Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

New limits for cigarette marketing: no more "light" cigarettes

nytimes.com — From today's ruling against the tobacco companies: "Judge Kessler ordered the companies to stop labeling cigarettes as "low tar" or "light" or "natural" or with other "deceptive brand descriptors which implicitly or explicitly convey to the smoker and potential smoker that they are less hazardous to health than full-flavor cigarettes.""

Bury

parislemon 1 year 323 days ago, made popular 1 year 322 days ago

622 diggs
digg it

parislemon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15If you need a login try:

http://www.bugmenot.com
parislemon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8If this holds up (which it may or may not according to the article), this could be huge: "Sales of light brands constitute more than 50 percent of the cigarette market in the United States, according to Mr. Adelman."
- Ikioi, on 10/12/2007, -11/+36Yeah, this will be ginormous! I'll have to say "Mild" or "Medium Flavor" or "Split Filter" or something or other instead of "Lights".
  
  That's a huge difference, I better quit right now before my cigarettes change names, because I was really fooled by the "Lights" part.
  
  Ok, enough sarcasm. Honestly, would like to quit eventually, but the non-smoking community is way too full of itself, smug, and self-righteous. I think its funny they go to court over things like this. Smokers don't care what you call them. The smoking tax is really a poor tax (just like extra tax on beer, but not wine). I'm not poor, but between gas taxes and cigarette taxes, the only "Butt" I want to put out is the butt I want out of office.
  
  Truth, eh? Here's some truth. I have no kids, I smoke outside, mostly at home, and I'm fully aware of the physical effects and pay extra on my health insurance for it. I'll quit eventually, but on my own terms. I don't bother a single non-smoker with second hand smoke. So, to all those non-smokers cheering this on, how about leaving me the hell alone. I don't charge you a Latte tax or a Polo shirt tax or a Self Important tax. I don't complain because your Lipo-Sculpted Lips raised the price of heath care by depleting the ranks of quality surgeons.
  
  These same people would also love to put a "Fat *ss" tax on Big Macs. While I appreciate how everyone is so concerned over the health of everyone around them, like they're Chuck Norris Gone Wild preaching to the sub-peak crowd not getting their 500 reps in a day, I'd like to be the guy that walks onto a Truth commercial set smoking a cigar and flicking ashes on all those actors playing dead.
  
  The cigarette companies didn't lie to me. I choose to start smoking because its one of the few legal drugs I could purchase when I turned 18. I knew the risks, I lit up, and I enjoyed it. I liked, and still like, the little high I get from it. Nothing feels better than a cigarette after a meal. I ate meals for 18 years without them, so yes, from experience both ways, it's much better to smoke afterwards.
  
  Maybe I'll die 10 years sooner, and maybe the non-smoker driving next to me will get hit by an 18-wheeler that ran a red light when I turn off to pick up a pack and he goes straight through the intersection.
  
  In short, I chose this, and I would grow the tobacco in my basement if it even went so far as to be outlawed. I'll quit when "I" am ready. Go do something useful, like running commercials about real social issues, instead of trying to outlaw everything that doesn't conform to PG standards.
  
  Truth.
- jestoner, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14So because i don't smoke i am smug? I don't even have a problem with people who do smoke although i do have a problem with people who judge others for something they do to keep themselves healthy. Personally i could care less if you smoke 5 packs a day, it's your life, i won't look down on you for it.
- sremick, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9I don't care that you smoke. I care that MY insurance is higher because of the insurance companies having to cover smoking-related illnesses. The small amount more that smokers pay for health insurance is a drop in the bucket compared to what the insurance companies have to front for all the treatments for lung cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, stroke, cardiovascular disease, pneumonia, death, etc.
  
