FDA Strikes Again With Power Wave of BS Labels on Cigarettes

[SMOKE 1,426]

Is this a mandate he can waive himself from? I don't think so.

that second part was intended to be read as a joke.

[B_J 2,752]

And your choice is impacted how by the label mandates? Do you now have less of a choice or a less educated choice or what? I don't understand what the impact of this move is to you?

You know, that's actually a pretty good reply to Paul's argument. I'm curious to see his response.

[Zero Sum 305]

that second part was intended to be read as a joke.

Sounds cool. FWIW, I think Obama should definitely quit smoking if he wants to get into the very known and significant health effects of actual and second-hand smoking. However, this is an administration thing, not just an Obama thing. Some people have to come to grips with that.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I don't smoke. I choose not to. See how that works?

I choose whether or not I want to go into a smoking establishment. See how that work?

Choice without government interference. Amazing isn't it?

It's erroneous to say that "smoking is addictive" and "Smoking kills" in blanket terms. If a company uses blanket terms and doesn't put an asterik next to it, they get in trouble. However the hypocrisy in Government is allowed? It's bull, all of it.

For some people it's addictive, yes. For some people it brings out the cancer cells in their body, yes. Does it happen to everyone? Does it happen all the time? No.

For every person you point out to me that's died or is addicted, I can point out one who smokes every day and is 80 years old and in decent health. I can point out social smokers who choose when and when not to smoke.

I'm all about education on POSSIBLE effects, but not for blanket BS ads that aren't 100% truthful.

You need to get laid.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

And your choice is impacted how by the label mandates? Do you now have less of a choice or a less educated choice or what? I don't understand what the impact of this move is to you?

The new FDA mandate isn't just about the labels, and it does effect choice and interferes in market forces as well.

The new FDA mandates also require cigarettes to be hidden out of plain site. i/e you can't see them behind the counter anymore (like in Canada). That whole "out of sight, out of mind" idea is what they are trying to do.

So in a sense it does stop choice, because some people won't know that they have that choice.

I rally against things the FDA does and the FCC always because they are power hungry agencies in the government. As I stated in my previous post, they can make blanket BS statements and private establishments cannot? The last time I checked, the government isn't supposed to be above the law, it's supposed to uphold the law.

Whether its cigarette rules on a Federal level or banning certain foods out of the country (which aren't bad at all except to a few people. see: cheeses), the FDA instead of being an informatve/educational agency, is more like a domestic terrorist who's trying to shape the market and people in its image.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Healthcare labels of one kind or another have been used on cigarette packaging for decades. Suddenly this is objectionable... why?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The new FDA mandate isn't just about the labels, and it does effect choice and interferes in market forces as well.

The new FDA mandates also require cigarettes to be hidden out of plain site. i/e you can't see them behind the counter anymore (like in Canada). That whole "out of sight, out of mind" idea is what they are trying to do.

So in a sense it does stop choice, because some people won't know that they have that choice.

That's a stretch at best. You have the same choices that you have today. Might take a bit longer to ascertain what all those choices are but they still exist all the same.

You may not have noticed but you are arguing here that consumers need to be informed in order to have choices. The information - which you bemoan of being taken away - is provided via the display of the product in all it's various brands and styles. Why is it that the consumer needs the information gained via the visual display of the product to have choice but doesn't need the information gained via warnings on the label? It's a bit of a catch 22 you're getting yourself into there.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's a stretch at best. You have the same choices that you have today. Might take a bit longer to ascertain what all those choices are but they still exist all the same.

You may not have noticed but you are arguing here that consumers need to be informed in order to have choices. The information - which you bemoan of being taken away - is provided via the display of the product in all it's various brands and styles. Why is it that the consumer needs the information gained via the visual display of the product to have choice but doesn't need the information gained via warnings on the label? It's a bit of a catch 22 you're getting yourself into there.

Perhaps if cigarette brands were to advertise a better kind of cancer

[Zero Sum 305]

The new FDA mandate isn't just about the labels, and it does effect choice and interferes in market forces as well.

The new FDA mandates also require cigarettes to be hidden out of plain site. i/e you can't see them behind the counter anymore (like in Canada). That whole "out of sight, out of mind" idea is what they are trying to do.

So in a sense it does stop choice, because some people won't know that they have that choice.

I rally against things the FDA does and the FCC always because they are power hungry agencies in the government. As I stated in my previous post, they can make blanket BS statements and private establishments cannot? The last time I checked, the government isn't supposed to be above the law, it's supposed to uphold the law.

Whether its cigarette rules on a Federal level or banning certain foods out of the country (which aren't bad at all except to a few people. see: cheeses), the FDA instead of being an informatve/educational agency, is more like a domestic terrorist who's trying to shape the market and people in its image.

Not banned. Want to buy a smoke? Ask for it at the counter. Whine less.

As for your BS interpretation of factual evidence, that's your problem. Maybe you can whine about that too.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

what factual evidence dude?

The undisputed factual evidence that smoking is bad for one's health. I know that they discourage acceptance of science and fact down in Texas but despite that state's efforts, the science and the facts remain as valid as ever. I sometimes wish that a mere lack of acceptance of science would simply make it not apply. That way, gravity would no longer apply to Texas and the whole state would just lift off the face of the earth. Unfortunately, whether you accept gravity or not, it still applies.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Nevermind what you insanely conclude about me or others that rely on factual evidence produced by the peer-review process. But...

Not sure what this statement is supposed to mean. Do you mean to say that you once again know more than all the medical scientists combined that are working on this, having obtained yourself at least a dozen degrees in Medicine, Clairvoyance, Cancer Biology, Pharmacology, Mind reading, Genetics, Chemistry, and Statistics- among other fields, that substantiate as false the conclusions that cigarettes are highly significant causal factors for cancer that drive significant development of cancers beyond genetic susceptibility, other environmental factors, and plain old bad luck?

Yeah... I didn't think so. Well, you might think you are clairvoyant and a mind-reader...

But you can start another whining thread if you want, because you have the choice to do that here. Even if the 'Start New Topic' button is on the top right side of the threads section.

I never once disputed that smoking CAN be harmful. I never once disputes that is CAN be addictive.

So I would suggest you get off of your soap box really quick before you make yourself look foolish.

All I have said, is it's erroneous to make a blanket statement and the government shouldn't get by with it just as the private sector isn't allowed to get by with it.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The undisputed factual evidence that smoking is bad for one's health. I know that they discourage acceptance of science and fact down in Texas but despite that state's efforts, the science and the facts remain as valid as ever. I sometimes wish that a mere lack of acceptance of science would simply make it not apply. That way, gravity would no longer apply to Texas and the whole state would just lift off the face of the earth. Unfortunately, whether you accept gravity or not, it still applies.

Ignoring the rest of your drivel, I'll go off the one point you attempted to make. Smoking CAN be bad for one's health, yes. It's not guaranteed though. There's far more to do with genetics on this one than some like to admit.

Government only uses the science they like and ignores the science they don't. There have been many studies on genetics and cancer/addiction linked with smoking however and how the risk is much greater based on those genes.

Don't believe me (as Zero wonder boy over there doesn't), look it up.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ignoring the rest of your drivel, I'll go off the one point you attempted to make. Smoking CAN be bad for one's health, yes. It's not guaranteed though. There's far more to do with genetics on this one than some like to admit.

Government only uses the science they like and ignores the science they don't. There have been many studies on genetics and cancer/addiction linked with smoking however and how the risk is much greater based on those genes.

Don't believe me (as Zero wonder boy over there doesn't), look it up.

Nothing is guaranteed except death and taxes. So what?

It's not as if there's some magic test that the consumer can take that says to a person that if you smoke you will get cancer. Hence the advice is about the balance of probability - smoking makes cancer, heart disease and respiratory illness much more likely. As far as it goes that is a fact.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Edited June 21, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have to say Paul - I find your discussion points very bizarre. You ignore the obvious arguments in favour of fixating on issues of presentation, which are surely the least relevant to anything.

Did you actually read what the warning messages say?

Warning: smoking can kill you.

It doesn't say smoking WILL kill you.

Warning: Cigarettes Cause Cancer

It doesn't say cigarettes WILL give you cancer.

Warning: Tobacco smoke can harm your children

It doesn't say Tobacco smoke WILL harm your children.

Warning: Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in non-smokers.

It doesn't say Tobacco smoke WILL give non-smokers fatal lung disease.

Warning: Cigarettes are addictive

It doesn't say you WILL get addicted to cigarettes

Warning: Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease

It doesn't say cigarettes WILL give you a stroke and/or heart disease.

Warning: Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health.

It doesn't say - smoking is the ONLY serious risk to your health

Warning: Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby

It doesn't say smoking during pregnancy WILL harm your baby