You know what, Matt, I agree. You know what else I'm sick of? I'm tired of smelling people that put on obnoxous amounts of cologne/ perfume. Do you know how hard it is to stand in an elevator with that?! How about car exhaust? That has to be just as bad if not worse for you than cigarette smoke. You sit in it everyday while in traffic breathing it in. It is basically burning petrolium, so we are breathing in oil. That has to be bad for us somehow. Where are all the laws for that?

Sick of smelling cigarette smoke where ever you go. Please! Non-smokers have such limited locations that they can smoke in now an days that they are very easy to avoid. Here is an idea, go around those locations, Matt! They did you the courtesy of leaving the common area for you, stay out of their smoking area so that they don't have to deal with your feigned coughs, annoyed looks, and ignorant comments. You are lucky that smokers are so accommodating in the first place.

Before you get all indignant on me... no, I am not a cigarette smoker. I am just tired of watching them get pushed around.

Matt,

I know it is hard for you liberals to stay on topic but this is about forcing companies to negatively market their products, not about you trying to remove rights from individuals.

Also pot is way better then a cigarette. Heroin can be way less addicting to but that depends on the person.

Also Matt, it isn't every ones fault they smoke. I know you always have a choice but some people didnt

Yeah, I remember when I was a teenager and someone shoved a lit cigarette in my mouth and held a gun to my head...

Agreed - you can O.D. on alcohol but it is not illegal, but cocaine and crack are

Cigarettes just have a better lobby than the coke dealers.

both crackheads and smokers leave their litter everywhere so I personally don't see the difference.

You could say the same about alcohol. If i am smoking a cigarette and i walk past you, yea you may smell the smoke and i have quit enough times to know the smell is foul. But it isnt going to kill you. Unless of course you spend your days in smoke filled areas (I am not talking about you having to smell a few cigarettes). Now lets say i'm a drinker... I get drunk and get in a car. I am not 10 times more likely to kill you. Alcohol impairs your ability to do anything. Drive, walk, think, talk, and more. And non smokers have whined enough about not wanting to be exposed to cigarettes that now a days you wont be surrounded by smokers unless you choose to be. Your chances of being "harmed" by a smoker are significantly less than your chances with a drunk. Neither should have half their labels dedicated to trying to prevent people from using their LEGAL product.

I've NEVER understood how lawsuits are won against the tobacco companies. No one forced anyone to smoke. It's a choice! People make choices all the time. If someone chooses to smoke, it's their choice! Smoking has been removed from restaurants, bars, pretty much everywhere, including outside areas! And, no, I don't smoke. But if someone wants to, it's their choice! I don't have to be around it. Tobacco companies should NOT be forced to put these on their packages. It's not like smokers don't know the facts! They do and still choose to smoke!

I agree tobacco should be illegal but since our law makers are too gutless to make it illegal it should be given the same respect that like any other legal product is given.

If tobacco companies have to put these pictures on their products then ALL companies should have to also. pharmacutical companies should have to put pictures of the adverse side effects of their products on the product labels. high fat fast foods should have to put pictures of clogged arteries on the food containers, etc etc.

My opinion is that the tobacco companies have had a sufficient grace period after finding out conclusively that their product kills the user and everyone around them to either fix the problem or stop selling the product... so like every other product that kills, they should be banned.

But (and a big but), since they are still legal, my bet is that the court will rule in their favor and their claim that the government went overboard will be upheld.

Anyone have the latest costs of these products in terms of lives lost or harmed and long term health care?

BTW, any notion that only a liberal would support either a ban or the labeling kinda puts the right in a bad light... just my opinion.

About 82,191,780 packs of cigarettes are sold daily .

thats $181,643,833 in tax gains a DAY

NOW here is a number to think about A YEAR $66,299,999,337 that the Government gets to spend from the Cigarettes sales in the USA , MAKE IT SOMEWHERE because you know they are not go cut spending

If just one person ended up looking like that then YES, they must be obliged to show the result of using their 'legal' product.

Its hypocrisy and evangelism rolled into one. People who smoke clearly know the dangers, the product is legal and the governments make revenue from its sale (none of which is earmarked to smoking cessation programs or products) and thehe effect on the “those about to smoke” group is made negligent but the natural youth rebellion function.
Then there’s the the habituation factors causing smokers and non-smokers alike to eventually become inured and not even notice the graphics.

I see this all as more over the top zealotry from both the non-smoking evangelists and from the “corporations are people” crowds.

My stand is that the pictures are as polluting as second smoke itself. Australia’s plain packaging seems a better idea to me.

With all the problems the government has to deal with you wouldn't think they would have time to always be trying to control every ones life. I think the American people are smart enough to have gotten the message by now that smoking is bad for you.

I don't think the warning labels will do a thing to deter a smoker. I also think it is just another government invasion on what is considered a legal company. That being said, I am not a smoker, I don't like the foul smell of the smoke nor the smell it leaves on smokers. My next door neighbors have 5 adults in their house, two parents and three very grown kids. All of them are chain smokers. The houses in my neighborhood are very close together. The smell of their stale smoke sometimes gets into my house. I can always smell their house in my driveway and the stale smell is in my vehicle.

I called code enforcement and there is nothing that can be done. Now, is that fair to my family? It isn't, but to make my point they all have smoked for years and no warning label is going to make them stop.

I am an ex smoker, but not a nicotine Nazi, Friends are allowed to smoke in my house. I know another smoker that quit, but then 5 years later ended up on oxygen from the damage, even though she had quit. So i do have some knowledge of smoking. Warnings on the packs meant nothing when i wanted to smoke.

Did anyone think of the impact these images could have on young children that dont yet understand what they are seeing when they are in a store walking past a display? Did anyone think of the sales based just on collecting all the images? Making them collectable is a GREAT way to target Teens. Good job Congress.

Whats next? graphic photos of burn victims on match book covers and lighter printing?

The Government far exceeded their boundarys with this, They shouldnt have the right to dictate packaging, once this starts whats next How about some naked 600 lb holding a game controller on the packaging of all gaming consoles ?

This has to end before it even starts.

If cigarettes were introduced today as a commercial product, it would not get approved. Period. They are is a proven fact that they are addicting, carcinogenic, and carcinogenic for others. It causes heart disease and cancer and sucks away ones lifespans and money. More importantly, the health risks and diseases that come with cigarettes make health insurance more expensive, and in the current system, some of those costs are past on to all of us.

Cigarettes literally kill people, and they a legal. It's sad.

I understand the argument about fat food, alcohol being legal as well. But those two other groups already have extensive campaigns against them. Plus, drinking alcohol wont potentially expose the people around to to physical disease, nor will fatty food. Plus, think of the extensive anti-alcohol / drunk diving campaign you see all over the internet and on TV. Plus there are plenty of commercials warning against fatty food and promoting healthy lifestyles. There are hardly any ads found that are anti-tobacco, exposing the dangers of the product. there are a few hlep me quit ads, but they aren't informative. I don't see how these labels are any different than the other campaigns happening.

WHAT'S NEXT...?

HOT DOGS AS DANGEROUS AS CIGS

http://www.delish.com/food/recalls-reviews/group-says-hot-dogs-as-unhealthy-as-cigarettes?GT1=47001

Its hypocrisy and evangelism rolled into one. People who smoke clearly know the dangers,

Thanks you culheath. Of course adults who smoke know the dangers and choose to do it anyway. Just like the guy with cardiovascular disease chomps into that pile of nachos while lounging around on the couch. IT IS A MATTER OF CHOICE which our country affords us as citizens. FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

And, anyone who's going to make the case about kids smoking, first of all it is the parents responsibility, not society's, to ensure that kids are making choices their parents approve of. No one should expect society to change to be in concert with what parents want their kids to do or not do.

Driving itself should be illegal. It harms non-driving individuals around them. I'm sick of having to breathe someone's nasty car exhaust wherever I go.

Let's sue the car companies! Make them paint pictures of dead people who have been in car accidents on the hood of every new car!

See how stupid it sounds?

Jeff... are you high?! I see those stupid "the truth" anti-smoking commercials all the time. Way more than anti- drinking/ fast food commercials. Actually, I can't think of a single commercial telling you not to go to a fast food joint.

I would love it if the smokers could stop smoking... just for 1 month... all together... so all of the governments could see what would happen if their stupid "sin" tax actual worked and stopped people from smoking. That is a lot of money that local, state and federal governments are gonna lose.

I'm waiting for some rich smoker to create a smokers haven where all smokers can go and all non-smokers are forbidden. I think it would be poetic justice!

bones, you would think people would have gotten the message, but a) that doesn't seem to be the case. and b) they still think smoking outside [and then bringing the particles in on their clothes] is ok for their toddler who is asthmatic as a result of being exposed to smoke even in the womb. Maybe these new pictures will make people think a little longer before they buy that next box.

Work in an oncology unit for just a day. You will never forget the sound of someone who has lung cancer. The moist cough, the smell of rotting tisse, the sight of someone grasping for air. The color of cyanosis. The sound of lungs, with rhonchi and rales. Mostly, you will never forget the looks, of sadness, fear and helplessness, on their loved ones faces . And the irony is, this patient NEVER smoked, there "loved one" did!

As for the post complaining of perfume, at least it won't kill you, if you breath it in. I am willing to bet, those who sided with the tobacco companies, are either smokers or profit from cigarettes and tobacco sales.

Just remember cigarettes don't kill, the people who smoke them do!

What a load of crap, you have to want to get near cigarette smokers nowadays. With all the regulations on where we can smoke you practically have to come into contact with cigarette smoke deliberately. You just want to force your ideas on us so you can control us, well guess what? We will continue to smoke as long as we want to and warning pictures aren't going to make people quit. As long as the product is still legal and available we have the right to make our own decisions, we don't need people like you trying to force their will upon us. If you don't like it, tough, go to where the cigarette smoke isn't, we have rights too. Me being a smoker does not remove my rights, stop trying to do so.

hme27, you are wrong. Smoking IS a choice. Drinking IS a choice. Doing Drugs IS a choice. No One forces you take or use these products. YOU make your own decsion in that regard.

As a former smoker I admit that freely. The Tobacco companies did not FORCE me to start or to Keep on smoking for the 30odd years I smoked. I did that freely of my own volition.

Liberals need to stop blaming other people from their bad choices. You make the decision to do the deed, so take responsibility for your actions.

It is my understanding that if you started smoking after the warning labels were put on then you cant sue. But before the labels tobacco companies claimed their products were safe & not addictive.

The non smokers use the smokers to pay for their roads, their schools and anything else they can stick onto the smokers and then have the nerve to tell them they are killers and making their idiotic heads sick even when theose very same idiots walk out of their wood smoke havens and step into their oil burners that choke the hell out of anything they happen to pass along those smoker tax paid highways. The governmetn supposedly taxes smokers to pay for the advertisements to try to undo the harm they themselves brought onto this nation when they, fully knowing the dangers of smoking, allowed the taobacco industry to hook people on their products.

The tobacco company should not be forced to pay for the very advertisements I pay the governments to run themselves with my high paid cig taxes.

if their product is detrimental to health and addictive , then yes make them do what ever you want and tax them to the point of ridiculousness! only dumb ppl and teenagers smoke anyway....... maybe a couple of doctors and nurses, but if i saw what they see everyday I may smoke also, but they have good healthcare.Not taxpayer burden of the dumb smokers.

It's funny; I WAS essentially forced to smoke as a 17 year-old by the US Navy in boot camp. We had 10-minute "smoke, coke and joke" breaks several times a day, but our company commander made you stay inside and clean the barracks if you didn't actually light up. That's not exactly a "gun to my head", but it's the next best thing to a 17-year old back in the mid-70's. I felt I had no real choice, I wasn't going to be one of the two guys or so that stayed inside cleaning the whole place while everyone else kicked back and laughed. 30 years later, I quit. That doesn't mean I blame the cig companies for any of it.

I think these labels go way too far, and I can tell you for sure they wouldn't have stopped me from smoking, even BEFORE I became "addicted". I would have just laughed it off. But maybe that's just me. I doubt it.

Matt is the reason why I want to leave this country. Too many ignorant idiots.

how many people do you see at grocery store/ circle k buying "CRAP" (red bulls/twinkies for them and the kids like a 2.50 drink x them and 3 kids is nothing,with a foodstamp card then paying 6.00 for cigarettes with cash? ? I know you see it.

I think if we have to pay for the healthcare of the ignorant alcholics that have done nothing but destroy themselves and everything else around them throughout the years, then we have no place whining about paying for the tobacco users healthcare. I mean after all, it is because we have used the cost of their healthcare that we have to tax the hell out of them throughout the years. We should use that very same excuse and really start attacking the alcoholic drinkers of this nation. I don't drink period so it's a win-win for people like me that pay for these slobs health when they've p^ssed away all their's and their families money.

I'm fine with existing warning labels, but adding graphic pictures goes too far for me. How long before McDonald's is forced to put equivalent pictures on their Happy Meals? What's next - does the government start adding positive images for products they want people to use? I'm tired of the nanny state...

To all you TP-GOPers who are complaining here in favor of the tobacco companies...

Please exercise your rights to smoke and keep smoking until it gets you all.

Just don't do it anywhere near me because it stinks and damages my health.

aquatone ..yes ARMY the same "smoke em if ya got em, otherwise keep workin"

"Just remember cigarettes don't kill, the people who smoke them do!"

@Take that back - You are out of your mind. That is like saying poisons don't kill, the people who make them do. OR Pools don't kill, the people that swim in them do. OR Sharks don't kill, people kill themselves by pulling their body in the way of a shark.

All just plainly ridiculous statements.

Hey while their at it...can they put pictures of deadly car accidents, mangled bodies (dead or alive), cirrhosis of the liver, abused children and spouses, really wasted people doing really dumb things, pictures of raped women in the hospital or on the streets...and place all of these on the labels of alcoholic beverages. (a little harsh, a little too graphic...no?)

Yeah smoking is gross, its bad for your health and others that you smoke around, if you are ignorant enough to smoke around non-smokers, but it doesn't cause half the problems that alcohol causes (which is also bad for your health), yet alcohol is advertised on TV, in magazines, and sponsors sporting events and all kinds of things that people see and do everyday, not to mention it is sold in super markets, gas stations, along with bars and liquor stores. There is a bar on every corner, at usually at least 2 liquor stores in most towns. But somehow cigarettes are the things that are band from TV, billboards, magazine ads, and sporting event sponsors.

Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

Smoking KILLED my Mother. Period. They advertised the product as being safe, used Doctors in Ads saying so. Then later they did all they could to make it look 'cool' to smoke.
Smoking is not cool, we all pay the cost, not just in increased health costs for smokers which drives up all our insurance, but in secondhand smoke, cleaning up their Fing cigarette butts they throw all over the place, loss of productivity at work as they are sick more often (How about we pay them less since they produce less). When they die we pay out survivor benefits to the kids they leave behind.
Anything that teaches kids how dangerous this crap is is good. An educated consumer is nothing but good, unless you are the one selling the dangerous product. Cigarette companies have spent millions hiding the truth, lying to congress, lying to the people. Remember when they hid the fact that they jacked up nicotine to make them more addictive? And that was not so long ago.
As far as the taxes they pay, they don't come close to covering the cost to the rest of us for their habit.
Cigarette companies and those who work at them should be imprisoned for murder...that is all they are murderers.
The less 'cool' it is, the more costly it is and the less convenient it is, the more they will quit. That has been proven. There is absolutely nothing good about them unless you make the money from selling them.
I make it simple, I will not hire anyone who smokes. And before you howl, that is totally legal and we do much better without you around us. Begone and take your filthy habit with you. We no longer want to be infected with your cancer causing toxic waste in the air we breathe.

Do I sound mad? You bet I am! And my Mom told me at the end how much she regretted having been locked in the handcuffs of smoking, how she wished she could have stopped. She never met her youngest grandchild, she missed it all.
She was Miss Tobacco in 1956, rode in the Tobacco Festival Parade on a Float, and it killed her.

@Mark - you really need to understand the meaning of liberal and you need to quit grouping people under ONE umbrella - I see your biased posts all over the place and it just shows your simple mindedness. I live in Florida and a carton of cigarettes is $45. Climb out of that little bubble of yours. Could it be that SOME regulations are for the good of the people?

Now we are blaming cigarettes on the government.

ADULT smokers could care less about the packaging

They should be illegal. They kill plain and simple.

The package advertising will not make a difference. Just keep those great ads on TV - they are more productive - and for those children that do not have parents that are responsible.

franklytrue

I completely agree with your mother and yet they still allow the tobacco industry to do what they do all for the sake of reaping profits off us smokers. I smoke and I also wish they would make tobacco illegal and take it off the market. I started smoking long before joe cool camel advertisements. I was 4 years old and inhaling then.

Quitting smoking for me isn't the problem. Finding places to hide the bodies WHILE I quit is the problem.

Cigarette companies put additives that are specifically addictive into their cigarettes. And no, I'm not talking nicotine. While nicotine is addictive, if it was JUST the nicotine, I could easily quit smoking and chew nicorette or use my e-cigarette instead.

I do NOT get the same "fix" when I smoke my pipe, with just good pipe tobacco.

It's a terrible trap. The cigarette companies WANT you to smoke. The government WANTS the taxes from it.

Smokers are getting pushed more and more aside... we will be banned and taxed out of smoking. You can't have a smoke in a bar any longer; you can't have a smoke within 30 feet of a doorway ENTERING a building. And at $6 a pack, we're being taxed right out of being able to afford to smoke.

How about a study on what is IN cigarettes? If inhaling burning pot doesn't kill you, how come inhaling burning tobacco does? IT'S BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA GARBAGE THEY PUT INTO CIGARETTES TO ADDICT YOU.

I definitely think that these new labels have gone way too far. It is one thing to force a manufacturer to include a warning about the dangers of their product on the packaging, it is something else entirely to essentially force them to advertise against the product on their own packaging. In addition, I doubt very much that these new labels will have any impact on the number of people smoking. Smokers today are well aware of the risks. Putting disturbing and outright disgusting pictures on the cigarette packs is not going to change anyone's behavior. All it will do is gross out and possibly scare or psychologically scar little children who see the packs on the store shelves.

I'm sure, as usual, a middle path will, once again, be highly unpopular in red-faced, act stupid then think later, America. Nevertheless...

First off, if you can't stand the smell of smoke and think you are a do-gooder for removing people of the right to smoke, F-U. By the way, particularly if your brand of hypocrisy includes drinking alcohol, or smoking pot. But even if it doesn't, repeat, F-U.

Now, hopefully having the ludicrous anti-smokers demeaned, let's not put aside what horrible things tobacco companies have done over the decades. It IS your own choice to put a cigarette in your mouth, but it is also pure scum, illegal behavior, that lies to you about the dangers and then attempts to keep you hooked. You can only make a fully conscious decision if you know the dangers, and the lie is that people knew how deadly smoking was before they put the cigarette in their mouth for a long time. Just as bad, people weren't aware of the things cigarette companies did to keep them hooked, so they couldn't make a full decision at another level...when to quit.

These things are illegal, and to say otherwise is also to lie. If you take a medication, even if it is over the counter, the label has to forewarn you of the dangers. If you even eat food that is potentially dangerous to you, you must be told about what the danger is on the label. Tobacco is no different, and like oil companies, corporate interests fight for their own survival over the benefit of people, including their own customers.

This IS what government is for. If someone wants to deregulate a non-potentially life threatening industry, you go ahead and do that. But when it comes to what you could die from, you need regulation. Regulation that gives you the freedom to choose, but leaves you with all the information to make that choice.

I have no compassion for the people who want to stop smoking everywhere. They are fools and don't understand the country they live in, except through a tiny, pin-hole sized, completely radical point of view. But, there's no pass for a mega-corporation that does things like put fiberglass in tobacco so it lacerates your gums to enhance the nicotine effect (dip) or creates a filter meant to pass more addictive nicotine into your system. To this day, I do not understand why executives aren't in jail, except that I understand when you have lots of money, you can go own politicians and get away with almost anything.

P. S. Mark, stop acting like the 'liberal' you pretend to hate.

I find it funny that there is so much hatred against smoking. It increases the chance of lung cancer it doesn't guarantee that you will get it. George Burns smoked the equivalent of two packs a day with his cigars and he started at 10 years old. He didn't die from lung cancer, emphysema, or any other thing related to smoking. This is emotional propaganda and not facts. If you want to go by facts cars have killed more people then smoking has but those are still legal. Heck you barely have to pass the road test and you are good to go put other people's lives in much greater risk then what is associated with second hand smoke.

So go ahead and tell these people that choose this that they are going to die. I think it will become my responsibility to decide that you have to pass a police driving course to drive. It will become my responsibility to go force congress to pass it as a law and whenever you talk on a cell phone or take a sip of soda or text or put make up on or read (I have seen people reading a book driving along I-94 west) then you should be charged with attempted murder of everyone in 500 feet. See how that emotional non thinking thing works? It doesn't work to good when it is your freedoms being infringed upon.

I consider myself a non-smoker but I do smoke occasionally.

I think these new warning labels are ridiculous. Anybody who doesn't know that cigarettes are bad for them without having to see this shock-imagery probably needs to be smoking....

This is a bull@!$%# solution. The real solution to all anti-tobacco woes would be to FORCE TOBACCO COMPANIES TO LIST THE INGREDIENTS THAT GO INTO THE CIGARETTE. Everybody knows there's horrible @!$%# in there, so just list it on the back in normal letters and that will do the job better than a freakin picture of a pissed off baby. I mean come on, guys, does ANYBODY buy this?

Post Edit, Derek's post a few up said what I meant to say, only much more eloquently. Right on, Derek, too bad the voices of reason are always shouted down by the two extremes yelling in opposite ears.

I am a smoker who started at a young age (12) While you can blame anyone you want for this fact (I take full responsibility for my actions) I now have a nine year old daughter.....I think these labels would go a long way towards detering younger people from ever starting. And that is a good thing. For all the people talking about lost revenues to the government; the other side of the coin is public health costs due to smoking's effects. Think about it....

Driving itself should be illegal. It harms non-driving individuals around them. I'm sick of having to breathe someone's nasty car exhaust wherever I go.

Let's sue the car companies! Make them paint pictures of dead people who have been in car accidents on the hood of every new car!

The problem with this argument is cigarettes aren't a necessity. But vehicles, in some areas are necessary for people to get from point A to point B. Where I live there isn't any public transportation. You either have your own vehicle, depend on someone else with one or take a taxi to get where you have to go. There are very few stores in walking distance. The major ones like Walmart, Home Depot, Shop Rite, and stores of this type are located in remote areas.

Really? The tobacco companies want to sue the govt? How about the govt file murder and fraud/misrepresentation charges on the tobacco companies and throw their a$$es in prison where they belong! The nerve of these willful murderers!

Yes I respect your opinion. I'm a smoker and enjoy it and can afford it too. Been smoking for 55 years and have x-rays to prove that I have great lungs for my age. I think it is really stupid to ban smoking in Bars where big brother allows us to kill our brain cells, cause liver and heart problems and ban smoking where we are allowed to poison ourselves. I rarely go to a bar but when I do, I would certainly enjoy a cigarette with my drink which is is a trigger to my sensors. I do not smoke in my house and respect non smokers wishes, if reasonable.

I don't understand how people in the same breath could plead that marijuana should be legalized while also saying that no one should be allowed to smoke.

You do realize that the most common way to intake marijuana is to smoke it, right?

The bandwagon in this country is ridiculous sometimes.

Oh, and sitting in traffic in a city is far worse than secondhand smoke. Should we ban cars?

(Actually, I would be okay with banning cars. Bring back horse-drawn wagons!)

Same here Nublet. I do not smoke in my home nor in any structure period. I am discrete to the point that even my children do not know I smoke. Nor have I ever whined about the greed of the non smokers that use smokers as a source of income to pay for everything but the reasons they gave for taxing us... our healthcare costs.

@Observer: all the rage now is to 'vaporize' :P

@Observer: all the rage now is to 'vaporize' :P

lol Oh yeah, I forgot.

Which doesn't make any sense to me, by the way. It seems like that would cause pneumonia something terrible... I dunno - I'm not familiar with the science behind 'vaporizing'.

Cry me a tear, you want tobacco to stay legal, keep it out of the public's face, lungs, and nose.

How you do that we dont care, just keep the filth to your self.

@Observer: all the rage now is to 'vaporize' :P

How to look twice as stupid, fake cigs.

Grow up, crybaby. Derek was making a joke.

Observer---there's a book, unfortunately out of print called The Good Old Days----They Were Terrible! Horses produce a lot of---well, you know---& the steets were big manure piles in places, & the smell was terrible. So I'm not too keen on the idea of going back to ( literal ) horse power.

Ah yes, but just think! If we can bring back horse-drawn carriages, we could also bring back sweet vests and capes!

I think that is worth the price of smelling manure!

"vaping" uses propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin as a carrier for the nicotine. PG and VG are both standard, FDA approved food additives. The e-cig has a heating element inside that is triggered by airflow. When you inhale, a tiny amount of the PG/VP liquid is pulled out of a refillable cartridge and is heated slightly. This causes a vapor to form, which is then inhaled. It feels a lot like smoking, and you can get either flavored or unflavored liquid with a variety of nicotine levels. It is smaller but otherwise the exact exact same principle and ingredients (other than nicotine) as a "smoke machine" used on stage for plays and musicals or in movies. As far as anyone has proven, it is PG and VP are both perfectly safe to inhale. You can certainly overdue nicotine (in any form), but the medical truth is that if you poison yourself with nicotine and survive the first few minutes, you will recover with absolutely no lasting health effects whatsoever.

Many of you are missing the key point. For many years, tobacco companies did everything they possibly could to dispute sound science that showed that smoking is dangerous. To this day, there are people out there that don't believe smoking is dangerous.

If the industry is going to deliberately spread disinformation that endagers lives just to make a buck, then they SHOULD be legally required to take steps to correct the damage done by their lies.

If someone knows it's dangerous and CHOOSES to smoke, that's fine. Be my guest. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not companies should have the legal right to deny that their product is dangerous when the evidence is overwhelming that it IS.

they need to put these warning lables on alcoholic beverages of all kinds!! i am a former smoker but i do not judge my friends and family that smoke, it was my choice to start, and my choice to quit. i think that there is nothing wrong with the lables, but they should put them on alcohol too. lets face it, u can drive down the rd and smoke a cig, and not kill anyone, while on the other hand, if u go drinking and driving, eventually ur luck (or someone elses), will run out!! i think these ads they want to put on packs r meant to deter kids from starting. if they had been on there years ago, i might not have started smoking. i started cause i thought it made me look "cool" i like the in ur face reality of the ads!!!

Mark needs to leave the ignorant party politics out of this. There are smokers on all sides of the fence. It is wrong for the smokers to stand right in the path of entrance and exit doors of any store, esp. when it is their employees. Customers need to complain more to the store manager with a comment that they'll shop somewhere else if customers cannot enter and exit with safety of health concerns. Perhaps the store manager needs to check the door areas more often and request that anyone smoking by the doors to please go to the designated spots. Get the hint Wal-Mart?????

There is far to much evidence showing how DEADLY second hand smoke is, for cigarette smoking to be legal anywhere in public. Further anyone caught smoking around children should be charged with endangerment!

As for the labels, the tobacco lobbies want them removed because there are having an effect on teenage smoking. All of the numbers show that it is teenagers that they are after because those that start smoking before 20 become the life long smokers they are after.

deborah -909179

The labels on the packs of cigarettes will never make anyone quit smoking, but they may make some decide not to start smoking. This is the tobacco company's dismay with the labels. In order to sell their product they need new customers. For the companies to bring suit against the Feds is probably a good indication that the labels have had the desired affect on their potential new customers.

I'm an ex-smoker! I could not agree with you more about the after-stench of this product. I, too, with my son have lived in a similar situation that you described in your post. It is a disgusting odor, but you know what? The smokers cannot smell the odor! They're oblivious to it and it's not that they are dumb, or have reduced sense of smell. Their nasal passages, mouth and throat is so coated with nicotine and smoked residue that they cannot disseminate the second hand smoke odor that around them.

@ AnnForTruth01 Good thing you found a flaw in that argument. Cars are a necessity right? They've been around since the dawn of time correct?

