New Cigarette Packaging And Regulations On The Way
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Health Care, Legislation
This has been a long time coming, especially when you consider that the tobacco companies have never had to share the ingredients in their products with the public.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as it is called, stops short of empowering the F.D.A. to outlaw smoking or ban nicotine — strictures that even most antismoking advocates acknowledged were not politically feasible and might drive people addicted to nicotine into a criminal black market.But the law would give the F.D.A. power to set standards that could reduce nicotine content and regulate chemicals in cigarette smoke. The law also bans most tobacco flavorings, which are considered a lure to first-time smokers. Menthol was deferred to later studies. Health advocates predict that F.D.A. standards could eventually reduce some of the 60 carcinogens and 4,000 toxins in cigarette smoke, or make it taste so bad it deters users.
And then there’s the marketing and the warnings…
Colorful ads and store displays will be replaced by black-and-white-only text. Beginning next year, all outdoor advertising of tobacco within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds would be illegal.And cigarette makers will be required to stop using terms like “light†and “low tar†by next year and to place large, graphic health warnings on their packages by 2012.
If you think that’s extreme, check out what Brazil makes cigarette companies put on the back of their boxes (Warning: VERY graphic.)
Still, some are saying that the bill doesn’t go far enough because it doesn’t address menthol cigarettes, which are supposed to be the most addictive.
The National African American Tobacco Prevention Network released a statement on the bill last May that read, “Tobacco legislation that treats menthol differently from other flavoring additives is incomplete.” This is in response to studies showing that menthols are far more addictive then other cigarettes and far harder to quit, no matter what race the smoker is.And last July, the Harvard School of Public Health released a study showing that tobacco manufacturers carefully controlled the menthol content of cigarettes to maximize its masking of harsh tobacco smoke, even creating new brands for longtime smokers who require increasing amounts of menthol to maintain its numbing, cooling effect.
Menthols accounted for a quarter of the roughly 370 billion cigarettes smoked domestically in 2006 and are more popular here than anywhere else in the world. So far, neither Waxman nor Sen. Ted Kennedy, who shepherded the Senate version through his Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week, has specifically defended the exclusion of a menthol ban. Waxman notes that after an FDA study, menthol could be banned as well but didn’t explain why menthol merited a study period and chocolate cigarettes did not.
I think it’s pretty obvious why we didn’t ban menthol cigarettes. Because it would be politically impossible right now since they’re such a huge part of the market.
Maybe it’ll happen further down the road, but for right now this is a great first step.
This entry was posted on Saturday, June 13th, 2009 and is filed under Health Care, Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:54 am
This is all wrong. Look, I smoke cigars. I know they’re bad for me. Im not retarded, I just like cigars.
Warnings are beside the point. They’re aimed ad addicts for Christ’s sake. They should be aimed t the people around the addict. You want to print a useful message on a pack of Marlboros? Print: ” I Have a Tiny Cock.”
That’s a pack of cigarettes no man wants to pull out of his blazer pocket.
My suggestions for cigarette labels that would be more effective than “smoking kills.”
I have a tiny cock.
My job requires me to wear a name tag.
What’s that smell? It’s me!
I drive a Chrysler product.
How do you spell “smegma?”
I shower every Thursday, whether I need it or not.
Miley Cyrus wants you to quit.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“Maybe it’ll happen further down the road, but for right now this is a great first step.”
Absolutely. I think next, we should ban bacon. There are so many people who die each year from eating bacon. Bacon is a serious risk to people’s health. After that, we should ban swimming pools. Far too many children fall victim to the evil known as the “swimming pool” each year. Plus, swimming pool execs are rich! After that, we should ban everything Justin Gardner deems socially unacceptable.
Welcome to the fucking Nanny State.
