• Federal judge rules newly required tobacco health labels as unconstitutional
    77 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34947467]They should just print all boxes with the following message: "THIS SLOWLY AND PAINFULLY KILLS YOU." Should get the message across.[/QUOTE] Have it say "THIS HURTS YOU" with a picture of Harbinger. [QUOTE=Santz;34947483]They know tobacco produces cancer. They know cancer is horrible. They dont give a shit. Stop trying to pull this kind of shit and let them do whatever they want with their bodies.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, this argument doesn't fly. There are 2 reasons for this: 1. Second hand smoke can be just as bad as smoking. When you smoke, it affects everyone who breathes it in, and that's not fair at all. 2. In Countries with public healthcare, who do you think pays for the smokers? Taxpayers. We must bear the burden of their stupidity and addiction. And don't be fooled into thinking you're safe from that Americans, you're paying for smokers, fat people, and other preventable cases through your insurance premiums. Either way, we all pay the price for the choices of others.
If there are seriously people near you that don't know that smoking is actually terrible for you, maybe they should spend more money on educating them than to waste time and money on putting up pointless images that are horrible to look at
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;34968393] Its not about benefits. Its an addiction.[/QUOTE] It is about benefits though. No one would smoke if there weren't any benefits. The benefits are that it feels better than not smoking to the user. I think there is a sizable void in addiction studies in that they tend to eliminate any kind of agency on behalf of the user (which groups like AA and NA support, possibly because it neutralizes blame and avoids the 'if it's a choice then just not do it' rubbish), and the very real pleasure experienced by the user. [editline]3rd March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=FlakAttack;34972379] 1. Second hand smoke can be just as bad as smoking. When you smoke, it affects everyone who breathes it in, and that's not fair at all. 2. In Countries with public healthcare, who do you think pays for the smokers? Taxpayers. We must bear the burden of their stupidity and addiction. And don't be fooled into thinking you're safe from that Americans, you're paying for smokers, fat people, and other preventable cases through your insurance premiums. Either way, we all pay the price for the choices of others.[/QUOTE] Actually, smokers are paying for their healthcare and then some, at least in Australia, in terms of taxation. Second hand smoke is damaging to the elderly and children in close proximity in ventilated areas. If it was windy it wouldn't have much of an effect. In non-ventilated areas, it's damaging to adults. No one will get cancer from walking down the street with a smoker nearby. I don't think you should be able in smoke in your house near children and pets, though, or in work spaces where people are risk of continual exposure. [editline]3rd March 2012[/editline] [quote]you're paying for smokers, fat people, and other preventable cases through your insurance premiums.[/quote] My understanding that premiums are based on lifestyle choices and risk factors? As in, if you don't smoke, you won't pay a higher premium, because the smoker is doing that?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;34969126]the difference is you can eat icecream and then work it off to remove excess energy, you cannot however have a ciggie, then work off the damage it has done to your lungs.[/QUOTE] If we're talking after a prolonged period of use, as cigarettes need time to do notable permanent damage, then [URL="http://www.upmc.com/Services/bariatricsurgery/candidate/Pages/obesity_concerns.aspx"]you cannot "work off" icecream damage either across the same timeframe.[/URL] [QUOTE]Diseases associated with morbid obesity often lead to significant and permanent damage to one or more organ systems. -Kidneys -Lungs -Bones and joints -Heart[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JamesRaynor;34948388]How exactly is it unconstitutional exactly? Maybe not the best way of doing things, but certainly doesn't infringe any rights that I recall.[/QUOTE] The right to free expression.
I say pass the law anyway. Couple of reasons: - I'm rather militant (personally) about getting people to stop smoking tobacco. If a friend of mine starts smoking cigarettes I kick their ass. - The way these corporations have been acting, they deserve to have their rights infringed on, possibly even removed.
[QUOTE=lavacano;34976829]I say pass the law anyway. Couple of reasons: - I'm rather militant (personally) about getting people to stop smoking tobacco. If a friend of mine starts smoking cigarettes I kick their ass. - The way these corporations have been acting, they deserve to have their rights infringed on, possibly even removed.[/QUOTE] Eh, hell no, nobody takes rights away from anyone. Thats never a good thing.
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;34948498]Because corporations are also protected by the constitution and this is basically forcing them to advertise against their own product, which probably falls under abridging free speech. It's kinda like that law that forces you to disclose that you've previously been convicted for a crime that would put you on the sex offender registry...except that's legal for some reason.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say that, I mean drug companies also have to list possible side effects on their drugs too. Would it be a violation of their freedom of speech to require them to list potential side effects of taking the drug?
Why don't we just go ahead and rule any warnings unconstitutional while we're at it?
[QUOTE=Str4fe;34977044]Eh, hell no, nobody takes rights away from anyone. Thats never a good thing.[/QUOTE] But corporations aren't people, regardless of what our joke of a government says. As humans they can believe and say whatever the fuck they want, and do pretty much whatever they want as long as it's not likely to harm others. I agree with this idea 100%, and even if it means fucking morons have the right to say stupid shit, it also means I have the right to tell them to go massage their neck with a band saw. As corporations they need to follow rules, regulations, and guidelines which, in an environment where the rules are properly made, protect the consumer while still allowing said consumer to buy what they want and allows the corporations to turn a decent profit. We do not live in a country where the rules are properly made. This rule, while harsh: - Protects the consumer by warning them of the dangers of smoking - Allows them to continue to buy cigarettes, as all it's doing is changing the packaging - Doesn't affect the corporate profit margins one iota.
US doesn't have these? I thought it was just standard. This is what some canadian packs look like (they all have gross images): [img]http://lynn.blogs.com/lynn_allens_blog/images/smoke2.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34964507]I will never understand smoking, it has virtually no benefits.[/QUOTE] Nicotine. Smoking is a pretty basic concept if you understand some psychology and how the brain works with drugs. [QUOTE=TamTamJam;34977434]US doesn't have these? I thought it was just standard.[/QUOTE] No, not yet atleast.
[QUOTE=lavacano;34976829]I say pass the law anyway. Couple of reasons: - I'm rather militant (personally) about getting people to stop smoking tobacco. If a friend of mine starts smoking cigarettes I kick their ass. - The way these corporations have been acting, they deserve to have their rights infringed on, possibly even removed.[/QUOTE] Wow I never thought I'd see a real one outside of a zoo
[QUOTE=Dr.C;34968490]I've noticed that people smoke to relax and "take the edge off"[/QUOTE] The only reason they have the 'edge' there in the first place is because of the cigarettes.
[QUOTE=blackfire88;34978999]The only reason they have the 'edge' there in the first place is because of the cigarettes.[/QUOTE]While the addiction-spawned urge to smoke does cause anxiety if left untended, smoking did relieve a surprising amount of stress for me (depending on how long one's been smoking for), especially the first few times. That's nicotine for ya.
[QUOTE=blerb;34972286]We've had these labels in Canada for as long as I can remember. I work at a convenience store, so I'm kind of used to the morbid pictures on the cover. You get used to them after a while.[/QUOTE] Don't know about you, but it looks like someone in Health Canada has put out new regulations for cigarette packaging if [url=http://i.imgur.com/Kfa4g.jpg]B&H's packaging is anything to go by.[/url] Either that or they are just jumping the gun for some other reason.
I've always thought the gross images were kinda cool :v: They're funny to joke about as well while you're smoking.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.