Well since the government has to foot the bill if the persons medical bill of people that can't pay YES they have every right, and YOU morons wonder why our country is in debt, will large corporations make record profits, its because We pay for their CRAP ..... When they pay for those that end up with LUNG cancer then they can leave out the government warnings .....

Google World Health Organization Conference 1973 and see where this crap all started. The Anti-Smoking movement heads of this group went against their own science in declaring war on smoking. Such as, in Japan the smoking rate is much higher than in the US, but they chose to ignore these facts for their own agenda. There are other examples of them ignoring science to promote their agenda of trying to ban smoking "by any means necessary" including misinformation and deception. This is a long boring read and there are other WHO conferences three to five years apart up into the 90's and on into this century where the leaders of this facist group state they will go to any length to accomplish their goals including pressuring politicians with smear campaigns, forcing medical schools to adopt their agenda in teaching new doctors. Let me make it very clear, there is a HUGE difference between non smokers who choose not to smoke and anti smokers who want to make that choice for everybody.

There was a study on MSNBC last week that found, as I've said all along, that GENETICS determine who will and won't get cancer. To hear the Nicotine Nazis tell it, anyone who has ever been ten feet from a lit cigarette will surely die from cancer or that once you have your first cigarette the damage irreparable damage is done, so why quit ? Theier lies and propaganda cannot account for the people who have never smoked, lived or worked with a smoker, or assosciated with people who smoke getting and dying from lung cancer. Their lies and propaganda are just exactly that, lies and propaganda to accomplish their stated goal of eliminating smoking worldwide. Part of the "New World Order".

If the US were to make cigarettes illegal people would be getting busted and going to jail for growing tobacco in their basements. We don't need a new class of criminal for something that if it does harm anyone, only harms the user.

For those of you that don't choose to be around cigarette smoke, DON"T ! You have to go out of your way to be around it nowdays. I believe that business owners should have the right to allow smoking in their establishments if they choose. At the most the would be required to post a warning on the door something to the effect of, THIS IS A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT. IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY CIGARETTE SMOKE OR HAVE A MEDICAL CONDITION THAT IS AGGREVATED BY CIGARETTE SMOKE DO NOT ENTER. This way non smokers are warned of what's inside and can choose not to enter, but if they choose to go in they forefit all right to complain.

I am plesantly surprised to see the number of non smokers who say this is too much. Thank you. And there is a difference between non smokers and anti smokers. The former choose not to smoke and the latter want to make that choice for everyone.

If this labeling is allowed I will personally start a push for graphic pictures of mangled bodies to cover the entire drivers door of every motor vehicle made. At this rate before long there will be gory pictures of diseased, mangled bodies on everything everywhere and we as humans will become desensitized to it. That would lessen us as people and remove some of our humanity.

And to those who would complain about haveing to pay for my health care should I have a smoking related illness, I have paid my 1000%+ sin tax for over 40 years, therefore I am prepaid, and if I don't need it, then someone else is covered. Based on the anti smoking logic anyone who ever touched a cigarette will die, so by their own logic all smokers should be dead. That fails them too.

Actually, yes a joke, and also pointing out that pot smokers are now making the arguement that weed can be put into a vaporizor and therefore is not harmful to your lungs when you smoke it. Of course, you could also vaporize tobacco. Whether you look stupid doing it or not is really not the point. The point is to get your 'high' without putting ash into your lungs. If there's some other health hazard from vaporizing, I wouldn't know about it, but wouldn't be surprised.

And as far as getting smoke in your lungs from another smoker, I too, couldn't care less if someone gets smoke from someone else's cigarette in their lungs. I don't smoke and I still don't care. You have feet. Walk somewhere that there isn't smoke.

I don't know what all you righties are arguing about, In Canada they have been putting negative pics on their packs of cigs for over 10 yrs now and people still buy them. If someone is going to smoke they are going to smoke period. You people just just to whine and complain about everything. The tobacco companies aren't going to lose anything they will still make their profit regardless. Cry me a river!!

A little aside: The radical anti-smokers and the fanboi inconsiderate smokers have one thing in common...

They are both jerks.

NORMAL, considerate smokers, of which there are plenty, put out cigarettes and don't smoke around people who don't like it. In return, non-smokers don't get too upset unless something is really bothering them and they can't go somewhere else. In other words, the two groups don't need laws...and when the other person is too big a jerk to work it out, they go somewhere else. You know, like they do when someone else is being a jerk, well, about anything really. They take the high road.

So, it is really only the TRUE A-HOLES who feel the need to make laws to prevent smoking and/or the need to make laws that allow fiberglass to be put in your tobacco dip. But leave it to the radical minorities to get the biggest voice....

All this back-and forth is CRAZY!!! Sorry for the soapbox, and I am not one to post comments, but this one hits me hard. I've lost many dear family and friends to the effects of smoking. Granted, if they want to continue the habit knowing the consequences to themselves, who are we to stop them. However, for those who say that there are enough non-smoking places for those who choose not to be around it that they can avoid it entirely is completely false. How is the child whose parent, grandparent, or caretaker smokes going to avoid being exposed to it? Even if they don't smoke around the child, it's still in their clothes. My mother-in-law watched my infant and 5 yr. old girls for a few weeks while my husband worked, and I couldn't even open my daughter's diaper bag. I had to air it out before I could empty it out each evening. It smelled like an ashtray, and to think my daughters had to breathe that in for several hours made me sick. She wouldn't not smoke so it was either smoke in front of the girls or leave them alone inside, unattended, while she stepped outside to smoke. It was still on her hands and clothes, though, when she'd come back in and hold my 6 mos. old. She didn't watch them for long.

In addition, how many times have you had to walk through a crowd of smokers standing in front of the entrance to a building, restaurant, etc.? Just this past Friday, my husband stayed in the van with our 4 kids while I went and put our name in for a table at a local restaurant because there was a group of people smoking in front of the entrance. They waited in the van until the group left before coming in. As for restaurants that still have smoking sections, do people have any consideration for the wait staff that may be serving them when they puff that smoke into their face? I waited tables off-and-on for several years when times got tough, and we didn't get a choice as to what section we had that shift. Sometimes I had smoking. I don't smoke and often times I came home with a sore throat because of breathing it in my entire shift.

There're also the parents who decide to light up at the ball fields while their child and everyone else's is exposed to their smoke. Smoking is prohibited at the fields where my kids participate in baseball and football activities, but people do it anyway and then get offended when you ask them to stop. They'd rather go stand in the parking lot or sit out in the car (which is in the parking lot, and the parking lot is still part of the fields so it's prohibited there, too) than to watch their kid which is the whole reason why they're there in the first place.

Finally, to those who think they're not hurting anyone but themself by their choice to smoke, what about the children you leave behind? A dear friend of mine lost his brother, his best friend and "fishing buddy," due to lung cancer, somthing his brother didn't even know he had until about a month before it took his life. He was still fairly young, married, with two beautiful young girls. The olderof the two was a senior in high school with only a few months away from graduating - something her daddy wasn't there to see her do. The younger was in her tweens. Whose shoulder are they going to lean on those times when it's something only a daddy's hug can fix? Who's going to walk those young ladies down the aisle when they find the right one?

My point: it's not just the smokers who are effected by cigarettes, but all of us around them. People have argued about alcohol, and why isn't it illegal. Drinking the alcohol isn't illegal, except in those counties that are dry, but the moment someone puts someone else's life in jeopardy by their drinking, it is. The moment that drunk gets behind the wheel, it's become illegal. The moment someone puts their drinking before their kids, CPS becomes involved. It's illegal to consume alcohol at a public pool or in a public park or drink while operating a boat. Someone charged with DWI may have to blow into a machine before they can start their vehicle. These are all measurements the government has taken to protect others from the choices people make by deciding to drink alcohol. I don't care what the statistics are for the consequences of each of these lifestyle choices. The point is, they both have devastating effects, and they both affect other people. The government is trying to protect and limit the harmful effects these choices have on those of us who choose to abstain from these behaviors. The way people are affected differs, so the government has to take different approaches as to the ways it protects us. At first I thought these labels were a bit graphic because I didn't want my kids to see them, but then I remembered that cigarettes are stored behind the counters and, unless my child was close enough to touch it, they shouldn't be seeing them anyway. If they are close enough to touch it, I'd want them to see it because it may deter them from starting should they ever be offered one from a fellow friend. My oldest is 13 and about to start the 8th grade. Many times I've seen Jr. high and high school age kids light up as soon as they got away from the school. Should any of my son's friends become one of them, I pray that my son has learned enough to know not to start that habit. We can parent, and parent, and parent, but we can't be everywhere all the time. The graphic illustrations will be another tool to help us protect our kids during those times.

This is a simple case of appointed and elected officials over running their authority against an entity they don't like.

If this is allowed let's also do the following:

Show pictures of injured people in mangled vehicles on every container that an alcoholic beverage is sold in.

Show a picture of a peptic ulcer on every soda can and coffee cup.

Show a picture of a colon on every package of red meat.

Some of the things we do in this country defy logic in my opinion. Smoking can cause health risks so they are banned in most public places across the country. Fine.

DUI is an unlawful act in every part of the country. Then how is it that a person can purchase and consume alcoholic beverages at sporting events, bars, restaurants and other public places without proving that they are not going to be driving away from such places? The results of tobacco abuse are usually long term and may be prevented before they have tragic results. An automobile accident caused by a person DUI is immediate. Seems to me that we are attacking one unfairly while ignoring another. But this goes to show that people will attack things they don't like while ignoring the problems of things they engage in.

I am a smoker. I know that one day it will kill me. I know all about the affects it may have on my children. I know about what they put into a cigarrette and the health affects it will have on me. However, It has always been my "CHOICE" to smoke. No matter what they put on a cigarette pack i will still buy it!! It is unfair for the tobacco companies to be forced to advertise quit smoking material and graphic images on their packs. It is their right to advertise but the government took away that right. It is their right to sponsor athletics but they can no longer do that.

Yes i agree that if tobacco was created in todays society that it would not be legal. But the fact is it wasnt created in todays society and therefore it is LEGAL. The reason the government doesn't make it illegal is because the government makes 62 trillion dollars a year in tax revenue from SMOKERS ALONE!!! Where is this money going? Well numerous athletic complexes were built with it, It helped fund the wars, it helped pay our politicians their salary, it went to help pay for the social security and welfare people, it also went to help students through college in the form of pell grants! Without the tobacco industry ALL OUR LIVES WOULD BE AFFECTED.

Maybe we smokers need to start advocating and lobbying smokers rights like the gay and lesbians did. If those people have the right to push their lifestyle choices on everyone why can't smokers do the same? I am a heterosexual and i think that homosexuality is an immoral sin. You are not born with it and it is not an illness or disease. It is not biological. IT IS A LIFESTYLE CHOICE JUST LIKE SMOKING!! I do agree however it is their choice and they should have the right to live that lifestyle. I will not tolerate it around me and i do not condone it. I am fully against it. But i don't try to force them to quit! Why should you force me to Quit smoking. Isn't this still a free country. Free to choose how to live your life? I choose to smoke and should not be forced to quit. I should not be forced to smoke in designated areas. It is my RIGHT and that RIGHT is protected by the Constitution of the United States of America!!!

I remember a time i had the right to choose where i smoked. I could choose to light up in a restaurant. I could choose to have a smoke while drinking a beer in a bar. I could choose to smoke at a football game in an outdoor arena. Now i can not do any of those things. It SHOULD BE MY RIGHT to smoke where i want to and when i want to!!

With that being said let me tell you about the choices i made when i had the choice. I always chose to smoke outside away from those that were non smokers including outside of my home so that my kids didnt have to be around it. I always chose to respect a non smoker by staying as far away as possible from them smoking only in designated areas. I never smoked inside a restaurant but i did smoke in the bars while drinking a beer. If they had an outdoor beer garden at the bar i would smoke outside. My point is, because someone doesn't like something I do they try to take away my RIGHTS? They took away my RIGHT TO CHOOSE when and where i smoke, Now they want to take a companies FREEDOM OF SPEECH and Force them to put stuff on their Packaging that could Hurt their Business? IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY UNLAWFUL FOR THEM TO HAVE TO DO THAT!! I have always respected everone elses choices and i deserve the same respect with my choice!!

They should not be forced to put graphic illustrations on their packaging. A simple warning that the product may cause cancer or emphysema should be sufficient. People who smoke don't care what you do they will smoke until they die or decide to quit on their own. Drug manufacturers are not required to clutter their labels or boxes with similar warnings. I watch TV commercials and the adds for meds that combat depression are apt to kill you quicker than the depression, which by the way is curable with out medication of any kind.

Are they going to post the dead bodies of DUI victims on the beer bottles and cans for all those that have been killed by drunken drivers?

A tobacco company has to pay a class action lawsuit against them because a smoker who knew the risk ended up getting a disease related to their choice of smoking.

If the tobacco company has to do that then maybe i can sue the candy and soda companies for not warning me that i could become obese and loose my teeth, i even got sick from eating too much of it. I got an ulser for drinking too much pop. I can't walk 500 feet without having to stop and catch my breath because i am so obese. I should sue the candy and pop industries for my health problems related to eating too much candy and drinking too much soda. They DIDN'T have any type of warning labels saying that it could cause health problems!!

If the candy and pop industry don't have to advertise health problems against themselves then why should tobacco companies?

Houstonmom, you whine about wading thru a throng of smokers to get into a restaurant? That is where the smokers have sentenced them. I find it funny that you want them out of one place and when they accommidate you and move, you complain about where YOU moved them.

This whole hypersensitive nose stuff bothers me also. Why no complains about excess perfume/ cologne or BO? Why no complaints about the annoying parents that bring children under 5 to a nice restaurant, only to break the mood by acting out or crying? There are lots of annoying things that people do that have effects on others. I know, I know... second hand smoke. You know... I have never heard of someone sitting in a closet and smoking cigarettes until they died. I have heard of someone sitting in their garage, in a running car, and dying. There are a lot of things out there that kill us and to focus on one tiny little thing that I seriously doubt does as much damage as sitting in traffic for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week... 50 weeks a year does to the human body. I wonder what car exhaust does to the human lungs compared to second hand smoke. Know what? We aren't ever going to find that one out...

To me, this is hypocrisy and Big Brother at it's highest. People smoke, get cancer, then sue the hell out of the tobacco companies, get rich. Them and the lawyers. And now this. What a screwed up country we have become.

People that make the choice to smoke say its their choice, well that's fine but as a TAX payer I say then pay your own medical cost for your choice, if We have to pay it then our government has every right to have these safety ads on the product ................ You think your RICH enough that you can afford a million dollar tab in the hospital, well maybe 1 in a 100,000 can so what about the 999,999 that can't, We end up paying that bill ...

Why no complaints about the annoying parents that bring children under 5 to a nice restaurant, only to break the mood by acting out or crying?

Thank you!

As someone who doesn't have children, nor wants any, your children are causing a significant health risk to myself by raising my blood pressure.

Leave them at home, do not bring them on or to: airplanes, movies, restaurants, mass, social events of any type, etc.

(I don't really feel that way, as I am tolerant. So, I guess tolerance is the word for the day.)

People that make the choice to smoke say its their choice, well that's fine but as a TAX payer I say then pay your own medical cost for your choice, if We have to pay it then our government has every right to have these safety ads on the product ................ You think your RICH enough that you can afford a million dollar tab in the hospital, well maybe 1 in a 100,000 can so what about the 999,999 that can't, We end up paying that bill ...

Same goes for people who drink, people who work themselves to death, eat too much red meat, eat too much anything, etc.

As a smoker I'm torn over this issue. I don't see a problem with some of the pictures to be used as a deterrent. When my children were young I looked up the worse cancerous lung pictures I could find online. I used them in conjunction with a long talk about how bad smoking is/what it does to try to keep them from being smokers. Did it help? I don't know but neither of my children are smokers.

I find the picture of a dead autopsied guy a bit overboard, though. I find that sort of thing too disturbing.

I say go forward with those warnings, but only if they are going to put the same type of warnings on alcoholic beverages.

What are you drinking that has a corpse on the bottle/ can?

Grow up, crybaby. Derek was making a joke.

You talk to Derik, I'll write on this board.

I was a smoker for 13 years before I quit cold turkey....right after my brother died. All of you weak willed individuals who cant quit and cry about it, you need to just be quiet.

As morbid as it sounds, smokers do some good for this world. Do you know how overpopulated this planet already is? Its called Darwinism, let the weak be killed off so the strong can survive. I cant believe how selfish all of these whiny non-smokers are. Smoking or not, we are all Americans and we have the right to choose whatever we want....its called freedom.

Dont forget all of the unnecessary taxes that are levied on cigarettes to get people to quit (which hasnt worked too well) generates ALOT of revenue (refer to post 1.11). So that equates to either more "precious" program cuts or higher taxes.

Being in the military, I would hate to think that everyone that has given their life in defense of this country died for all of these self-righteous pricks that want to control everyone elses lives by posting morbid photos and statements on packs of cigarettes.

Cmon people, if smokers wanted to quit, they would have by now.

Warning: If you want to DIE, BUY.

--- THE END ---

ABSOLUTELY...if the FDA imposes these same types of warnings on pharmaceutical industry, which helps millions of people with a small percentage experiencing negative side effects, why the heck don't we hold the tobacco industry to the same standard? tobacco smoke does NO good that I'm aware of and directly contributes to hundreds of thousands of deaths per year. If a single medication, or heaven forbid food product, killed that many people each year it would never be on the shelf to start with....

Smoking or not, we are all Americans and we have the right to choose whatever we want....its called freedom.

Freedom to kill or hurt others is not called freedom, a crime yes, crass yes, stupid yes, ugly yes, freedom it is not.

Even if they made it illegal you would still be able to get it. I mean look at weed its cheaper, better, and easier to get than ever. Hell it's even easier to get than a cig and I live less than a mile from a gas station. If you think that's not the truth then you are naive. It's also naive to think that some label is going to make anyone quit.

I surmise, by the response, of those who are angry and attempt to vindicate their smoking, by resenting the new regulations, that they have smoked for years.They believe they are the victims because everyone is picking on them. In truth, the real victims are, their loved ones, who have never smoked. Even if people, who have been exposed to second hand smoke, never gets lung cancer, there are many other diseases attributed, to second hand smoke. Children have more sinus and ear infections and allergies. There are some, who think they are above the law but, they will sing another tune, when they get the diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD,) lung cancer, emphysema, Reynold's, heart disease, vascular disease etc. Then they will be the first ones, to sue the tobacco companies because, tobacco they are not responsible for their own actions. Sort of like the NRA, "guns don't kill people, people do!" "Cigarettes don't cause cancer, people do!" It is an oxymoron. And so are the people who believe they can smoke around those of us who don't!

To all of you tabacco addicts, google cancer of the mouth, throat cancer, lung cancer etc. And then look up the treatment for these diseases. I want to say it will make a difference but, nicotine is more addictive than heroin and it is more socially acceptable. If you must smoke, don't take the rest of us with you.

Actually Take that back I don't smoke. I did in high school and quit when I entered the Army to get the money I needed for my college education. I however don't advocate someone else forcing their views on to someone whether it be religion, smoking, drinking, driving their car that gets 5 miles to the gallon, or whatever else someone does that they enjoy. It really is as simple as that. Personal responsibility and freedom of choice. When you force your views onto someone else that is taking away their freedoms. If you really enjoy taking someone's freedoms away I suggest you go visit China so you can see what happens when someone takes yours away.

I simply can't believe this. The non-smokers start by berating the smokers for defending themselves and then lay a guilt trip on them after the fact?! Are you kidding?

I would love to see the study on second hand smoke that is done correctly. That is done the way it is encountered out in public. Not some poor little mouse getting gassed by cigarettes as large as it is. I remember reading a study when in college and breaking down the proportions to fit a human, and the cigarettes they used per day equated to an olympic size swimming pool. When a study is done with smoke being filtered in a set of lungs and then exhaled out into the test area, then I'll take it seriously. Until that point, all the stats that are thrown out have other factors involved. How about putting a mouse in a control setting with a running car. I think we all know how that ends... and how quickly. Makes you wonder how much damage smoking is actually doing compared to car exhaust, huh?

Chris -

Non-smokers still get cancer and die. You can just as easily avoid a smoker walking in and out of public places. Cigarettes will never be outlawed as long as alcohol remains legal. You want to talk about a travesty, look at alcoholics and drunk drivers. Smoking kills those who choose to do so but alcoholics and drunk drivers kill innocent people.

Like I said, as long as you have alcohol, you will have cigarettes.

Kinkomaster. The anti-smoking crowd is generally one of those extremely radical, often left wing (but not always) groups. Not unlike ecoterrorists, anti-whale ship hunters out at sea, and PETA. They honestly believe their cause is more just and they are more level headed than Tea Baggers, religious fundamentalists and anti-abortionists. Sadly, they and their counterparts show normal, thinking people that they've lost the ability to communicate because they just don't care to listen to anything anymore. Which, ironically, ends up causing more damage to their cause than good. Driving people away with an indignant, a-hole attitude only helps your enemies. But shhh, don't tell modern America that! We need to be angry damnit!

Take that back, not all smokers play the victim. I know more people who don't smoke who are always a victim. I've been a smoker for over 20 years and I don't blame anyone for it or anything related to it.

When I was young one of my grandfather's died of panceratic cancer. Cancer caused from the Army using him as a lab rat. Know who he blamed? No one.

My favorite aunt died from breast cancer a few years ago. Know who she blamed? No one.

My step-father died from lung cancer a couple years ago. Know who he blamed? No one.

How about not lumping all smokers into the victim group.

Death Rates per year ave.

Tobacco : 435,000

Alcohol : 85,000

There are no innocent people with tobacco or alcohol, other than those YOU affect by your deliberate actions.

There are just suckers and the people they affect with their second hand smoke.

Alcoholics also MAY affect others either directly or indirectly. [or they just die alone]

Chris those tobacco related deaths are also anything that involves a cigarette. It is the reason a judge threw out a EPA/CDC study about tobacco. If you died in a car crash involving another car and there was a cigarette butt in either of the cars then you just died from tobacco. You should look into it.

What are the death rates per year of people dying from secondhand smoke versus the DUI fatalities involving the victims?

Dead is dead, tobacco is crap, and its still legal because of bought and paid for politicians like Boehner.

There are only Suckers and second hand losers, and still people smoke.

There is no up side to smoking.

John Boehner admits to giving bribes from Big Tobacco on the House.

[See Web]

Smoking kills those who choose to do so but alcoholics and drunk drivers kill innocent people.

Second-hand smoke isn't a choice to those involuntarily subjected to it and also kills innocent people or cause them health issues as well.

Ann the same can be said about cars but you don't see anyone trying to outlaw them do you...

I wrote this in another comment. Cars are a necessity in some areas, because they are needed to get from point A to point B, especially when stores and additional facilities are located in remote areas. Can we say the same about cigarette smoking? Is this a necessity or enjoyment?

What are the death rates per year of people dying from secondhand smoke versus the DUI fatalities involving the victims?

The following are the most recent statistics retrieved from credible sources. Based on statistics, it appears that more people die from second-hand smoke than they do from drunk- driving …50,000 vs. 33, 808, respectively.

> Exposure to secondhand smoke—sometimes called environmental tobacco smoke—causes nearly 50,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:¹

• Secondhand smoke causes 3,400 annual deaths from lung cancer.¹
• Secondhand smoke causes 46,000 annual deaths from heart disease.^1,9,10

Re: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

> According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 33,808 people died in traffic crashes in 2009 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,839 people who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year, that is, on average someone is killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash about every 50 minutes in the U.S. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2010)

Re: http://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-the-facts/drunk-driving-research

You can't attribute heart disease deaths to smoking unless each one of the people that died was in their ideal BMI. I can guarantee that they weren't so you can't blame tobacco for the death caused by to many twinkies.

Ann no offense but those numbers are the same exact ones from the 1993 study that was thrown out by Judge William Olsteen that went on to say in a 92 page decision that the CDC and the EPA can not choose which data to present as fact in a government controlled study. He then went on to say that the government and all divisions working under it can not decide to attribute diseases without doing a full medical history of each claim of death. They did not do that. They decided that someone smoked or worked in a bar or what have you and they died from tobacco.

Like I said before they will say what they want when they want and people will choose to believe it because it fits the agenda they want to force everyone to have. Seriously do some research into the subject and don't tell me it is hard because google and bing and the library of congress are at your fingertips (which I know it is because you are posting on here online) instead of trying to fall in lock and step with the crowd because you don't like it. If you look at the poll more people agree with me that smokers just need to be left alone enough is enough but I am sure that isn't good enough for you.

Heck I just checked your "facts" that you presented and they can't even pick and choose their numbers from their own reports right. According to the very first study they cite the SAM for 4 years (even though somehow stomach cancer is caused by smoking and pancreatic cancer as well) is 269,655 for men and 173,940 for women which when you add them together and divide by four is 110,898.75 people that died a smoking related death. That is smokers and non smokers combined. That is way more then your 50,000 a year. If that doesn't tell you something isn't right in the punch bowl I don't know what will. They pick and choose numbers and call it facts with out actually doing any sort of research into the numbers they pick. I have yet to see a smoker get stomach cancer and a single doctor say it was from smoking yet they attribute in 4 years just from stomach cancer 2,854 deaths to it from smoking.

@ AnnForTruth01 Good thing you found a flaw in that argument. Cars are a necessity right? They've been around since the dawn of time correct?

That was an argument without any legs to stand on.

Ann no offense but those numbers are the same exact ones from the 1993 study that was thrown out by Judge William Olsteen that went on to say in a 92 page decision that the CDC and the EPA can not choose which data to present as fact in a government controlled study.

Would you like to provide a link for comparison purposes and to back up your statement. Observer asked for statistics and recent ones were provided. Now the statistics are being criticized, so what's the point?

The bottom line is people are going to do whatever it is they chose to do. Pictures of corpse from smoking, diseased lungs, a man with a hole in his throat from throat cancer, etc., cigarette prices, children begging parents to stop smoking, coughing ones lungs out from smoking, smelling like a human ashtray, IS NOT going to make anyone quit if they're not ready to. But no one should be forced to start via second hand smoke if they chose not to as well.

Ann someone is forcing you at gunpoint to stand by them while they smoke a cigarette? I did my own digging of facts. Google is your friend I am not going to hold your hand for you. I have told you the Judge's name. Is it really that hard to type in his name and CDC tobacco decision in the search line? The reason I tore apart your statistics is because they are false. That is the only reason. I have no ill will towards you because you are just going with what the government is telling you. It isn't your fault that some people in the CDC and EPA made it their personal agenda to lie to everyone about it. All I am saying is do some fact checking before you believe something someone tells you.

Ann someone is forcing you at gunpoint to stand by them while they smoke a cigarette?

If I'm standing in a public area should I be forced to move to avoid breathing in someone else's nasty fumes? It's a thing called consideration. And when children live homes of parents that are smokers, yes the children are being forced to breathe in second hand smoke.

The reason I tore apart your statistics is because they are false.

So CDC is lying? This agency has nothing better to do but provide false information to readers, investigators, etc. and leave itself wide opened for lawsuits, because these are the agency's objectives. See how ridiculous this sounds/reads? CDC is a far more credible source than you are. You tore the statistics apart to benefit your viewpoint.

Again, provide the link. It is your allegation to prove and not mines to research. I've done that and provided the link already.

The CDC, IPCC, and other organizations have everything thing to gain from lying. It is called funding. If you can't do your own googling then fine I will do it for you. Here is the entire 92 page report. Enjoy your reading :)

Oh and just so you know you can't sue the government so they can lie all they want and get away with it. I don't remember if it was Nixon or Carter who did that but just thought you should know.

I'm for a law banning radicals who think smoking is a weapon, and while we are at it, anti-whaler ship hunters, I think they should go to jail with the Tobacco company CEOs. Please take all the Tobacco companies, and anyone who sued them, put them in shipping crates, and shove them out on a barge to sea. Average IQ in America will jump. We might even once again be first in education.

Dang, Bob... you are my hero! I'm glad you're still around. Let me wade in here with you.

Yo, Annie... I got one for ya. How about distracted driving? 16% of all driving fatalities in 2009 can be contributed to cell phone use while driving... and that is just the cells that they found in the wreckage. Think of the ones that went flying out of the vehicle or jammed somewhere it wasn't found. We could probably add a percentage point or 2 for error. I know, I know... provide the link. I'm on it. I know that you have trouble finding things that aren't in your nazi... ummm, I mean non-smoking pamphlets.