  Considering how detrimental smoking is to your health, in my opinion anyone who smokes should forfeit pretty much all health-insurance benefits except for obvious things like losing a limb or whatnot. At that point, your life choices no longer affect me and you can do what you want with your body.
- stubadub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I hate to tell you, but your insurance is affected more by the average American's diet and their lack of physical activity. Insurance companies *DO* charge extra for those that smoke. They do not charge extra for those (including myself) that eat a ***** diet consisting of fried foods and tons of high fructose corn syrup. How many smokers are there in comparison to people that drink multiple Cokes in a day? I know lots of smokers, and they haven't been the ones that have had the most doctors visits. It's been two of my friends that have spent more than a year trying to heal their damaged livers from their diet, and another that is recuperating from a Heart Attack (non-smoker, Big Mac eater). Until you can honestly claim to be eating lots of vegetables, avoiding processed foods, not drinking alchohol and exercising 5 times a week then you are also adding to our health care expenses.
- stubadub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10BTW, I'm not a smoker either. I casually smoked when I used to go out, but I don't even do that anymore. I just hate people attempting to legislate our freedoms away.
  
  I like going to bars here in Austin and not smelling like smoke when I get home. I just think a business owner should have the right to make that decision. I would certainly go to more smoke-free environments, but why shouldn't we allow bars where smokers can smoke in peace?
HardD99, on 10/12/2007, -14/+34instead of "Regular" and "Light" it should be "Deadly" and "Less Deadly" lol
- dracula7, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6i disagree
- Wolfcastle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29Delicious and Slightly Less Delicious
- mundek23, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27no it should be "horrible painful death in 20 years" or "horrible painful death in 25 years"
- NtHammer, on 10/12/2007, -26/+8mundek, not everyone who smokes dies a horrible painful death, almost all of my grandparents smoke and so far none have had problems, all of my aunts and uncles smoke (almost) and none of them have had ANY problems.
  
  putting that kind of label would be extremely biased and completely untrue.
  
  i don't see what the problem with light and natural is, it still has the surgeon general warning, they still have the gay FACT commercials and all the other anti-smoking commercials, but NO pro-smoking commercials, wtf is the big deal people get it THEY ARE BAD FOR YOU, obviously they don't care cause they are still selling, so neither should all the anti-smokers.
  
  btw diggs spell checker is terrible, i had "sohuld" and the list for things to replace it with didn't even include "should", its just a shift of one letter!
- kyriakos, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4ok change that to
  "more probable horrible painful death in 20 years" or "more probable horrible painful death in 25 years"
- aOenEz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I guess I was completely wrong in my post below. Don't you guys get it? It's a "horrible painful death in ____ years" for both of them. Well, actually, it's not really a horrible painful death anyway, but I digress. The only difference between lights, ultra-lights, mediums, etc., is their taste. So it's technically "_______ death in _______ years with a slightly less tar-ry tasting mouth."
- mundek23, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@ NtHammer - you seriously believe smoking tobacco isn't harmful based on some anecdotal evidence. Well done to your family, but even you say:
  
  "so far none have had problems"
  
  so far, how about withholding judgement until you see how they die? It's not pleasant watching a smoker eventually die.
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Deadly and less Deadly"?
  
  That's the problem.... light cigarettes are just as deadly. Hence why they forbid this label.
- SpeckledJim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6In the 90s some company introduced a brand called "Death Cigarettes" in the UK, sold in a black pack with white skull and cross-bones logo. I think they did pretty well, but were eventually done in by stricter import legislation (the company traded from Luxembourg by mail order).
- Ikioi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@mundek23
  
  I have no doubt smoking causes health problems and contributes significantly to mortality rates among certain individuals. I have respiratory therapists as relatives (they don't smoke, obviously, heh) who know all the gory details. I've been to stop smoking classes (that they set up for me, which I stopped going to when I found something better to do on my Thursday nights), and heard all the horror stories, heard from coroners, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. However...
  
  I've not one seen or heard of one single case of cancer (not even cancer unrelated to smoking), heart disease, or emphysema in my family. Only one person directly related to me had emphysema, and they aren't genetically related. My oldest relative is 94 years old and still smokes a pack a day. The median age of the smokers in my family is around 70 years old (if their lives got shortened by smoking, then we must all be capable of reaching 120). I could name at least 20 smoking relatives, all past the age of 50 stretching all the way to second cousins. No premature, underweight, or physically or mentally handicapped babies. I've only heard of one miscarriage looking back 6 generations.
  
