Comments on: New Cigarette Packaging And Regulations On The Way

By: Luis Rey

Luis Rey — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:24:35 +0000

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.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:47:30 +0000

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.

By: Scott W

Scott W — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:44:17 +0000

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!

By: Trisha

Trisha — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:33:15 +0000

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

By: @robotsoul

@robotsoul — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:56:23 +0000

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

By: Mike A

Mike A — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:32:57 +0000

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….

By: Nicholas Wells

Nicholas Wells — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:17:10 +0000

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.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:21:37 +0000

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.

By: Tillyosu

Tillyosu — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:21:57 +0000

“Maybe itâ€™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.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:54:56 +0000

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.