There is a lot of information here and while I realize that only 5474 people died in 2009 (that number WILL rise), the number of wounded was 448,000 due to people not able to put their cell phones down. Annie, can you drive without yapping or texting? I have no chance of being distracted because I don't have a cell phone... and I'm proud of it too. I don't need to be contacted if I'm not at home or at work... just that easy.

As I said up a ways, Annie, until an unbiased group does a study the correct way, with the correct parameters, and the correct time line... all the numbers that you throw out are BS. Wanna know the sad thing? This country was BUILT on tobacco! We had very few exports, but that was one of the biggest... and it still is. Considering how little we actually make to what we consume, you'd think you'd want the tobacco industry strong in order to sell overseas and strengthen our economy. Nope... you'd rather whine and force the industry to defend themselves in court, while they could be making money. What will happen? They'll lose money. People will lose their jobs... all because of whiney, busy-body people that seem to have this need to follow smokers around and fake cough at them and tell them that they are going to die all the time. Smokers don't smoke in public places... they don't know what a public place is anymore thanks to whiney non-smokers. Now that they are stuck over in the corner, you have this need to go over to the corner so that you can whine about it and want them to move AGAIN?! I have a rather unique idea. The smokers are banned from your precious view, so stay where you have banned them from, because I think if you enter a smoking area and whine about it... they should be able to take you down and each blow the smoke of a cigarette at you. You all need to learn that every movement works like a pendulum, and once it goes too far in one direction, it swings back with a vengeance. When it comes back, I wouldn't want to be one of the whiney non-smokers.

You know, reading my last post makes me realize that I have 2 sides when posting. I have a rational side that loves a good back and forth with someone that can make a point, and make me think about an answer. I really appreciate those people, they make coming on these boards worthwhile.

Then I have this attack dog side, where I just tear into people. I can see that I try to restrain myself, but some people make the dumbest statements that... it just awes me that they can walk around without a helmet on, let alone turn on a computer and get here. Anyways, these people tend to regurgitate whatever slogans that their side has to offer, and once the discussion goes past the information given to them... they begin repeating it or even worse, just making stuff up. You make a point... they ignore it and repeat what they said a different way. You make another point... they do it again. Finally, you just have to snap and tear down everything they have. Go after the core of it and if it is something stupid or that uses stats, you can usually crush it with logic. Once you start ripping into that chewy middle, they freak out and the name calling usually begins.

The way this applies to this subject is that you never come across someone that can discuss it rationally. Where you can give them what you believe, they hear it and digest it, and then they return it in kind. I've yet to see that here. I have seen plenty of the second where they come in complaining right off the bat and then get all indignant when a smoker defends themselves (heaven forbid). As we've seen, they begin spewing stats, and as we ALL know, stats can be adjusted to say anything. Even if you look thru out the board... the stats are different unless they reference each other. A smoker mentions that and the non-smoker doesn't stop and wonder about the numbers. Not at all. They move on and attack with something else... for the kids. I can't help but get vicious at this point... be it belittling and/ or sarcastic... the single-minded person is not in a 2 way discussion, they are throwing up their beliefs on me. Well, I'm going to do my best to make them eat it... for the kids. heh heh

Cigarettes kill, people pretend, debate, and try to fool others, while smokers are just suckers.

Yep sorry to disappoint Kink but I am still here :D. I am getting into it with some people over at the discussion involving the child that died due to the ameba (or amoeba don't want the spelling nazis following me over here) that attacked the kids brain because humanity is evil and needs to be removed from the planet but what can you do other then point out their irrational behavior with logic and hope that at least one of them will wake up.

Like you said earlier numbers don't lie but people using numbers do. I will admit to the same attack dog mentality when people can't use facts and logic and reason and spew out vitriol blindly it agitates me as well. Of course at the same time it is even more fun showing them the facts where they are wrong because they just choose not to actually study something from all angles and just the one that they choose to put themselves in front of. It is that kind of logic that 500 years ago said the Earth was the center of the universe and it was flat.

Oh and to be fair I did make an incorrect statement earlier about suing the government. You can sue if your rights that are afforded to you in the amendments to the constitution are infringed upon by the government and that is the only reason the tobacco companies are able to even try to fight this thing.

@ AnnForTruth01 Good thing you found a flaw in that argument. Cars are a necessity right? They've been around since the dawn of time correct?

That was an argument without any legs to stand on.

Obviously it is. It's not a necessity to live in a rural area. You don't need to know that though, apparently the world was just created a little over 100 years ago. You should let my first grader explain the difference between a "need" and a "want" to you.

@ Informed

Obviously it is. It's not a necessity to live in a rural area.

And I suppose if you were born in a rural area, you could just pack up a nice backpack and walk to the nearest major city. Hope you lived within walking distance of a school, I hear it's tough to get a job without any education- and no cheating getting there, bikes are wants too!

Seriously? Vehicles are needs, and not just for folks in rural areas. You depend on them every day to deliver groceries to your urban jungle. Unless FOOD isn't a need either.

Yep that is why they NEEDED vehicles for thousands of years to deliver food to major cities. Guess what just because you are used to a specific lifestyle doesn't mean it is a need. It would have been a lot easier doing the road marches in the Army if we could have all piled into the truck and gone for a drive but for some reason we weren't allowed. I rarely if ever use a vehicle going to an excavation site. It is usually a pack mule and my feet getting us there and I am sure if push came to shove we could probably get rid of the pack mule. You need to understand the difference between want and need westcoast.

BobB. Sure, the human race couuld get along without any vehicles, but if we stopped using them A LOT OF US WOULD DIE beacuse we depend on them in this modern society.. That's the point westcoast was trying to make. Of course they didn't need vehicles thousand of years ago. They didn't have a society based around them. I'm sure your statement would be equally ridiculous if you were in the 1700's saying carraiges and stagecoaches are silly luxuries and that nobody NEEDED them then.

Kyle I have been to plenty of places on this planet where you can't get a vehicle and I have yet to see the natives dying off in mass quantities. You can't go get into your Chevy Truck and drive through the rain forest yet there are plenty of people still living there. Like I said before except now I am directing it to you is that vehicles are a luxury. You don't need them and the people that would die off because they don't "have" them would have the same option that every other living species on this planet has. Adapt or die.

Oh and your 1700's comment shows how ignorant you are about how much vehicles are "needed" A stagecoach back then was the equivalent of owning your own private jet or helicopter. I am pretty sure you don't own either of those things yet you manage to get along just fine I am sure.

My point wasn't that individuals living in rural areas DON'T have choices to live elsewhere. My point is vehicles are necessary depending on locations individuals reside; cigarettes aren't. And no one can force people to live in areas they chose not to be, like big cities, visa verse. There's a thing called preference. Are you familiar with this?

It is true that once upon a time in history, prior to vehicles, trains, buses, etc., that individuals walked, rode horses, etc., but times have changed and the need to rely on archaic means of traveling is longer necessary. And there's reasons for modern development, but this isn't a history class.

So Ann they are being forced at gun point to live in the rural housing communities? They are being told that if they don't live in the 300 grand plus houses then someone will come and cut off their arms and legs? In fact I have a friend that chooses to work nights in a neighboring town and he walks to work. There is no public transportation and he doesn't like to drive. It is his choice. Just like it is my choice to fly out of the country instead of chartering a ship to get to areas I do research at. These are not needs they are wants.

Again they aren't necessary they are a luxury. You trying to come up with some way to justify your demonification of a personal choice some choose to make while condoning another choice that many more people make yet puts far more pollutants into the air is comical. When you travel to an actual third world country and see the population survive just fine without a vehicle then perhaps you might understand the difference. Until then you trying to defend your position is most entertaining.

So Ann they are being forced at gun point to live in the rural housing communities?

So Bob they are being forced at gun point to stop smoking?

You or anyone else doesn't own rights to tell someone where to live just so they'll have access to public transportation or in a position where they don't have to own vehicles?

On the other hand people have a right not to inhale fumes from cigarettes. That's the reason smokers aren't allowed to puff in public areas, because the majority of public don't like it and the majority rule.

It's obvious that you and me stand on opposites sides of the fence when it comes this issue. Since we do it makes absolutely no sense to prolong this debate. Have a good day!

Really? Looks to me like your majority is only 44% and the people like me that are saying go find something or someone else to go force to be your way is higher then you. You see Ann you seem like a nice person for the most part but then you do things like refuse to look at facts, listen to reason, and impose your will. I have the right not to inhale your car exhaust. I have the right to stand up for someone else who is having their rights infringed upon by people that choose what is best for them.

I however do NOT have the right to decide what is better for someone else because I said so. I do NOT have the right to be as loud and obnoxious as I can until I get my way. Your "majority" rules on smoking bans has not once been voted on it has just been instituted because your little vocal group has thrown a hissy fit until you got your way. So tell me that it is "majority" rules again when the polls and the lack of ballot measures says otherwise.

Really? Looks to me like your majority is only 44% and the people like me that are saying go find something or someone else to go force to be your way is higher then you.

Now Bob you know the sell of cigarettes is legal because it is a money making business for several corporations and not just the companies that manufacture them. Hospitals, pharmaceuticals, funeral homes, etc. all benefit. No one, at least I'm not, trying to force anyone to do as I do. People make their own choices. I'm just saying it's unfair to individuals that don't smoke to have to inhale smokers' filthy cigarette fumes. I don't know what's so hard about this concept you don't understand.

Because Ann there are tons of people that don't drive and have to deal with the exhaust which literally is way way worse for you then cigarettes. Ever here of someone locking themselves in the garage with cigarettes and inhaling himself to death? No? Because there isn't one. I can find you a dozen stories quick like a bunny of that happening with car exhaust though.

You are again picking your pollutants. Both are dangerous. Both are choices. As it is you have to go out of your way now to breath in second hand smoke because of the states taking away the property rights of the business owners in all but a handful of states. So please tell me how I don't "get it" when it is pretty obvious that one of us here does get it and the other one is trying to get her way.

I'm sorry, Ann... I really don't mean to pile on, but I do need to point out a few things to you. As long as tobacco has been grown, it has been smoked... and that is for HUNDREDS of years. American indians smoked it before we ever got here and a lot of them lived to ripe old ages. The truth is that there isn't one true "second hand smoke" study out there that has been performed correctly. The first thing ever one of you non-smokers cry about is the second hand smoke killing you and there is absolutely no proof that second hand smoke is the sole cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. It is a stat that is used to give you all a certain picture, and as we all know, stats can be used to paint any picture that you want. If smokers wanted to do a study and see if car exhaust causes cancer, all we would have to do is find every case of cancer that we could and ask 3 questions:

1) Do you own a car or truck?

2) Have you been in an operating vehicle on a roadway?

3) Have you ever walked along a raodway that vehicles were using?

If any of those questions are answered yes, that would be one case of cancer caused by car exhaust... and it wouldn't matter the type unless we wanted to streamline it. That is what they have done with their second hand smoke studies. They aren't going to follow 100, 500, or 1000 people for 20+ years to see if they get cancer from second hand smoke. No, they are going to take a short cut. The sad thing is that a lot of smart people will swallow the results of this test without questioning anything about it. The reason in my mind that you do it is because you WANT it to be true...

Bob... you're snaking my arguments. Suicide by cigarette? Wonder where you got that one. ;)

Hey it is a good argument what can I say :D

Oh, alright... you can use it. Afterall, it seems we are never on at the same time anyways. heh heh

First they thought 5 dollar a pack would stop smokers. Didn't happen. Now it is 9 bucks a pack in NYS and people STILL smoke. Yeah, a picture is going to somehow get the hint across when you have people paying the equivalent of a car payment a month in cigarettes! Dumb government at its best.

exactly Gonen. Alcohol is legal too, and you don't see Jack Daniels or Coors being required to Show the affects of Drunk driving in their advertising. It's ridiculous.

ANYONE who can read knows that smoking is bad for you, just as they know that abusing drugs or alcohol is bad for you. Knowing isn't going to stop some people.

I actually find the whole thing mind boggling. Will they start putting images of rotting teeth on candy bar wrappers? Where will it all stop?...It's the proverbial slippery slope.

No slippery slope to it. Cigarettes have become the nerd and the gov has become the bully. Here a carton of cigs is 80 bucks in Chicago...the same carton that is 24 bucks when you get out of the county. I personally think they are illegally targeted and taxed.

I do not smoke, I hate the smell of it, but I am an American.

cigarrettes are legal

but poisones to humans

its just a matter of making sure you know what you are consuming is all

thats the most important thing here

and i am not sure why the cig company's are complaining

next law suit for cancer from cigarettes

first words from the cig company defense' "cant you read?"

how many more law suits do they want?

keith biodrowski

The government will never ban cigarettes.

They make too much money taxing them.

cigarette's ARE legal.

They are also one of the reasons our health care is so expensive.

carton of cigs is 80 bucks in Chicago

And I would think that the government would be happy with the taxes and revenue! After all, apparently people are still buying them at this cost!

Skup,

Show some evidence that cigarettes are the reason for health care being expensive. I do not believe you can.

Most health studies that try to do a cost-benefit analysis are flawed. This is because they only try to calculate costs, without the other side of the equation.

I get a premium reduction because I don't smoke. It all depends upon your plan (which of course may depend upon your employer, if they are helping foot the bill). But basically, I get rewarded for not smoking. And it makes sense. Smoking causes all sorts of ailments, which makes you a higher risk financially for the insurance company. And that is what insurance is. It is a risk assessment.

Not going to argue health issues, but until the liquer industry is required to post labels with the mangled remains of drunk driving accident victims on their vodka, and photos of black, bloated livers on their Chardonny, and children in the ER with black eyes and broken bones on each and every beer can.....I vote NO!!!!!

Pam, the difference between the liquor industry not having to do that would be that drunk driving is something that can possibly happen when someone who chooses to drink ALSO chooses to drive. It can't happen without driving. The pictures on the tobacco boxes can happen simply from smoking. Even the most logical argument you made, that of a picture of bloated livers, is generally agreed by most in the medical profession to happen only with overuse. A glass of wine a day is generally considered healthy by most people I know. A cigarette a day has no health benefits comparable to a daily glass of wine.

Pam,

I agree. Personally I hate cigarettes and smoking, but I am American and believe in freedom of choice. I love a good beer or glass of whiskey once in a while, but they cause as many or more problems as tobacco. We can't and should not regulate everything. This is wrong.

Fact, smokers pay more for health insurance, life insurance AND car insurance. Every application asks "Are you a smoker". Hell even home owners and renters insurance asks. If you have quit, you cannot answer no to that question until you have been quit for FIVE years. However, I don't see the question on insurance applications, "Are you obese" or "Do you binge drink".

Obesity also significantly increases the cost of healthcare in the US - I'm guessing far more than tobacco. So, should we put warning pictures on candy bars?

unless they are on welfare or too poor to get health insurance...heeelllooo

Good point obese people should pay more for insurance, plane tickets,bus tickets and anything else where they get in the way of non-obese people.

heck yeah tax that fat/drunk/smoking self induced burden on society butt!

it would be a kind of "FAIR" tax . right?

Show some evidence that cigarettes are the reason for health care being expensive. I do not believe you can.

Kaiser Permanente charges smokers and non smokers that live near or around smokers and extra 100$ per month above and beyond their normal premium charges. The reason I was given this year before the 100$ additional charge was that they were charging smokers the extra preminum to help keep down the premium costs of the non smokers this year.

The key word is "legal"...last time I checked, cigarette's ARE legal.

Legal to pollute the rest of the world, other peoples space or health...don’t think so.

abramd...you make valid points, however, I would have to be the one to tell you from personal experience ( medic and firefighter) I have seen far more innocents taken out from alcohol than anything else. Car accidents, domestic violence and too many bar fights to count. Until you scrape a three year old girl off the pavement after being taken out by a drunk driven at 10 am....you may not understand my point. (BTW...that was precisely the point when I decided I would rather go into a burning building than continue on the med squad)

My point is selectively demonizing cigarettes and not other "social ills" is not fair. If all your kids are involved in a fight, do you only spank one?

(On a lighter note, I can count 5 people who's lives were spared by my lighting up a smoke...on the other hand, when I drink alcohol, I want to go to the bar and pick fights with sailors....:)

Just sayin'

Pam,

The reason the Tobacco industry is against these new labels is that they are shown to cut down on Teen Age smoking.

Those that start smoking in their teen years are far more likely to become heavily addicted life long smokers.

The effect of these labels on older smokers is negligible but that is not the purpose.

Anyone that stands with the Tobacco industry on this one is either ignorant to the facts or moral less as who else would be encouraging teenage smoking!

spg64,

Good point, however, around here, underage drinking is a far greater problem than cigarettes...I'm dead serious.

What do you propose we do about that?

By some of the reasoning here I guess we should close down every hospital that has a maternity ward. 100% of the people born eventually die. So lets shut down those evil hospitals.

Well when the American citizens taxes are not used for the poor choices of people who make the choice to use these legal products then by all means do what you want and Yes the government should not intervene but till then they have every right to dictate .....

You make it sound like smokers don't pay taxes! They pay WAY more taxes than you do, Rick. All of those "sin taxes" just suck up their money... someone did the math, but it runs up to billions of dollars just from smokers. With as much money as they drain off of smokers, do you honestly think they would need to use any of the money that you put in if the smoking tax was used to help smokers? The fact of the matter is, the government takes the money from the smokers and uses it for other things... like lining their pockets. There should be no talk about about who is paying for who when you look at the numbers.

There is no slippery slope...FDA already requires black box labels on pharmaceuticals. It already requires all side effects, even death, to be disclosed in every form of advertising. What's the difference? I'll tell you - those medications help far more people than they hurt yet the FDA has mandated the warnings. Tobacco hurts 100% of its users in one form or another, and even some non-smokers, it makes sense to have these labels mandated. Way to go FDA, finally doing something right.

MmmMmmBeer then perhaps they should put the same grotesque pictures on your favorite brew of choice? You see that key word there is choice. We know alcohol can impair you when you drive, we know it causes kidney, liver and other digestive problems, and we know that in some families it causes dysfunction. You see the problem now there? It is all about choice. If you choose to smoke that is your choice and you have to deal with the consequences of that choice. Same as if you drink, do drugs, eat to much, or any other "vice" you can think of. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past it seems anymore.

BobB -

I dont know if any of these anti-smoking Nazis know anything about moderation. Chances are, close to half of them are either alcoholics, pot-heads or so fat they cant see their feet.

If you watch South Park (or even if you dont), check out the episode they did about Rob Reiner (sp?) and his anti-smoking campaign. Its hilarious but its true how these people try and control a certain portion of the population because its popular NOW to be against smokers.

Get real, you proles. Go excercise control on your own life and not everyone elses you domineering, self-serving a-holes.

(And just so we are clear, I am an ex-smoker of 13 years who quit 9 months ago cold turkey after a major family tragedy.)

BUTTER! I NEED MORE BUTTER!!!! Ahh that was a funny episode.

Nearly 70% of all Medicaid cost are tied to tobacco use, when you can find another legal drug that has a Government cost like that, we can talk about warnings for that as well!

The primary aim of the enhanced cigarette warning is trying to cut into TEEN AGE SMOKING.

Statistics show that those that begin smoking before they turn 20 have a far higher rate of life long addiction.

Leaked Tobacco industry documents have show they know this and try to exploit it with their advertising.

Anyone who stands against a law like this would rather put money into the pockets of the tobacco industry than protect America's Children.

That to me spells scum bag!

Pam,

If your community is experiencing a true problem with under age drinking than your citizenry should demand more resources be allocated to deal with it.

It is not difficult to put pressure on elected officials, such as Sheriffs, to go after stores that sell to minors, bars that admit minors, etc.

I live in a College town where every couple of years we must throw some money at policing these types of businesses and it always cuts into the problem. Arresting youth on the other hand does almost nothing. When we go after the source we seem to get far more for our money.

spg do you have a link for your 70% fact? I am pretty sure you are wrong because most medicaid costs involve children. It is really really hard to get medicaid as an adult unless you have children. Even then they will only pay for certain things if you have it. I know because I grew up in the system because my mom collected SSI. She was epileptic. Did you know that even though she died due to a seizure and fell and drowned in her blood when her nose broke her death certificate stated she died from tobacco? I am sure you didn't but you now see the type of misinformation that is put out there.

This is why tobacco is still being sold today,.....big bucks and bribery......

John Boehner admits to giving bribes from Big Tobacco on the House.

Ahhh... spg, you are a smacktard! I hate people that use kids as a crutch to try and win an argument. "If you're against me, you're against kids." Here ya go, snapperhead. It is ILLEGAL for kids to have cigarettes in the first place. Government did its job... period. Stores aren't supposed to sell to them... parents are supposed to monitor this. If you guys are always whining about the smell of cigarettes, it should be pretty easy to pick out the kids that are smoking... especially if it is YOUR kid. If your kid is smoking, it is YOUR responsibility to turn them in to the police for breaking the law. Not gonna, are ya? You're going to harbor a fugitive and conspire to commit a crime instead, huh?

If you're so worried about kids, take a little initative and clean up the kids around you. Don't rely on "big brother" to do it for you. For cryin' out loud. You have no problem opening your trap here, try doing it in person and "saving" a child from a life of addiction. Don't pay for someone else to do it for you, or are you one of those parents that are too busy to be bothered with getting "hands on", huh?

The only thing that they should be forced to have on their packaging is an ingredient list, in my opinion. Having scary pictures that indicate danger, but not why, is akin to the Weather Channel saying they're not sure what brought on the last hurricane, but probably Poseidon is pissed off.

I smoke cigarettes and I'm confused. Why is the government so concerned with my health while giving tobacco farmers huge government subsidies.

Nublet its because they aren't concerned with your health, but instead concerned with with special interest group support on one hand, then behind their back shoveling big tobacco money into their back pockets.

I smoked for 46 years and I've been off smoking for 5 1/2 years now. The idea of the graphics they are talking about are disgusting at best, but when I was smoking, they wouldn't have changed my mind about smoking. I'm glad I no longer smoke and my youngest son doesn't either, he quit when I did. Food tastes better now and I can actually smelll things now that I haven't been able to smell since I was a kid. Do I agree with their suggestion on these graphic pictures, no. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you, it is a matter of choice whether you continue to smoke or not. Quitting isn't easy but I really have no regrets for doing so, no more burn marks on clothes, smoke stains on curtains, burns on fingers,etc.

The Federal government CLAIMS to care about your health (ergo: Obamacare) but in reality if everyone in this country quit smoking tomorrow our financial structure would totally collapse. They get more money from sales on cigarette (Sin taxes) than on any other product.

@ Janine-1645002 I am not sure you are correct because both alcohol and gasoline have very high tax rates. The amount of taxes on both parallel if not exceed taxes from cigarettes. The government subsidises the tobacco farmer but not the alcohol or petroleum industries. Those subsidies offset a sizable portion of the tax collected.

Nublet, can you say GOP buddys, where do you all think the RICH put their money, into habbit forming things like Drinking and Smoking .... Oh and lets not forget Medical stuff, they make money either way my friend.....

The federal tax on a pack of cigarettes is about 2 dollars. There is no other product that is taxed anywhere near that level. Gasoline tax is 15% per gallon. Let's say gas is 4 dollars a gallon that is 45 cents give or take.

Annette, they only get angry at your opinion when they can't justify their own. I agree with you. I smoked for many years. It was MY CHOICE and I blame no one for it. I quit, and am glad for it.

It actually does work, and it works on the people that they want it to work on. Teens trying cigarettes for the first time. I understand your addiction, the FDA is just trying to stop it from happening to someone else. Canada has done this for about 10 years, because they pay for their own health care, and has seen a very significant reduction, especially in new teen smokers. Just because you, can't stop, doesn't mean we should not try and save the next person.

MMC(SS), This is America. Land of the FREE. We have lost an abundance of liberties in the past 50 years due to people wanting someone (read:GOVERNMENT) to be responsible for OUR decisions. People should be FREE to make their own decisions, but realize that they MUST be responsible for the consequences of those decisions also. Quitting smoking is simply a decision. If you refuse to pickup another cigarette, you will never smoke another cigarette. I'm not saying it will be easy. But it is completely possible, IN EVERY CASE. Don't blame the big tobacco companies for your own decision to buy their product. And don't require the government to require them to pay for your decision. Man-up (gender-neutral) and make your own decisions, America. Then be FREE enough to be responsible for them.

When Coke is forced to put pictures of mouths with rotten teeth, Fast food is forced to put pictures of morbidly obese people in swimwear, alcohol is forced to put pictures of diseased livers, GUNS are forced to put pictures of people with their heads blown off, then I will say its ok to force tobacco to put these pictures on their products.

Well, commander, I have a question for you. If they put pictures of what your rifles would do to kids on your stocks, would you shoot them? How about on the guns on your ship? If they showed the damage it could do to a human body, would you still fire them?

They could do this with every vice that we have. That is the whole thing with vices, commander... it is why they are called vices. We KNOW they are bad for us, but we do them anyways. When you smoked, you knew it was bad for you, but for some reason, it took some little picture to motivate you to quit.

What right does any government have to put their own propaganda on any legal product sold legally on the free market? They don't show grotesquely obese people on candy... DUI accidents on bottles of alcohol... or as I said, gun shot victims on guns. Think maybe the government might do this one at a time so they don't all gang up and fight at one time?

Sorry Kink, but your argument is ridiculous.

Warning pictures on guns? Maybe you should put a picture of a golden brown Thanksgiving turkey on the gun, because that was a result of a gun.

Cigarettes have no such use. There is NOT ONE positive thing about cigarettes. I smoked for 20 years, and I still rue the day I smoked the first time. If you are a smoker, then I know that you do too. If you say you don't then you are lying. You cannot say that you wouldn't love to quit if was easy and you never had to think about them again. But it's not easy, and you WILL think about them forever, that's how addicting they are.

I say, Right on! Print the pictures. Smokers are very good at denial. Bottom line is...if you continue to smoke, those pictures ARE what WILL happen. Period.

Kinkomaster, you lost it here. Rifles and weapons are not a vice. The military isn't there because someone made a decision to become addicted. It exists to ensure our freedom to make a decision for the lifestyle we want. That is a basic, fundamental and unchangeable foundation stone of AMERICA. The freedom that those weapons afford you and I is being displayed right here on this page, with all the opinions and views we see. Try this in Iran, Jordan, Myanmar, North Korea, China, etc. You will NEVER be able to type your views again. And it won't only be because your computer has been taken away.

Ridiculous? You shoot turkeys with M-16s? An M-16 was made for only one thing and it wasn't hunting. Trying to talk your way around it is pure futility. Same thing with handguns... not made for hunting... sorry. You can't argue for one and not the other, common sense. Justification works all the way around.

Here is the funny thing. All you non-smokers that are all happy about it. All they'll do is come out with a case to put the pack in. They'll just hide the unconstitutional ad... after all, what right does the government have to effect the free market in this regard? You don't see them trying to make it harder for any other legal product to be sold.

Feel free to delude yourself with a sense of "big brother" taking away your rights. See what I mean about denial?

PS they already make cigarette cases, hope I haven't dashed your dreams of the next big "snuggie" idea.....too bad, you'll need the money paying $8 a day to slowly kill yourself.

Common sense, I don't smoke. I just find it repulsive that others are allowed to push their morals on a minority of people. Yes, I know that there are cases, but it isn't like they are a marketed item... like they will be. As for "big brother" taking away rights... he's been doing it for years. If you think this is a free country, you are the one seriously deluded. This is now a country where they can hold you indefinitely... without reason... and without representation. Read your Patriot and Patriot 2 acts.

mranderson, the guns are there to ensure my freedoms, huh? So if I wanted to smoke in public, I'd be able to, right? Oh, wait... freedom comes at a price, right? Get off your rah, rah crap. The America that you are idolizing is LONG gone, and it has been replaced with a repressive tone. Where children are being molested trying to get on planes. People are berated for buying and using legal products. Emails are scanned by the FBI for keywords in order to "catch terrorists". More aid goes to people outside the US than to our own citizens. Yes, mranderson, that is what your guns are now buying us, not your free society utopia that you've had implanted in your mind. Wake up.

Kinkomaster... Could you please SHUT UP!

Touch a nerve, did I, man?

I think you did touch a nerve. Personally I found it rather well presented when some people feel it is their right to force their views on others it is rather wrong. Would the same people advocating this be ok with a church goer going up to them and putting a picture of people being tortured in hell on everyone that doesn't go to church? I am pretty sure they wouldn't. It is all emotion and not rational thought. Some people just don't like it when you point that out to them.

Thank you, Bob. Nice angle on the church... never thought of it, and probably a good thing. Me and religion mix like water and oil. :D

"He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not, is a slave"

William Drummond

Give up eating at McDonalds, give up cutting your employees healthcare (that kills too), run at least one mile a day, don't drink soda,stop putting pestecides in our food, no oral sex it also can cause throat cancer because of HPV.... The list goes on and on.

What an idiotic sentiment. "Don't go where we are while we can go anywhere we want!" You should not control where non-smokers go. Public land is not your land. In addition, you're giving not only yourself dangerous cigarette smoke, but you're also giving it to others. You're killing everyone around you, and WE should be controlled by YOU? No, sir. You go where WE aren't.

Scanner you are the type of person that causes the issue. You have what you want and you still want more or want to bash people...a true liberal at heart I see. Well all this "good" you do produces what you have in San Fransico now. A once wonderful place now full of the "gimmie gimmie gimmie I dont want to pay" people.

This is about marketing on packs of cigs. If the gov wants to market there then they should have to buy the space at minimum for the marketing IF the cig companies want to sell.

Agreed why should the world cater to the smokers. It sounds like he is saying that smokers are better than none smokers. I think not.

Mark, go ahead and brand me as a liberal if you'd like, although I identify as a centrist, but oh well.

I have what I want? No, I don't. What I want it for me not to have to breathe your toxic smoke in whenever I want to go anywhere. It's not your right to poison me, now is it? And as for the issue at hand I think I've made my point more than obvious: of course I support the government on this issue. It's not at all unconstitutional to require facts on packaging.

Ok, I'm going to say this one time to all you pinhead second hand smoker whiners out there. Once the smoke comes out of a smokers mouth, it is NOT going to give you cancer! Much like the cigarette companies and their bogus studies that said their cigarettes didn't cause cancer, the other side did the same exact thing. They used white mice since they react as close to us, but they used cigarettes which we would smoke. See a proportion problem? Wait... it gets better. In order to get the mice to get cancer, they filled the room with smoke straight from the cigarettes, not smoke that was filtered thru a smoker's lungs. Lastly, and my favorite, the sheer volume of smoke. Think of yourself being stuck in a 10 X 10 room with a 1000 smokers blowing smoke from a pack of cigarettes into the room over the course of a day for a month! That means that you are constantly in a haze of smoke. Now tell me... what non-smoker deals with those conditions where the air in not moving and all they breath is the smoke.

Until they run a proper test in the US, the second hand smoke crap is exactly that... crap. You get more cancer from car exhaust sitting in traffic! From what I understand, the Brits ran a test that shows the US studies are BS, and when I find it, I will plaster it EVERYWHERE!

Got this from the cancer.gov website:

Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?

Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5, 7).

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4, 5). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).

Some research also suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults and the risk of leukemia,lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.

Smoking has been banned from most anywhere, including outdoor venues. Smokers cannot smoke at concerts, races, ball games, etc. There is no smoking in restaurants and bars, no smoking on planes or in public places. They can smoke in their homes and in certain outdoor areas. If someone is walking by someone who is smoking, it's not going to hurt them. If someone wants to smoke, let them! It's their life and their lungs! And NO, I'm NOT a smoker!

Scanner, those are very flawed studies that were done with an agenda as are so many. Look at how many drugs that get removed from the market a year or two after release but they were put out in the first place because of flawed studies done with an agenda. You can get statistics to say anything you want. It became politically popular to pick on people who smoke so you do. If you want to see some studies on second hand smoke that were not conducted with heavy anti-smoking bias you have to turn to europe where it is not as popular with the "I need a cause" crowd to vilify people who smoke.

Scanner, Kinko said it best I'll not belabor those points. Do you drive a car Scanner? What is one of the byproducts in car exhaust...Oh I don't know... perhaps carcinogens. Yet you'll happily drive by smokers kicking out more carcinogens than a group of 5 smokers all the while waggling your finger at them.

Don't know if second hand smoke causes cancer or not, but it DOES cause second hand allergy, asthma, sore throats, red eyes, and running noses. I know from experience. Now, I just make sure that I stay far away from smokers. My dad died at 64 from emphysema - an absolutely frightening way to die. My mother died of lung cancer. My brother has already had two lung operations. They all smoked. So I have a lot of reasons wanting people to be aware of the ills of smoking.

And I knew the liberal card would be played - I'm liberal, and, yes, I would like for horrific images of smoking, drinking, dangerous driving, gun-shot wounds, over-eating, etc. be displayed on all products that promote these things. I'd love for government to control all these areas. But, even I recognize that that would be ridiculous and unmanageable, and intrusive. So, unfortunately, we will just have to live in a society that seems hell-bent on killing itself and everyone else, too. Maybe survival of the fittest will take over.

Scanner,

Yes, if you're constantly exposed to it in an enclosed area for an extended period of time you MAY possibly get cancer. However, lets check the odds here.

3,000 people die from second hand exposure - there are ~450,000,000 people in America. That's 0.0006%. I do believe your odds of being hit by lightening are much greater. Or of being attacked by a bear, or death from choking on food, death from the flu, contracting AIDS/HIV, Hepatitis, meningitis, lime disease, malaria, tapeworm, being hit by a car, dying in a car crash, getting killed by a drunk driver, gang violence, drowning, house fire.

I can continue if you'd like.

I think the backlash against smokers has been somewhat extreme, but the simple truth is that smoking, including secondhand smoke, KILLS. The tobac companies would like you to believe otherwise, but it is clear that they are in the business to make money, and they DO NOT CARE about your health or well-being, or that of the people who live with you and endure your smoking.

I think it's also pretty clear that Medicare money and insurance premiums are sucked up by the plethora of diseases caused or abetted by smoking. If medical costs are to be shared by all, and it makes little difference if by gov't programs or insurance premiums (except that insurance is far more expensive), then the health of all IS a public concern, just as the quality of education is a public concern, because everyone pays for it, one way or another.

If Mitt Romney can say corporations are people, then tobac companies are murderers and thieves, simple as that. Would that justice be truly swift and sure.

So YES, the public must care about individual's health, because the public, directly and indirectly (think lost days of work, lost productivity, medical emergency trips...) pays for it. That goes for obesity, addiction, smoking, and so on.

There is one more aspect to this - death and disease do not just affect the afflicted individual, but all the people who love and/or depend on them. Think long about that when you say you have a "right" to risk your life, because you are also risking the well-being and happiness of others who love you, or need you. This is not an abstract thought for me: I lost my father when I was 20 to bronchial cancer, because he smoked.

WOW!! I have never seen so many people in complete denial of the facts about smoking, but I guess avoiding the obvious facts is the only way you can still light up. If you actually opened your mind and let the facts in then you would have to deal with the guilt of shorting your time with your children, your wives and husbands, and possible shorting their time here as well. Denial is a powerful thing.

OMG! Seriously, folks, when did we stop being independant thinking people. EVERYTHING is bad for you and ANYTHING has the potential to KILL you! Just live and let live! I have to smell people with B.O. and look at obese people all the time. I don't go around chastising them for polluting MY world! We breathe toxins in everyday...who is stupid enough to deny this to be true? I am sick of the government intruding into my private life and dictating decisions I make...Does anyone feel like this is NO longer a "free" America? Is there anyone out there that actually wants to preserve our freedom?

P.S. What am I going to do after sex now??? Excuse me, I'm stepping out for a cig., a drink, a cheeseburger, twinkie, and to suck a Los Angeles tail pipe!!!!

MMC(SS) - Who is "in denial"? Not one person here has claimed smoking isn't bad for that person. So please humor me...

LOL love

Scanner, I agree with you. They should make all smokers go were non-smokers don't go.

Tell you what, man... why not stay away from the little 5 x 5 area now alotted to smokers now and days? It's people like you that have pushed them from their office desk to the break room to the lobby of the building to 10' outside of the entrance to the back alley near the dumpster. People wonder why non-smokers lash back and when you see the way that they've been pushed around, you have the nerve to be surprised.

You know what else kills? Dihydrogen Oxide. We should outlaw that too and it is in everything! Oil companies use it, coal companies use it, it is in our food and every type of beverage that we consume. I mean just the other day a few people drowned in vats full of the stuff! It is even toxic to the body! We should outlaw it!!!!

You see what that is? That is emotion driving rational thinking. I honestly don't think anyone would really like to ban water but that is the thinking that some of you anti smokers have.

Dang it, Bob. You had me so scared, I dumped out my lemonade!

Sorry I was just trying to show them what their irrational behavior was like. I apologize for the loss of the delicious lemonade.

Like I said, go someplace that I'm not. it's a big country

Amen. And while you are at it Jeff hang up the dern phone when you are driving!!

How about putting all the smokers on a big island in the middle of the ocean, throw one pack of smokes in the middle, and watch them kill eachother for it.

My friend just switched to ecigs. We roll up in a resto with an ecig and he starts puffing (watervapor) and listen to all the fakers start hacking. Yes it is like a lot posting here...so worried about things that they start hacking lungs over water vapor. You drive a FOSSIL FUEL car that puts out a million times more second hand smoke a day than a smoker will over their life. You choose to go after the easy target and let the big dog pass.

Just another win for big oil. I wonder how many dollars they put in to direct the monies of anti-smoking? hmmmm

Mark, good luck with the fake cigarettes, since they have tons of toxic chemicals in them anyways.

Also, who said we support oil companies? Maybe we hate them and want more regulation. But hey, that isn't the topic at hand, is it? Nope.

QKRTHNU
Fortunately, smoking is an habit that people can break, unlike spouting S#!% from the mouth which is usually something that follows you for life. I see that you have a head start on most folks. Good for you!!!

the fake cigarettes, since they have tons of toxic chemicals in them anyways.

I thought it was water........

Scanner you are very misinformed. eCigs have no toxic chemicals in them. Where you picked up that load of trash I'm unsure. Nicotine is not toxic and does not cause cancer. Tars and other chemicals in a real cigarette that are put in there to make them burn evenly have been shown to have a toxic effect in SOME people. You REALLY need to go get a clue before you start posting ignorance on a public board.

Fanaticism is so scary

Amused,

Nicotine is one of the few common substances which is absolutely proven to cause cancer. Seems like the tobacco companies need to find better educated shills...

Bert, nicotine is NOT a proven carcinogen. You might want to educate yourself before attempting to be a shill.

The carcinogenic properties of nicotine in standalone form, separate from tobacco smoke, have not been evaluated by the IARC, and it has not been assigned to an official carcinogen group. The currently available literature indicates that nicotine, on its own, does not promote the development of cancer in healthy tissue and has no mutagenic properties.

Thank you, Shellie... I love you!! It won't matter, tho. All these second hand smoke whiners still won't look at the other things that they breathe in without a second though... like car exhaust. Hmmmm... a way to commit suicide. Close the garage door and turn on the car. Think something bad comes out of that tail pipe?!

I believe the last time I heard, we all still have free will, don't we? The last time I heard, we are still able to make the choice if we drive cars, drink liquor, buy drugs over the counter and so on and so fourth. When did it become the norm to try and take free will away from others? People need to understand, this isn't a perfect reality or world we live in. And why is it, that some want to just pick and choose certain items they want others to stop doing, and not all of the items? Could it be, that some of those items they don't pick, are things they themselves are doing? When those who are doing just that can prove to the world, that they are in the right, then maybe, the rest will listen. But as long as you yourself are doing something that is "wrong", then you have no right to dictate to others what they "have to" do.

You hit it, Only in the US. These non-smokers won't talk smack on drinking because they do it. Can't take away the 6 packs or the wine coolers. Hands off the shot glasses and the kegs. "I hate how a smoker smells... they make me throw up when I'm stinking drunk." How about the smell of a drunk, huh? Smells like a brewery and they hang on you because they can't stand on their own, so they rub the smell on you. Yes, we can't take away the ability to party, only the ability to smoke... but wait... does that mean we can't smoke joints at the party? *sigh*

not to mention all the feel good drugs that they take like prozac, xanax etc. of course none of those drugs have side effects or could possibly cause cancer after long term use.

Naw... just suicidal tendencies... that's all. Hey, as long as they go alone, I have no problem with it. Survival of the Fittest I always say.

Here, you can't smoke in any public buildings and you have to stand a far length away to smoke...but a lot of people smoke too close to the buildings and don't care about it. Smokers tend to have terrible manners in that way.

So I agree, cover all buildings, and everywhere else, too. Make it illegal. Not even legal in homes....children don't need to be subjected to it.

QKRTHNU, Look at it this way, the smokers are helping with your gambling addiction.

Not even legal in homes

And in the heck do you enforce that????

You get what you give and you want to say that non-smokers are polite to smokers? Please! The fake hacking, the rolling eyes, it's all made up nonsense so save your self-rightousness! It's wrong to judge others for what they do. Smokers have already been relegated to the back of the building with the rest of the garbage, right? Until there is a study done on second hand smoke that cannot be proven to be flawed you do not have anything to stand on there other than your own opinion so leave them alone.

Chris, with all due respect, I have the same disdain for people who insist on yakking on the phone and texting while they drive. I simply don't do it.

smokers are tarded. argue with that.

Scanner.....Do you really want to live in a fascist state?....I hope so, because with your ideaology, we will head there quick....but be careful...if we have home monitoring, the things YOU do in private may be next on the hit list.

scanner, until you yourself become perfect, you have no right to dictate to others what they should or should not do.

surrviivor, anyone who calls others "tarded" have no credibility what-so-ever, and should look in a mirror themselves.

*slam head off desk* You know... whenever some pinhead wants to make a point and not be attacked for it, they always toss in... "for the kids". Kids have become one of the biggest crutches that this country uses to beat things into law. Scanner wants to legislate what goes on IN my house... for the kids. See how that works. If you argue, you look like the jerk that hates kids. What it takes is someone that is willing to split the 2 apart. Scanner... stay outta my house. If you don't, I will defend it... for the kids. heh heh

surrviivor, tarded? really? spelling your name like that and you are going to knock IQ? I have a feeling that you need to worry about how you're slinging those rocks around that glass house of yours. If you don't get the analogy, ask Scanner... he likes going into people's homes.

Government is there to protect the welfare of it's people. Second hand smoke is bad for us just like smoking is to the smoker (I quit 8 years ago myself). But for YEARS the tobacco companies knew that it causes cancer and they hide it from the general public. And now they're calling this "unfair" because it could hurt sales?? You know, I could stand behind big business if I felt like I wasn't getting screwed over for profits. THEY don't have my best interests in mind, MY government does. There's a LOT more good in our government than there is bad.

No, the government is there to protect the Constitution. Which is there to protect our freedom. This is a free country, which means you own your body, not the government. You are free to destroy it if you wish, and the government should not be able to stop you. It is the government's job to make sure you don't destroy someone ELSE's body. As long as they are not FORCING someone else to smoke, there is nothing within the Constitution that allows for forcing the tobacco companies to pay for these types of labels on their products.

Last I checked, no one is forced to smoke! The tobacco companies don't have ninja's crashing into homes forcing someone to smoke until they enjoy it!

LS you have never been to my home. Why just last week I was sitting there minding my own business and in busts a group of ninjas and pirate ghosts and they said they were going to kill my cat if I didn't smoke a pack of their product.

DV, interesting comment, and I apologize for getting off topic, but with that thread of logic... are you pro-life or pro-choice? I'm not gonna knock you either way... unless you snap at me... but I found it interesting after reading your comments.

... and then the ninjas snuck up on me and forced me back on topic!! I hate those guys!

BobB....for the sake of the cat I hoped you complied!! Hahahahahaha

Kinko, I'm neither. I don't vote based on one issue. I personally could care less what another woman does to her body. I think the issue should be left to the states, as allowed by the Constitution. The federal government is wasting tax dollars over an issue that it shouldn't even be involved in. Same goes for the many smoking related issues.

Like I said, DV... not judging ya. In fact, we are pretty close in thought. I don't think men should even be in this conversation since we really don't get a choice about it. It is a woman's choice and as that, it should be hashed out by them. As for State powers... I'm with ya there too. I don't know where that transition happened, but it needs to click back to the way it was... eventho state governments tend to be way more corrupt.

The government is supposed to look after the welfare of its people. I'd say that this will help the welfare of the people.

Not only that, but if FACTS destroy your sales, maybe it's the industry's problem and not the government's.

If the government truly wanted to look after the welfare of the people then the government would make tobacco illegal. The government clearly has a conflict of interest issue when it comes to tobacco. The government makes huge amounts of money from tobacco taxes which obviously has influenced their decision to allow tobacco to be legal. Tobacco is a highly addictive deadly substance and has no redeeming values.

If we’re for full disclosure, then let’s put warning labels on what is really threatening the health of our county:

On election ballots: Warning: Re-elected officials lose their courage, their ability to lead and willingness to change Washington

On text books: Alert: Federal education programs can distort historical facts, lead to depression and undermine values taught at home

On every state of the union address: BE AWARE: each $1 spent by Washington will cost you and your children $4 in interest

On IRS forms: Warning: failure to eliminate inheritance tax will result in farm and business foreclosures as well as well as your right to pass on to your family money on which you have already paid taxes.

NBForrest...I agree. They want to vilify the tobacco industry, but not enough to make the product illegal! Definitely a conflict of interest. They make so much money off of this "deadly" product. How can they advertise these awful pics and then take all that money...... ?

The government is supposed to look after the welfare of its people. I'd say that this will help the welfare of the people.

Not only that, but if FACTS destroy your sales, maybe it's the industry's problem and not the government's.

If facts are the case scanner, they haven't seemed to stop the car companies yet. People still drive them, even at the risk of getting killed in one. Are they on your list of things to do away with?

Ahhhh... Only in US... I was hoping for so much more. I hate to argue with you but the federal government is SUPPOSED to only defend our borders against exterior foes and assist local militia with civil unrest... period. Being a politician was never meant to be a career when this country was put together... it was supposed to be a service you did for your country. We weren't supposed to live off the federal teet, that was started early last century. Federal law is supposed to back up State law... since the States are SUPPOSED to have all the power.

The federal government was never supposed to have any dealings with the free market. They were never supposed to have the power to curtail our actions thru the use of taxes. Best of all, we are NOT supposed to be taxed more than once for a single item. Have you rented a car lately? Count the number of taxes on there! I think it is FIVE taxes that you get to pay for to rent a car. Excessive taxation? Problem is that a lot of people just don't care anymore. They have become sheep and just quietly do as they are told. Maybe once in a while get a little "rowdy" at a party (where there is ABSOLUTELY NO SMOKING) or on a board like this and actually put up 1 post saying what they feel before running away.

No... the government's role was clearly defined in the beginning and it has very clearly crossed that line and become a monster of its own. All those that think the government should be taking care of us is in the wrong country...

Yes, maybe all those kids will be scared by all those pics and not smoke. Instead, hopefully, they will be wowed by the half naked Budweiser girls and start slamming back 12 packs at age 15. No health risks there right?

Shellie.....you nailed that one!

It won't have any effect at all on kids. They save up their lunch money for weeks to go see the goriest, blood filled movies Hollywood can produce. It's a waste of time and money to put that crap on cigarette packs and just might backfire if the kids think they're cool and collect them all.

Fast food doesn't assure obesity, whereas smoking is addictive and pretty much assures you'll get cancer.

nope. there's no guarantee. keep eating Big Macs and you'll be dead before must cig smokers

But luckily, fast food isn't addictive, and cigarettes are.

There are many things that, in moderation, can be good for you. However, if you have too much can kill you or others. Unfortunately for smokers, cigarettes isn't one of them. Studies prove that you take damage on the first puff. It only goes downhill from there.

Look at George Burns, he smoked and lived to 100. Can't say that will work for all but apparently it does for some.

Really? I do believe there is something called food addiction. Whether or not it's real is beside the point. And most fat people would tend to side with it being addictive.

Look, I don't like fat people much because they crowd me on the plane, bus, elevator, some smell horrible, and their breathing sounds annoying. But you will never hear me ask for a clogged heart to be printed on the package of the half pounder w/ cheese. Decent regulations are in place and all the other issues are just mundane petty things. This same concept applies towards smokers.

Actually, food is addictive.

And smoking doesn't guarentee you will get cancer or dies from a smoking related illness.

I guess food COULD be addictive. Either that or you have an eating disorder like me.

he smoked cigars and looked like 120 . I wonder at what age he couldn't walk fast or run. great funny guy though. I liked his statement about what he said when asked what his doctors said about his smoking habit....he said he's not sure ...they are all dead.

smoking does guarentee cancer and other deaseses if you smoke for a long time just ask patrick swazye.

there a such thing called food addiction but it is not as common as smoke addiction.

Patrick Swazye is just one person, that does not prove that 100% of people who smoke get cancer. Yes, it increases your risk, but it does not guarentee you will get cancer. There are many people who die from other ways that were life long smokers. Since we are going with the one person example, what about George Burns? He smoked all is life and he lived into his 100's. So if I go with the one person example, does that guarentee that you won't get cancer? Nope, that would be flawed thinking. Yes, there is an increased risk, quite a large one, but it isn't a 100% guarentee. Smoking has risks, just like any other injested chemical does.

Very same...lost people to it and may lose more. I've seen how addicted people are. They try to quit and give up. It's like they don't even know what they're doing.

Stop people before they pick up the pack!

Lets make all speed limits 10 miles per hour! IT WILL SAVE LIVES!

YES LETS BE GRAPHIC! IT WILL SAVE LIVES!

I'm sorry, but no it won't! They show major graphic images and movies in schools. I still see teens smoking. The graphic images don't stop them! And the images on packs of smokes won't stop a smoker either. It just won't!

I did lose a girlfriend to lung cancer caused by smoking.. and have alot of personal experience with cancer.this wouldn't hurt. and for all smokers out there, take yourselves down to the childrens section in hospital and see the ones with cancer, and think to yourselves, look at me goodness I'm perfectly healthy and doing something that can potentially give me what these children are and have fought their lives against. You have no soul if that would not bother you. If it doesn't then you will be stunning in you new suit in church at 70 with tubes in your nose, if you live that long.

my mom told me once even if you put a picture of a dead baby on a drug(including alcohol) the addicts wouldnt care because all they care about is the pleasure they get from the products.

P.S in my opinion all drugs should be legal sence Cigerettes are legal,and weed is the least dangerous out of all the drugs why it's not legal, you know how much money the government will make and how many cigerette companies will be in bankruptcy by just making weed legal.

P.S.S weed does not kill everything around you or kill people when your in a car weed in my opinion is the safest drug.(when the last time you heard a person dying from weed lol 0)

brad 10 mph that is the equivalent of making cigarettes 1/7 th their length and charging the same price..very bad example....doesn't equate......... buut I'm all for it . I ride a bike and my family is all very close , as one should be.

To Scanner of Appreciation.....Glad to see someone who understands the diffacultlty of quitting! Thanks for agreeing!

To surrviivor...sorry about your loss , I agree with...not a bad idea! If young can be taught about Jesus then they can be taught about deadly effects cigarettes have~!

To the Liberal...I really agree with you LOL!!!!!!!!!

To LS-415070....Apparently that's your opinion and I have mine. Since you claim it will not work than whats the harm....do it anyway I bet it will be in the back of their heads while puffing away!

DEAR DEAR BRAD...you better hope the day don't come where you have to go threw what I did watching my mother and nanny die...I wouldn't wish that even on my enemies!

We are all different sir. I also am over 60 and run 5 miles a day without problems. I have smoked for 46 years. My mother who is 86 still smokes and has "NEVER" had lung or any other problems related to smoking.

Just because you have weak DNA don't assume the rest of us do, thank you.

I think you could have answered my remarks by not being so rude and hurtful...I try to treat people as I want to be treated as noted I was speaking only of myself and did not put anyone down I dont think your last remark was necessary but then I as raised to respect others and be kind to everyone I have worked hard all my life raised my children alone and worked two jobs most of the time...My DNA cant be too weak or I could not have done that for so long...I still work hard at home I just cant take the heat and humidity outside...other wise I am very healthy and seldom go to the doctor except general check ups my grandmother lived to be 107 and women determine longevity so that DNA is very strong but you have a great day

I apologise for the hurtful comment. It wasn't meant to be personal, I'm just tired of being told what to do and how to do it by politics of this country.

My point is simply that some of us can smoke with no problems whatsoever...while others cannot. I hope you remain healthy and enjoy life sir.

How does eating a Ho Ho effect the birth of a child or someones driving ability? Think before you write moron.

Ho Ho's can make your hands sticky and cause you to loose control of your car's steering!

ho ho good one

If you want a laugh, scroll around and look for my post with a P.S.

everything can be a hazard. sugar is bad. santa is the number one addict. ho ho ho!

"How does eating a Ho Ho effect the birth of a child or someones driving ability? Think before you write moron."

Take your own advice, retard.

Poor nutrition, obesity, and a body full of highly processed "foods"/sugars cause all sorts of ailments, "birth defects", and complications. These same toxins don't allow our mental or physical systems to function properly - reaction times are diminished, and synapsis' don't fire as they should.. . . I could go on, and on. Fact is heart disease (among other diseases from onesity/poor nutrition) is a major killer, and junk-food-junkies are the most prone.

So yes, put an unhealthy, obese persons organs and sewn-up chest on a package of Ho-Ho's!

That would work as well. Or maybe add pictures of children born with fetal alcohol syndrome as well.

How about pictures of terrorists on gas pumps? People choose to do things every day that harms themselves and those around them.

How about pictures of suicide victims on handguns?

Enough with the endless, wasteful "war on tobacco". People know that it is bad for you...like many other things we do. How many bureaucrats have made their entire career on this one tired issue. Could have made a safe alternative by now with all that money.

"How about pictures of terrorists on gas pumps?" now THAT actually make me drive less!

Actually even better idea. How about instead of a barely visible "Made in China" label we put a big pic of some fat cat Chinese business man on there or better yet a picture of a Broke, homeless, unemployed vet on there.

i think it's good. just like obesity. population control

"will leave them dead before they know it"

Seriously?....

You can certianly tell who the people are that are constantly hysterical and live in fear of everything.

Keegan....it's because we live in a self medicating society.

If you are tired, you might grab a cup of coffee.

At the end of a rough day? Unwind with a glass of wine or a beer.

To be perfectly honest, I have never met more people who are on anti-depressants than in this timeframe. Prozac, Zoloft, Wellburtin..... BTW, look at our kids in school and meet the new babysitter...Ritalin....Catch my drift?

I can't speak for all smokers, but I prefer to light up a smoke because it has a very calming effect on me. I don't drink, and I'm not on drugs, but I do like my nice relaxing smoke.

BTW, my son doesn't smoke or drink, has served in the military and is a fine young man with a good life.......do you think that may have something to do with parenting? Folks, if you are concerned about your kids...BE A PARENT! Don't give this job to the government...they aren't qualified.

Amended comment...I said I don't do drugs, let me rephrase. Caffeine and nicotene are MY drugs of choice.

I couldn't have said it better myself Pam

He sure will if the check he receives from the companies is big enough !

It will be !!!

Everyone complains about the smokers and i hope that they will all stop some day.Then the government will lose all that tax money that the smokers pay,oh yeh guess what,you will be picking up the tab because they will have to get there money from some where.

What about the tab for their healthcare that my tax dollars are already paying for? I think we taxpayers would be in the black not the red if less people would smoke. But in reality it will never happen. Too many politicians with their hands in the honey jar and own stock in these corporations.

Kee more money is spent on a non smoker that enters their seventh and eighth decade of life on healthcare then a smoker that dies in their sixth decade. Just wanted to inject some reason into your emotion.

What are the conditions of the liver and kidneys on a person who dies from a form of cancer? A person I knew died, he was a chain smoker, one cigarette after another. I have a reason to belive without having proof of this, that he died because of his drinking, I'm only guessing on this, he was younger that me, I'm in my late 50's. Alcohol can cause damage to the kidneys and liver, which would cause additional damage. Fact I had a physical recently blood tests, X rays EKG was taken and the results shows my liver and kidneys are fine. I don't drink.