  I have no doubt smoking kills, but my family doesn't have so much as a case of bronchitis. We rarely even get the flu (good hearty stock, I suppose... last time I got the flu was because I got a flu shot; I'll never do that again, regardless of all the "health advisories"... flu shots are mostly psychological snake oil, if you ask me). When my family members die, it's either unnatural (car wrecks) or peacefully in their sleep at ripe old ages of 80+. No premature or under weight babies either. No mental retardation, autism, or the 50,000 other random health problems somehow linked to smoking. I'm sure that one day there will be no smokers, and health officials will be mystified that these problems haven't gone away, they just shifted around.
  
  Maybe I'll be the one it does strike. But don't tell me that the genetics don't play a VERY large factor, if not the biggest factor, in cases of cancer and heart disease. I have seen entire families decimated by cancer. It's certainly no laughing matter. However, just as with heart disease, diabetes, and other big health threats, it's heavily rooted in genetics. I just happened to get lucky in the genetic health craps shoot. Like the previous poster, you'll find many smokers with similar backgrounds. They haven't quit, because their genetics don't give easily dieing, thus, they have little motivation to quit because their family trees show few if any health effects. (Don't even get me started on how I think Darwin might view that situation, heh.)
  
  I'm 100% behind your position that it can contribute to horrible deaths, but it's pretty hard to explain that with any real meaning to people like me who have a family full of smokers who've never died from it. Without the health argument, there's really no argument. For me, I want to quit because I want the to overcome the addiction, not because I don't enjoy it or out of fear... health, money, pressure, nor any other factor really motivates me in the least. Maybe the more-than-average funky morning breath, but that's about it.
- rivercityjessie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"full flavor" and "holes poked in the filter"
  
  whatever they name it, its just going to make me look even more stupid when i try to buy them. At the moment, I ask for Camel Turkish Jade Lights, which is a mouthful...
- scstraus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4They were "Black Death Cigarretes". They also had "Black Death Vodka". They both tasted like *****, but were so cool I supported them just because.
  
  There isn't a single smoker in the world that doesn't know it will most likely kill them if they don't stop. Some stupid name change is just a waste of everyone's time and money. Change them all to "black death". I'd be fine with that. Just quit ***** with the poor smokers. (I am an ex-smoker BTW, but I've never harrassed or supported harrasing or taxing those who still do. Live and let live)
Pacotheparrot, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28Good. If we're going to let people kill themselves let's at least be straight-forward about it.
- andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3How would "we" go about not "letting" people "kill themselves"?
- scstraus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You're an idiot paco. You shouldn't have any right to decide whether someone makes the decision to do something that's unhealthy. Are you going to make 2 hours of manditory workouts every day too? Outlaw McDonalds?
  
  Butt out of other people's lives.
- BitwiseMcgee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Paco: Yeah!
  
  better yet! let's make the decisions for people! ban cigs! no more smokers ruining my day!
  
  or hell! smoking isn't the only thing that kills, I hear motorcycles are dangerous! let's ban those, after all, a car is safe!
  
  but wait! you can die in a car too! but I drive an SUV, which are safe... better make SUVs required! and seatbelts!
  
  don't get me started on fatty foods like mcdonald's!
  
  I like my freedoms of choice. I'll kill myself if I damn well please (note, I'm an ex-smoker)
- Pacotheparrot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Wow smokers get violent when people suggest there drug should be illegal just like the others. Mcdonalds and booze can be enjoyed without leading to death. Cigs on the other hand, unless you smoke a very small amount over your life and they are addictive, will lead to health complications and usually death.
- scstraus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While youre at it you can legalize other drugs too. US has the highest per capita prison population in the world due to it's archaic drug laws. And obesity now kills more people in the USA than smoking, so what you just said is 100% false and obviously we must outlaw McDonalds, right Paco.
  
  Get a brain.
Xanin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12The article mentioned that the judge regretted not being able to punish the companies further, in this I disagree with her. Fair enough that they shouldn't falsely advertise, but once they've stated the dangers, it's people's own choice to risk their health. It's the same with food, it should be labelled, but it's personal choice whether to heed the warnings or not.
TheAttacks, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8That is just stupid. Everyone knows you get cancer either way, so who cares about the name?
- mundek23, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Because the word "light" implies they are less harmful than regular cigarettes and thus some people will find it harder to make an informed decision on that basis.
  
  Light cigarettes do contain slightly less tar and nicotine but the same amount of other nasty chemicals and people tend to smoke more of them, so the effect of having less tar and nicotine in the "light" cigarette is negated.
- EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8If it didn't have a psychological impact there would be no point in the tabacco companies packaging two types of cigarettes would there?
- netburnr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8No, not everyone considers "Light" to be less dangerious.
  
  Light can also mean a lighter smoke, as in less harsh.
  
  So if this goes through, how am I to get my Light Cig?
trakais, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7well duh, europe has this for over a year already. now cigarettes are labeled `red`, `blue` and `white` or in some similar way.
- bar10dr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12NEWS: The government wants the color blind to die from cancer!
- bennybertow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, here in Germany it's been several years now... Lucky Strike Light are called Lucky Strike Silver now... Though the rest of the package remained the same, and still the lighter colors like silver compared to red suggest these are the lighter ones...
  
  Though in fact, the "lighter" ones really are lighter and not as strong as the regular ones.
- SpeckledJim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Same in the UK. Only applies to the labelling though - hasn't changed what people ask for when they go to buy them, which can be confusing for the cashiers...
- drstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Same here in Sweden. I always ask for 'Marlboro Light' and noone ever reacts, even though they are called White or something since a couple of years back.
  They also stoped selling 10-packs for some reason, now I guess party smokers are stuck with a 20-pack instead. That's healthier.
Noah0504, on 10/12/2007, -15/+15Let's stop harassing the tobacco companies... it's really starting to get under my sking. And that's coming from a non-smoker.
- ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Thankyou
- deadgoon42, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9The more we can do to harass the tobacco companies, the better. Cigarettes are the most addictive thing I've ever come in contact with (and I've come in contact with a lot). Sometimes I wish they'd just outlaw the damn things so I could stop worrying about it. There's also no doubt in my mind that cigarettes are very bad for you, no matter what kind you smoke. This is coming from a smoker who's trying to quit.
- LordLucless, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5The best thing you can do to harass tobacco companies is to not buy their product. I'd prefer that to a whole lot of industry-specific government meddling. If somebody wants to die young, coughing their lungs out, that's their perogative. As long as public air remains smoke-free so I don't die as a result of their choices, I don't have any problem with people committing prolonged suicide.
- andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"As long as public air remains smoke-free so I don't die as a result of their choices, I don't have any problem with people committing prolonged suicide."
  
  Trouble is, "public air" is defined as air in privately owned and operated bars and restaurants that people have a choice to go into.
- LordLucless, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2As it should be; smoking is a health hazzard. Individuals should be allowed to do it if they like, but it should no more be allowed in a restaurant or pub as salmonella is. If you're running a business that invites the public in, then you should be subject to restrictions protecting the public. If you want to run a private smokers club, however, then more power to you.
- mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I love the fact that u can't smoke indoors at restaurants and bars in NY... its cleaned the places up...
- andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"As it should be; smoking is a health hazzard. Individuals should be allowed to do it if they like, but it should no more be allowed in a restaurant or pub as salmonella is. If you're running a business that invites the public in, then you should be subject to restrictions protecting the public. If you want to run a private smokers club, however, then more power to you."
  
  Bar and restaurant owners don't hold guns to people's heads and force them to enter their establishments. If you don't like smoke, don't patronize them.
aOenEz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"Her 1,742-page decision amounted to a detailed history of the efforts of the industry — and, notably, its lawyers — over almost 50 years to confuse the public about a danger that was evident to the health professions." -article

Wow... this woman re-wrote the bible -- on cigarettes. Sadly, in about a year when this is done going through an appeals court her efforts will be for nothing.

