they were to use the “multiple outcomes” method of these warnings, I suppose a fair number of the alternative advertising covers would be “a successful professional arriving happily at his law firm for work”, “a smiling man throwing a frisbee with his children”, “a woman walking her dog in the park”, et al.

              When the worst thing that could possibly happen because of using something is getting caught by the government, you know we’re fucked.

    2. Some skeevy dude reaching his hand out to you.

      “Warning: Cannabis attracts broke-ass moochers.”

      1. Hey, your couch looks comfortable. Mind if I try it out. I wont be long . . .

        1. “Spare change?”

  9. Well they have warnings like this in Canada and no one there smokes any more.

    Is the smoking rate really that low now? That sort of makes me sad. Maybe I should start smoking again.

  10. [T]he new FDA warnings (which are scheduled to start appearing on packages in September 2012) are authorized by federal statute.

    If they are (I doubt it), then the statute is already violating the 1st Amendment limit on government to impinge on speech.

    1. A couple of tobacco companies are suing under just such a concern. Problem is, when you compromise so often and for so long with Comrade Sam, he kinda gets used to it and is a little put off when you start complaining about your silly rights and shit.

  11. Is it just me, or has this nanny state shit accelerated exponentially under Obama? Or was this stuff already in the works under Bush?

    1. The smoking thing I could see being in the works for a while. But the Four Loko thing came out of nowhere.

      1. The current changes to cigarette packs are authorized by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which was introduced by Henry Waxman on March 3rd, 2009, and signed by President Obama on June 22nd, 2009.

    2. I’d say Obama has taken the nannystatism in a different direction than under Bush, while not repealing any of Bush’s nannystatism.

      I dunno about “exponential”, but I’d agree with “accelerated”.

      1. Will Obama’s cigs have the nice pictures too?

        1. Not only will they not have the photos, but they also are still called Marlboro Lights. It’s good to be king.

          1. The rest of the low-life smokers will have to get used to asking for “Product 17.”

            Clerk: Product 17? Um…

            Low-life Smoker: The one with the dead babies!

            1. Sorry, we only have the ones with low sperm count left.

  12. Ugh. This is disgusting. I’m all for banning it in bars and restaurants (because your liberty stops where mine is impeded). It’s well established how horrible secondhand smoke is but this is just nasty. Surgeon general’s warning is one thing. But this is grotesque.

    1. Why ban it in bars and restaurants as opposed to leave it up to the owners to allow it or ban it, and customers to eat or drink there?

      Or do you think your fake right to drink at my bar trumps my real property rights?

      1. @ Ska
        You have real property rights to a bar you go to? How fancy!

        @ Episiarch
        http://www.cancer.gov/cancerto…..obacco/ETS Secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen. Many cites within.

        http://my.clevelandclinic.org/…..smoke.aspx Increased
        * Lung cancer
        * Heart disease
        * Emphysema
        * Asthma

        @Ayn_Randian I don’t care who anyone entertains. It’s well-established that secondhand smoking is very real danger. I don’t care if you shoot heroin next to me or stick a chew in but if you light up it can and DOES cause others cancer. Plain and simple. You don’t have the liberty to give other cancer, how is that so hard to grasp?

        @ClubMedSux, who is Tayna?

        1. The science is in. It is a well established fact that Tanya is a know carcinogen to your freedom. You have been warned; That is all.

        2. Or do you think your fake right to drink at my bar trumps my real property rights?

          No, at the bar I own. See where I wrote “leave it up to the owners” in the first sentence? And where I say “my bar” in the second? It’s not my bar because I drink there.

        3. You have real property rights to a bar you go to? How fancy!

          Nope. But I’d like to think I have them at a bar I own.

        4. @Tanya You don’t have to go into that bar or restaurant that is allowing smoking. Plain and simple.

          And yes, the owners of the businesses do have fancy property rights as to what activities they will allow, or not allow, on their property. Is that so hard to grasp?

          If you’re that concerned about lung cancer, perhaps you should hold your breath while outside.
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10955399
          Plenty of cites within.

