Do you support the new cigarette labels proposed by the FDA?

[LoZoccolo]

Poll question: Do you support the new cigarette labels proposed by the FDA?

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Not even if the glued it to my cheek would I support it. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Option 3... I don't care. I don't smoke and I couldn't care less about it.

[MattBaggins]

3. I did the tea bagger move

I have no fucking clue what the new label is; yet I voted yes anyway.

[Iggo]

4. + 1

:thumbsup:

[jdlh8894]

7. You sound like the people that voted last week!n/t

[kirby]

5. I would prefer they be outlawed altogether

but until then...

[Warren DeMontague]

15. I think if consenting adults want to kill themselves with cigarettes, it's their business.

Personally. Prohibition doesn't work, and we have enough of a useless drug war as it is.

[kirby]

20. Except they are killing other with second hand smoke...

If it were truly something they did inside the privacy of their own home (with no children present), I would not care. But it is not.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. And I fully support regulations on smoking in indoor, public spaces.

Beyond that, though, we have to let people make their own choices. Thankfully this is an area where there has been a huge societal shift since I was a kid.

[cayanne]

23. 2nd hand smoke is as bad as bad body odor.

I started smoking when I was 16 and quit over 5 years ago when I was 60. I hate walking into a building when I have to pass through someone's smoke or sit next to someone who just sat down after smoking a cigarette. Smoke stinks and so do the people who smoke.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. You'll get no argument from me, there.

To compare it to the smell of dog ass is an insult to dog ass.

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. Rather Focus on their need to recruit new users

Tobacco companies loose some 400,000 thousand addicts every year. Marketing's job is to recruit 400,000 fresh addicts to take their place. The addict doesn't care what is on the label. The fresh suckers first lighting up may or may not be affected by the imagery on the package. Teaching them that someone in a Suit is manipulating them to become their little addict for life?

[de novo]

8. Mind telling what the new label proposal says?

[Matariki]

11. yes, some more info would help this thread.

thanks.

[seabeyond]

13. here is a link to some of the picutres for the label. nt

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/health/policy/11tobacco.html

[de novo]

18. Thanks.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. This "well-made, not-inflammatory poll" thing you speak of is something the OP doesn't do.

You might as well ask him to lick his own neck.

[Winterblues]

9. The ONLY persons it can hurt are the tobacco companies

Why would anyone object? Makes no sense what-so-ever...:shrug:

[jdlh8894]

10. What does it say? Link,please!

[seabeyond]

12. here is a link i found that shows some of the pictures. nt

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/health/policy/11tobacco.html

[jdlh8894]

17. Thanks!

Guess now all Vehicles sold will have a deadly crash painted on them.eom

[Winterblues]

22. Vehicle crashes are mostly accidents, not so with tobacco.

People smoking is no accident and neither is their secondhand smoke....

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I tend to agree with Denis Leary, they could make the whole pack the label, smokers wouldn't care.

Honestly, I think it's a bit of a waste of time. And I say that as someone whose dad died of lung cancer.

[lynne]

16. I'm pretty much sick of all the nanny-state BS -

- When do they put pictures of car crashes on new automobiles? What about pics of fat people on donuts and fast food? Gaping knife wounds when you buy steak knives? Based heads on baseball bats? Pics of piles of puke, auto accidents, broken marriages, lost jobs and alcohol fetal syndrome kids on every liquor/beer/wine bottle? There's enough misery associated with liquor that maybe they could even do a calendar series or come up with trading cards.

Anyone who thinks a picture is going to stop someone from doing what they want is even dumber than the person doing it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. I tend to worry about nanny-statisms that actually infringe on people's freedom, myself.

No one's ability to obtain cigarettes is being infringed because of this.

[de novo]

19. Having seen the labels, I couldn't care less. One way or the other.

I doubt it will stop anyone from smoking any more than the current labels.

[Luminous Animal]

25. When I was in New Zealand (where they have these scare packs), I was

told by many parents that kids love these things and collect and exchange them like bubble gum cards.

Also, sales of cigarette cases of soared.

[proteus_lives]

26. What's the point? Everyone knows smoking is bad for you.

[Ichingcarpenter]

27. What do they Say?

Here they say

SMOKING CAUSES DEATH.... over half of the pack.

[ljm2002]

30. One of the more ridiculous things to come out lately IMO...

...and I say this as someone who has smoked in the past and finally managed to quit.

Now mind you, I am not against the government doing public service announcements and billboards and the like. I have no problem with that. But mandating this as part of the labels on cigarettes just further coarsens our culture, since even non-smokers will not be able to avoid these distressing images.

Cigarettes are LEGAL. They already carry prominent warnings about their effects on health. We don't need a bunch of in-your-face images like this.

Next thing you know, they'll want to put pictures of abortions on packages of condoms.

Absurd.

[backscatter712]

31. What the hell, it'll make for entertaining theater on the Hill.

The smokers will still smoke, the non-smokers will still nag them, the lobbyists will converge on Capitol Hill and recreate scenes straight out of Thank You For Smoking.

All I need is :popcorn: