1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
  1. trdofbeingtrd
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]FDA to decide on new cigarette labels: How graphic should they be?

    Within the next week the U.S. Food and Drug Administration plans to release final rules on new warning labels for cigarette packages.
    It’s likely the new warnings will be quite shocking to some smokers if the FDA opts to use some of the proposed graphic warning labels.

    The most important question is, if the FDA adopts these warnings, will they be effective? A review (see study in Tobacco Control) of the existing scientific literature appears to suggest that yes, they will. And the more shocking, the better.
    Here are some conclusions Canadian research David Hammond drew from his analysis of 94 original articles:

    • The impact of health warnings depends upon their size and design.
    • Obscure text-only warnings appear to have little impact.
    • Prominent health warnings on the face of packages serve as a source of health information for smokers and non-smokers.
    • Pictorial health warnings that elicit strong emotional reactions are significantly more effective.
    • These prominent warnings can increase health knowledge and perceptions of risk and can promote smoking cessation.
    • The evidence also indicates comprehensive warnings are effective among youth and may help to prevent smoking initiation.
    I say bring on the warnings if they help people build the resolve to quit, or not start in the first place.


    I was not able to add the two pictures it gives, but they are on the link.


  1. trdofbeingtrd
    I think it is very odd, and I would like to know if someone can explain to me why there are such drastic steps to make people stop smoking tobacco and they keep it legal (when it kills thousands), and keep alcohol legal (when it easily kills thousands), but yet if you have marijuana, you are a druggy criminal. When you take the number of lives destroyed and ended by both tobacco and alcohol and add them together, I think it is literally impossible for marijuana to ever in humans existence to equal that number.

    I know that they tried to make alcohol illegal and it didn't really work, I know that there can be taxes on tobacco. My point is though, officers will give you a ticket or arrest you for having/smoking/selling/buying a plant that does not kill, and it labels you as a "bad guy" but yet the powers that be will allow worse stuff to be bought and if you drink alcohol, you are not seen as a criminal for it.

    This game of "it's legal in some states, but federally illegal" is just not right. They want to put these pictures on packs of cigarettes, I could care less, it won't cause me to stop. If I stop, it's because I want to, not because they raise prices (which possibly raises crime, especially the higher they make the cigarettes) or put pictures on the packs. This is just crazy. The only thing that makes alcohol legal and marijuana not, is what the powers that be say so. They have no real logical proof that there is any reason it's made that way. So how about they start putting pictures of people who died from liver failure and pictures of people dead in cars from drunk driving on alcohol containers, at least then I wouldn't think of it as TOTAL bullshit.

    Also, I would like to know, how would an officer honestly feel about arresting someone for having marijuana if they have ever been to the gruesome scene of many people dead because of a drunk driver. I know if that person lives, they get arrested, and I know they try to keep drunk drivers off the road. I am not dissin or talking shit about officers doing their job, they get paid to protect and serve, and many do that. I would just like to know "off the record" if an officer really thinks that a person is a "bad guy/girl" because they smoke marijuana but has no problem with people killing themselves with tobacco and killing themselves and others with alcohol.

    I understand this is a little off topic at the end, but when they already make tobacco extremely expensive, and now want to put pictures on it, instead of just making it illegal, how is it that marijuana is seen as "bad".
  2. CK_two
    well sir, I do smoke cigarettes on occasion. I guess now I'll be asking for a pack of still-born babies. I don't like the weed as it gives me headaches, as most know. i like the powder, but feel your pothead pain more than most. After all who do we have? Charlie Sheen... Christ. It all boils down to politics. inhaling tobacco smoke for a long enough time will give you cancer as a fact, whereas drinking alcohol in moderation may or may not cause health problems is speculative. snorting coke in small doses over time would prove nothing but doing a lot would take years off, and erase your septum. the long term effects of smoking weed are also speculative add that it has been demonized by the media and the scales have been tipped. everything is politics. if enough people get behind weed, it would be legal. If enough people could use coke responsibly, it would be legal, and taxed, and regulated. I like to blame fox news.
  3. Docta
    We've had the big graphic images on cigarette packs for years you hardly notice them now; The more graphic images definitely have an impact.
    The packets can't be displayed at all at point of sale, they are kept out of site you ask for you brand and that's the first time you see a pack is when it's dropped on the counter in front of you.
    The new laws that are coming soon will mean plane packaging with none of the trade mark colors or logos so the kiddies cant choose a brand.
    This is what the proposed packaging looks like-

    The brand name is in plane font.
    They say it signals the end of smoking, they obversely don't understand drug dependency.

    This story from the ABC web site-
    A West Australian Health expert says the introduction of unmarked, olive green cigarette packets would signal the end of smoking.
    The Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has revealed a proposal to package all cigarettes in the olive green cartons covered with large health warnings.
    If the draft legislation passes through parliament Australia will become the first country in the world to implement plain packaging laws for cigarettes.
    Retailers and tobacco companies have campaigned against the changes, saying they will not reduce smoking rates.
    But Professor Mike Daube says tobacco companies hate the idea because they know it will stop people smoking.
    "The tobacco industry has responded to this move more ferociously to anything in tobacco control in 20 years and I think that sends out a signal, if the tobacco industry is so worried about it, then we've got to be on the right track," he said.
    Professor Daube says the proposal is extremely important.
    "It is probably the most important move we have seen in reducing smoking in Australia for more than 20 years, it means that Australia's going to be leading the world."
    British American Tobacco says it will take legal action against the proposed laws.
  4. trdofbeingtrd
    With as much money (at least in the U.S. , I do not know about other countries in this regard) as the taxes (which go higher and higher) bring in for the country, it's just so odd how this is something that will stop people from smoking. "We get millions from the tobacco taxes, but we are going to put a stop to smoking".
  5. CK_two
    I think it's more of the FDA and american cancer assoc. and such that would be pushing for it. there is no denying that cigarettes can severely affect your health. Governments can make new revenue by raising tax on this or that, if they get desperate expect your favorite drug to go on. I wouldn't complain and would gladly pay $500 for a true 3.5g (accurately weighed, nearly pure, and 100% legal) eight ball of Columbia's finest.
  6. Docta
    In Australia we have fully tax payer funded health care; The revenue from tobacco products dose not even come close to the civic cost of smoking related or aggravated diseases; I expect that the state in the US is also finding it hard the meet the cost of illness.

    Keep in mind that cigarettes in AUS are taxed a more than twice the rate of the US, that’s roughly US$1.35 for each cigarette in the pack.

    Soon as the US adopts universal health care the government will move against smoking for purely budgetary reasons no matter the size of the campaign contributions from big tobacco.

    Unfortunately the people of America are so disillusioned and disenfranchised by a succession of incompetent governments that I doubt that there will ever be effective social services in the US.

  7. rawbeer
    The revenue from tobacco products dose not even come close to the civic cost of smoking related or aggravated diseases; I expect that the state in the US is also finding it hard the meet the cost of illness.

    I've also heard it argued that smokers are cheaper on health care - they die and so don't have those long, expensive twilight years on life support systems in rest homes a lot of old folks enjoy. I don't know either way.

    And honestly in the USA eating is a bigger problem than smoking - it's a much bigger drag (while, yeah, pun intended) on our health care system than smoking with the heart disease, diabetes, obesity, etc. that is causes (and of course there's overlap...what killed the Fat Smoker? Smokers who die of heart disease are called tobacco casualties, despite the fact that obesity probably kills many of them).

    However I think in the USA we are unique in having made eating the most dangerous activity in which we participate, after driving. We as a nation can truly achieve anything.

    But it does annoy me that smokers are treated like such assholes when what they're doing is legal. Either make tobacco illegal or lay off these poor addicted fuckers. It's like people who look down on you for drinking on a Sunday afternoon - if I'm breaking the law, arrest me. If I'm breaking a moral code, keep it to yourself cause I don't give a fuck. (While honestly, if I'm breaking a real law I'd prefer if you'd do that too.)

    Personally, if you're outside you should be able to smoke whatever the hell you want, be it weed, tobacco, or heroin. It's your own damn business. This banning smoking from outdoor areas is horse shit, it's silly and it makes it harder on the pot smokers too. Let's ban cars, because here in the USA that's what's fucking our air, not cigarettes. And all that driving around just makes obesity a bigger problem.