        5. Hope Tanya never drives a car, or takes a bus, plane or train. Emissions from all of those are proven carcinogens too. And you presumably expelled those carcinogens in a public street, not in a privately owned bar or restaurant.

        6. Who is Tanya (or, technically, Tania)? Patty Hearst.

          1. Tanya is the person who follows Sandi around with a big around her neck and a fork in her hand.

    2. How is your liberty impeded by smokers in a bar or restaurant?

    3. I’m all for banning it in bars and restaurants

      I would agree if it was public property. But it isn’t, so I don’t.

    4. Really? It’s “well established how horrible secondhand smoke is”? Please cite.

      1. @ Episiarch
        http://www.cancer.gov/cancerto…..obacco/ETS Secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen. Many cites within.

        http://my.clevelandclinic.org/…..smoke.aspx Increased
        * Lung cancer
        * Heart disease
        * Emphysema
        * Asthma

        1. Obesity is contagious too (an epidemic!). Is that how you got fat, from people eating right next to you?

          1. I never said obesity was contagious, incidentally. I also would bet the farm that you’re fat and I’m not.

            C-Dog, thanks for calling me a cunt. I hope your daughter’s getting fucked in her cunt right now by someone with AIDS.

        2. You’re a dumb cunt. Secondhand smoke is fucking bullshit, you know it, the world knows it.

        3. No. It isn’t “well established.”

          http://www.accessmylibrary.com…..-risk.html

          http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2…..and-smoke/

    5. Tanya thinks she should have the “liberty” to tell property owners what manner of guests they can and cannot entertain.

      1. @Ayn_Randian I don’t care who anyone entertains. It’s well-established that secondhand smoking is very real danger. I don’t care if you shoot heroin next to me or stick a chew in but if you light up it can and DOES cause others cancer. Plain and simple. You don’t have the liberty to give other cancer, how is that so hard to grasp?

        1. Will you entertain me?

        2. Uh Tanya, public places I’ll agree with you. But restuarants and bars are private establishments. You are not forced at gunppoint to enter a smoky bar. You are CHOOSING to enter a private establishment, therefore you have no right to dictate whether or not the bar is smoke free.

        3. You don’t have the liberty to give other cancer, how is that so hard to grasp?

          You don’t have the liberty to dictate what happens on my property.

          1. Unforunately, as shown by all of the smoking bans over the last 10+ years, she does.

            And that just plain fucking sucks.

        4. why it so hard to grasp that you do not have the right to be present in the restaurant in the first place, and if you don’t like what is happening there, you are free to go?

          1. Because to Tanya , ‘rights’ means ‘things I want to do’

        5. Tanya – it’s also well-established that you have no fundamental right to patronize any particular bar of your choosing. If a bar or restaurant owner chooses to allow his patrons to smoke in his establishment, and you don’t like second-hand smoke, then I suggest you no longer patronize that establishment instead of sitting there, exposing yourself to a known carcinogen.

          I think smoking is a very stupid habit and quite gross. But I also can see that the state should not enact an outright ban on smoking on private propert such as a restaurant or bar. I just won’t eat at that restaurant and will choose to take my business to one that doesn’t have smoking, or at least has an effective non-smoking area.

          Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be outlawed by the power of the state.

          1. Hey, I don’t like greed. Is there any way we can remove that from society through the force of law? Nope. Will our overlords keep trying anyway? Yep.

          2. I and every other nonsmoking American actually do have the right to clean air. I’m not seizing rights out of thin air, guys. Again, for emphasis, I don’t give two shits if you do black tar heroin in the seat next to me. Really, I don’t. But when someone lights up, it affects me.

            And incidentally, to all you bar owners, lots of places that have enacted smoking bans have actually seen an INCREASE in patronage. Seeing as how only 15% of the population smokes, its hardly reasonable to expect the other 85% to tolerate the dirty and dangerous air they produce. Obviously if you’re in poor neighborhoods you’re going to suffer a lot more, since the poor and working class members of society smoke at a much higher rate than everyone else. http://www.sourcenewspapers.co…..de=default

            http://www.boston.com/ae/food/…..smoke_ban/

            1. Yes Tanya, in a PUBLIC PLACE you have the right to air free of second hand smoke.

              A PRIVATE BUSINESS is not a place you are FORCED to go to. Therefore you do not have the right to dictate whether or not they can allow smoking, despite the fact that nanny-staters like you have forced this upon bar owners anyways.

              1. So you’re all for banning smoking in public parks, nature reserves, and hunting grounds of any sort whatsoever?

                I’d still like a response from all of the bar owners on how exactly their business did after a smoking ban, if they underwent one. As evidence indicates, their profits went up. Hardly anything to bitch about.

                1. So you’re all for banning smoking in public parks, nature reserves, and hunting grounds of any sort whatsoever?

                  No stupid, but nice strawman. I’m against the State banning anything. You couldn’t possibly understand this less.

                  As evidence indicates, their profits went up. Hardly anything to bitch about.

                  Oh, so to use your stupid strawman abilities does this mean that you think all rights can be suspended for anyone as long as we can show a profit?

                  Of course you don’t, which is why your argument is retarded.

                  1. I never said the state had to ban it, you’re putting words into my mouth. So again, I ask you…are you personally are 100% for no smoking in all public areas, right? Because if you’re not, then you’re just a sad little moron who smokes and wishes to shit where he eats.

                    1. I never said the state had to ban it, you’re putting words into my mouth.

                      Who the fuck else is going to ban it? ME? YOU? And I find it hilarious the queen of strawmen in this thread is accusing ME of putting words in your mouth.

                      So again, I ask you…are you personally are 100% for no smoking in all public areas, right?

                      In all PUBLIC areas, yes. NOT private businesses. In Tennessee, we reached a happy medium and allowed bars to keep smoking provided they were a 21 and up establiment. This way, business owners get to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking. If you don’t like smoke, GO TO ANOTHER FUCKING BAR THAT DOESN’T ALLOW SMOKING. Why do you feel the need to infringe on other peoples rights in places that you MAY NEVER EVER SET FOOT IN?

                2. Correction: The remaining bars saw their profits go up slightly. It only looks good if you don’t count all the bars that went from making a profit to zero, because they were driven under.

                  Here in Minnesota, the smoking ban resulted in several of my favorite bars shutting down, include some which had been fixtures of my neighborhood for decades.

                  I’m not a smoker, and I like the clean air in the bars I frequent, but given the choice I’d rather have my favorite bars back and just sit in the “no smoking” sections like I used to.

            2. Seeing as how only 15% of the population smokes, its hardly reasonable to expect the other 85% to tolerate the dirty and dangerous air they produce.

              Actually, it’s very reasonable if you actually understand the concept of property rights and aren’t a nannyist asshole.

              1. Super cute. Bet you I’ve been receiving FEE emails longer than you.

                1. Have you been reading them?

            3. Shorter Tanya – I can tell you what to do with your own property as long as I furnish dubious statistics that it’s good for you.

    6. Oh, my beloved Tayna. How I long to see your face photographed in 15-second intervals in a ban in San Leandro… a photograph of you, Cinque with a seven-headed dragon in a house in Daly City.

      1. Camper Van Beethoven!

        Tania!

    7. (because your liberty stops where mine is impeded)

      Then stop impeding my liberty to allow customers to do things on my property.

      Non-smokers “rights” are nothing more than the “right” to boss other people around.

  13. “Nah, Man- the ones next to that, with the liver as big as a basketball! Yeah, them. Thanks, Dude.”

    1. I’ll take a pack of those hardcore-throat-hole-smoking-guy lights, please. Oh, sorry, not lights; blues.

  14. The theory behind the labels, required by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, is that people already know that smoking is bad for them, but they need to be reminded good and hard.

    Nice Mencken reference, Jacob.

    This entire act is a violation of the Ninth Amendment, and also of the 1st and 5th. If we had a SCOTUS court that upheld their oaths, this law would be smacked down as unconstitutional.

    1. “the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act”

      I think smoking a family should be illegal.

      Tobacco control should be illegal as well.

      1. I think smoking a family should be illegal.

        What do you have against Teh Gaiz? OK, “smoking” the johnsons of the underaged kids, fine, that should be illegal.