June 14th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Tillyosu,
Tobacco companies could’ve gotten in front of this a long time ago and simply admitted that their products are addictive and have serious side effects. But they didn’t. And now they’re paying the price. Call that whatever you like, but they brought this on themselves and there’s plenty of documentation to prove they’ve known the dangers of tobacco for decades.
Also, let’s look at the price…they’re subject to the same processes and guidelines as every other substance that people consume. Oh, and they can’t sell flavored cigarettes. Boo hoo.
Last, casually throw around “Nanny State” at your own peril. Because the more you do, the more it’ll lose its meaning.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
As a smoker I know the health risks involved and I have long before I started smoking. I don’t mind having non-labeled packs of cigarettes but the statement of announcing such things as I have a tiny cock and I shower on Thursday even though I don’t need too are quite degrading statements. I mean maybe we should start labeling everything that is harmful. Like fast food, tanning salons, gas guzzlers, maybe religious extremist also. So just because I choose to harm myself and someone says I should get labled why don’t we start labling other people who harm themselves.
June 15th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Informed consent for a legal drug.
Print the ingredients, print the warnings and allow people to make their personal decision to imbibe. As Justin stated, these corporations have had sufficient time to lead on this issue rather than be dictated to. To claim placing more controls on this drug this is wrong when cigarette manufacturer’s have hidden in the shadow of secrecy for such a long time, and with such serious medical and financial implications, seems insincere.
But then again, I think the philosophy of informed consent should apply across most illegal drugs….
June 15th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Also, Menthol cigarettes are one of Philip Morris’ most popular cigarettes, the company strongly backed the bill and why shouldn’t they it benefits them. 1) lowering nicotine levels encourages addicted consumers to purchase more cigarettes to fill their urge 2) FDA regulations make it harder for smaller companies and new risk-reducing products to enter the market 3) cigarette manufacturers will now have the FDA stamp of approval on their inherently harmful product. For more on why this ISN’T a public health victory check out this news video: http://www.newsy.com/videos/new_sheriff_in_town
June 22nd, 2009 at 7:33 am
IF I WANT TO SMOKE AND KILL MYSELF I DONT NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL ME THAT I AM GOING TO DIE IT IS MY CHOICE … I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE LAND OF THE FREE ….GUESS THAT HAS CHANGED
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Why not ban booze? Why not ban fast food? Why not ban women having kids? OH GEE That would not work would it, that would infringe on our rights! What about smoking? That is not a right? God knows we pay enough tax for these women to have their kids for free so now we’re a problem? Health care is a joke anyway, and I got news for you, you can try and try but this country will NEVER be non-smoking, EVER!
July 7th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Ok, so people may have a right to smoke, but I also have a right not to walk through clouds as I make my way down a sidewalk. If you want to smoke and bring yourself closer to death, power to you. What about those of us who like our lungs and lives and don’t want to inhale secondhand smoke? Even if it is unrealistic to think of a non-smoking country, at least making giant labels and drastically changing marketing techniques are strides in a better direction and will deter people from picking up the addiction.
July 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Smoking should and is banned in places where there are people who don’t smoke. Yes you have a right to smoke, but I have a right not to smell it or inhale your second hand smoke. Smoke in your car, smoke in your home. If i don’t like it I won’t go there. It’s common sense.
January 18th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Ok we have both sides of the arguement but wether or not you like smoking we all have to repect one another wishes. People such as I and other service members have definitely earned the right to smoke yet if some one tells me my smoking is bothering them i will put it out or i will move to another location. Do you honestly think telling a veteran of recent wars to quit smoking that he is going to quit ? No we are not gonna quit, we have earned the right. Now this thing about the packaging enticing children to smoke is a lttle outragous for i know most kids (including myself when I first started at the age of 13) stole them from our parents. It didn’t matter what the pack looked like. Granted some may not agree with me but thats ok that’s your right . I just do not agree with the government trying to control every little thing we do and manipulating the constatution to justify what they are doing. Heck our fore fathers were smoking pipes when the signed the constatution.