    Who gives a shit about cigarettes? There are serious issues facing the world and people smoking isn't one of them. It ranks right along with gay marriage as a worthless non-issue we should all just stop whining about so we can focus on real problems.

    Let's put pictures of mangled corpses on cars, pictures of obese shut-ins being winched out of bed on boxes of Oreos, pictures of dead Arabs on gasoline pumps...
  8. Plasma
    I think it's a good step, but I'm unsure how effective these really will be, especially with people who have been smoking a long time. May discourage some younger people though?

    In the UK, I think rolling out next year, tobacco products will be hidden from show and forced to use plain white packaging which I think is also pretty good, as it's not preaching to people but rather making it a little less easier/'fashionable' for younger people.

    I'm guessing this change and the one in the UK is to save on health. Makes me think, if cannabis was controlled and legalised maybe people will be pulled away from tobacco and use marijuana on a less intense basis, thus saving a tonne of money on health services.
  9. kailey_elise
    They've been keeping them out of view in Canada & Australia for years; people keep smoking, new users start every day. *shrug*

    When I smoke cigarettes, I put them into a separate holder anyway, so they don't get crushed in my back pocket. *LOL* The images don't change a whole lot, and people get immune to them after a while anyway.

    Honestly, I think preventing the advertising & making all brands use the same font for their name & the same color packaging will make a bigger difference than just keeping them out of sight & putting gruesome photos on. When we were last in Canada, we collected the ciggie boxes, we thought of them as souvenirs. :-

  10. Docta
    I can understand how smoking would be an easy target compared to obesity, it's a lot easer to demonize tobacco than a farmer growing subsidised high calorie crops.
    Making food more expensive is not something any politician would like to defend at the poles.

    We have had a ban on smoking in enclosed areas such as bars, clubs, restaurants and cars carrying children for years.
    To give an idea of the penalties in my state if court smoking with a person under 18 in the car the maximum penalty for an individual breaking the law is five penalty units ($584.10) with an infringement penalty (on the spot fine) of two penalty units ($233.64).

    Up side-
    The smoking ban has give rise to beautiful al fresco dining areas to accommodate smokers at bars, clubs, restaurants and café’s, the areas have awnings above with gas heating.
    Offcourse a smoker would never prohibit a non-smoker from enjoying a lovely artistically and architecturally designed out door area.
    Down side-
    So now the non-smokers are trying to ban smoking in the out door area because they can’t enjoy there glass of wine or café latte with out second hand smoke wafting past.

    Catch 22 the business owners only spent the money on the al fresco area to retain there smoking patrons.


    This is a bit off topic but it is kind of regarding obesity, more importantly it’s a funny story.

    I was in a chat with a man from the US lets call him Bob we got onto the topic of health and I was telling him about my daily exercise and yoga.
    Bob let me know he was a bit over weight and should exercise more,
    Bob then tells me he has an average BPM of 60.
    I said man that is fantastic my heart rate only gets under 60 beats per minute in deep meditation, your to hard on your self.
    Then Bob says no no thats Burgers Per Month.

    True story.

  11. EscapeDummy
    I know that cigarette companies have been able to fight this in the US (until now) on a First Amendment basis... and I don't understand, how is this not a violation of 1st amendment rights? Wouldn't it be like requiring 50% of every mcdonalds billboard to have a big picture of a giant turd and the caption "Dog Food Has More Nutritional Value Than A Big Mac" underneath?
  12. EscapeDummy
    Anyways fuck me, I get enough dirty looks/attitude from people when I go out to smoke as it is. And I always make sure to be far away from non-smokers, and don't even blow the smoke towards them.
  13. Docta

    Mc Donald’s has the protection of trade mark so diminishing there brand would be a restraint of trade so any attempt to deface or reface there brand by government would be over turned in court.

    So you would think that big tobacco is covered by the same commercial protection under property rights, not so the World Health Organisation has classed tobacco as a poison and chronic health threat witch revokes it’s trade mark status.

    This is how a government gets around the problem of it being a legally available product.

To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!