  15. The interesting part is that if they win on First Amendment grounds because it impinges on their free speech by taking up space on their packaging, they could also sue to get to the warning labels taken off on the same grounds.

    1. The tobacco companies have signed on to all the previous free-speech restrictions. Complaining about lost rights now is too little, too late. This is why you make a deal with the devil when you accept government regulatory powers in exchange for the “gift” of your inherent rights.

  16. Smoking is interstate commerce?

    1. Haven’t you heard? Just existing is interstate commerce now.

    2. Everything is interstate commerce. Observe:

      I was just picking my nose. By picking my nose, I obviated the need to use a Kleenex?. Kleenex? is a registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. Kimberly-Clark is headquartered in Texas and Kleenex? is likely manufactured outside of my home state of Illinois. As such, when I pick my nose, I impact interstate commerce. Accordingly, the federal government can regulate nose picking under the commerce clause.

      Sincerely,

      Breyer, J.

      1. But it’s dangerous; You don’t know where your finger’s been! I have alerted the EPA and they should be by to collect you soon.

        It’s for your own good

      2. I got into a “debate” on Wickard and interstate commerce yesterday. It was a frustrating experience.

        Example: “Any further debate on the MERITS of the regulations passed by Congress is a totally different topic, each instance specific to its law. And, as I’ve said, each member of Congress can and should be held accountable based on their performance in writing those regulatory laws. Don’t like the law that forced Roscoe to burn his crops and your Rep voted for that law? Vote him out. But again, to suggest that this one regulation shows some kind of flaw with the Commerce Clause as written in the Constitution is bizarre and not credible.”

        http://voices.washingtonpost.c…..l#comments

        1. Well, you waded in to the feral swamp that is the Post comments section. Those bootlickers CELEBRATE Wickard and Raich as a victory for progressives. You’re fighting a losing battle.

  17. Even if this law doesn’t have any direct effect, it sends a powerful message that our society does not support smoking. You guys don’t understand this because you view the law as simply “men with guns” forcing their will on you (a view you share with many totalitarian dictators), rather than seeing the law’s utility for making statements about what we believe.

    1. Fuck those 42 million smokers, the majority has spoken.

    2. That’s awesome. For those out there who have yet to figure out that our society does not support smoking based on restaurant bans, bans in other public spaces, Surgeon General’s warnings, astronomical taxes, public service announcements, ban on advertising, outlawing of Joe Camel, ban on flavored cigarettes, ban on light cigarettes, ban on smoking in plays, attorney general lawsuits, etc., I’m sure this will be the sign they’ve been waiting for to illustrate that our society does not support smoking.

      1. Stop it, ClubMedSux. You might hurt Hobbie’s brain cell.

    3. SHUT UP DANNY DEVITO

    4. You couldn’t just send a greeting card?

    5. if “we” already believe it, what is the utility in making the statement?

      1. To prove to those who don’t believe that they actually do because they, by living here, were a part of they we that passed the law to make the statement. But you libertardians could never understand that because you’re all against forcing people to agree with you n stuff.

    6. In a daze, Terri stepped back into the house and approached her daughter. Janet held the carcass out to her mother and Terri accepted it, taking a large bite out of Precious’ left front thigh.

      Behind them both on the television, Terri’s soap opera had gone to a commercial break.

  18. cigarette cases are making a comeback!

    1. Exactly what I thought. Unpack em as soon as I get home from the store, then go burn the packages out in the yard, plastic and all. This is War.

  19. When the small printed warning went from the generic “The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health” to more specific ones like “Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health” and “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy” I told folks that in order to protect myself I only smoked the ones that were bad for pregnant women (Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight).

    That is how smokers are going to view these warnings.

    Just STFU! We already fucking know cigarettes are not the Fountain of Youth!

  20. because your liberty stops where mine is impeded

    You keep using this word….

    (et c)

  21. Damn, I miss Bill Hicks.

    1. What am I, chopped liver?

      1. A sellout tool whose rants stopped short of the truth to keep people laughing instead of making them think? Also, your dick jokes aren’t as funny.

  22. Why is it that every time someone strikes upon a good cause, people have to jump onto the bandwagon and BEAT THE HORSE TO DEATH.

    Between all the AIDS ribbons and breast cancer ribbons and cancer armbands and anti-smoking campaigns I feel as if I live in a society entirely composed of concern trolls.

    Plus, as a female, I really wish people would care about the health of body parts other than my boobs and ovaries. I’m beset by breast casncer ribbons, telling me how alarmed I should be about the threat of breast cancer, but the likelihood of my getting appendicitis is far greater.

    1. What healthy boobs you have!

    2. Appendicitis is easy to detect and much easier to cure.

      1. Fine. Kidney stones. Cirrosis of the Liver. Heart disease.

        My annual exam should include a complete checkout. They shouldn’t just be looking at my tatas and yaya.

    3. As a red-blooded American hetero male, I must note that I am far more concerned about saving the luscios yahbohs than saving the kid-generating ovaries – or the appendix.

  23. The Canadian labels, which have been in use for years, are much better. The diseased teeth one is both more impressive and can be held up to one’s mouth when posing for pictures.

    Also, the classic, fourth down on this page.

    1. They’re comparing me to a Canadian child! Racists!

    2. Trevor, Cory: smokes, let’s go.

      1. Trinity, I thought we quit smoking.

        1. Kitties shouldnt smell like cigarettes they should smell like kitties

    3. In Brazil there’s one that says “smoking causes erectile dysfunction”. I don’t think it has the accompanying picture of a young guy with a limp dick, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

  24. I’ll bet appearing on one of those cigarette labels would get you a role in a zombie flick.

  25. The Surgeon General Would REALLY REALLY Like to Make Sure You Know that Smoking REALLY REALLY Can Kill You! No, REALLY! WE REALLY MEAN IT, DAMMIT!

    1. Smoking doesn’t kill you. It’s pure tobacco pleasure.

      Smoking does cure bacon, I’ve found.

  26. How about this slogan:

    Smoking keeps you our tax slave, bitch!

    1. Thjat’s why I get a kick out of the fact that a disproportionate number of blacks smoke. I think to myself, yup, still a plantation slave.

  27. Re: Episiarch,

    Is it just me, or has this nanny state shit accelerated exponentially under Obama? Or was this stuff already in the works under Bush?

    Much of this authoritarian shit has gone beyond the threshold of reason under Obama. As an immigrant, I am actually looking at the good ol’ days of te Bush regime when I wsa able to obtain a 3 to 4 year work visa (now under the great Tlatoani is only for ONE year,) and when they were deporting LESS compatriots, not MORE like under the great Tlatoani.

  28. I always knew smoking was bad for me, but now I uderstand in a new, bigger and colorized way.

  29. I guess we have another case of life imitating art. Anyone remember Thank You For Smoking?

    The parallels with William H. Macy’s character’s campaign are pretty damn close.

    1. Right down to the USDA pimping American cheese.

  30. Hey everyone! RACISM IS BAD!

  31. A government that can force tobacco companies to put pictures of cancer victims on a pack of cigarettes is a government that can force Planned Parenthood to put pictures of aborted fetuses in its ads and clinic windows.

    1. ^this, ^that^, but not the fascist other https://reason.com/blog/2010/11…..nt_1998515

  32. They should get Jack Chick to illustrate these.

    1. HAW HAW HAW!

  33. It won’t be long before Krispy Kreme is required to put pictures of clogged arteries on their packages. Beer companies have to put pictures of mangled bodies in wrecked cars. And so on.

  34. All in good time, my dear.
    All in good time.

    1. I pity your children.

      1. They must live the most boring, sterile fucking lives ever.

  35. When will we have labels like

    WARNING: Nanny government may be hazardous to your liberty?

    The smoke from my friends’ cigarettes doesn’t bother me, but why the fuck do I, who don’t even smoke and don’t plan to, have to be sick to my stomach because of the disgusting images on cigarette packs?

    I’m sure the twisted, sadistic minds that came up with this actually take pleasure knowing how people will cringe seeing that sick shit. Cuz it’s for their own good, you know.

  36. The ‘Sot-Weed Factor’ is a great American novel.

  37. And… uh… smoking’s bad, mkay?

  38. Man those pictures make me wanna smoke!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.