But can someone clarify one thing for me? Are cigarette companies banned from selling "light" cigarettes, or are they just required to give them different names now? I'll admit, I'm a smoker, but I'm fully aware of the impact cigarettes have on my lungs and my body in general. I don't smoke around non-smokers, and I usually do it in the privacy of my own home (I only do about 3-4 a day, anyway). Plus, I think she's completely wrong. Yes, cigarette companies are deceptive and they market to the worst possible demographic (you think all the smoking in movies is to make ADULTS think it's cool?), but it's clearly stated on all of the new packs of cigarettes that "light" and "ultra-light" only refer to the strength of the flavor. So yeah, I really don't think it's her place to judge what people do with their own bodies as long as they're not endangering anyone else in the process.

This is the exact same argument that a lot of people have used for marijuana over the years. As long as you do it in the privacy of your own home and its trafficking is carefully controlled by the government what's the harm? Personally, I think Chris Rock had it right: "You know why drugs are illegal? 'Cause the best drugs aren't made in America." The quote is not verbatim because I don't remember it exactly and google hasn't been much help, but the context is still the same.

*Reference: Chris Rock: Never Scared
- CeeJayDK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They are just required to relabel their deathsticks.
hogrod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I smoked for years and recently quit. I can say that anyone who think that light cigarettes are better for you because of their name is an idiot. In reality no one really thinks that, this is just another stupid issue brought up by non-smokers to try to control tobacco company's.

They all have the same warnings on the packages, it's not like the light ones say...
"These are basically healthy, smoke 20 day to keep doctor away!"
- vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"... anyone who think that light cigarettes are better for you because of their name is an idiot. In reality no one really thinks that ..."
  
  You don't get out much, do you? You'd be surprised how many people think this to be true, even though they have actually heard otherwise. People believe what they want to believe.
- SpeckledJim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3People often switch to "light" cigarettes when they are trying to give up, the idea perhaps being that taking in less nicotine will help you beat the addiction (as well as the imaginary health benefits). However, some studies have shown the exact opposite - smokers of "lights" are less likely to give up.
  
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060720012304.htm
  
  I've tried it myself and indeed, it didn't help. Less nicotine per cigarette only meant an urge to smoke more of the damn things.
ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8You know what would clean all this mess up around non-smokers and smokers? Take away the smokers right to health care. That's right, take it all a way. You smoke, you croak, on your own buddy.No life insurance, no health plan from work. You die when cancer scrapes your tar-filled lungs, poking funny holes through them, as you cough up blood coated phlem in the comfort of your lay-z boy recliner... Yep it's your body.. but the doctor doesn't have to save it.

BTW I am a smoker. This was a little rant from a non-smoker I know who had a debate with me last week on this very subject.. well the smoking part atleast.

She does have a point though. And it may very well come to that one day. Why the hell not? Everything else is being taken away. They might as well take away our right to poison ourselves too.. oh they do do that..

Cigarettes are next. God Bless America.
- bradbeattie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The downside to that is we'd have to determine (for fairness) what activities people participated in and what risks they brought.
  
  "Oh, you like to eat potato chips? Studies show that you'll live 2 years less on average. We'll just adjust your insurance accordingly."
  
  What follows that, lifestyle audits?
- iliketokick, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Sounds good to me
- bennies, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I must be a liberal hippy since I think everyone should be cared for. I don't care if you are a drug addict/prostitute/smoker or health freak. If you get sick you should get help. Hey even before you get sick you probably should get help to make sure you don't get sick.
  You don't want to ease the suffering of a dying person so more money for you so you can drive a bigger car? Because we aren't exactly starving for food here in the west now are we?
- Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That might make sense in the US, but in Sweden, smokers contribute more to the national economy than non-smokers. We pay loads and loads of tobacco taxes and we die sooner (saving the government money on pensions).
- CeeJayDK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Rickard, that's not true.
  
  While there are big tobaco taxes , the income from these don't even to close to outweigh the extra expense in goverment healthcare needed to treat the sicknesses that come with smoking.
  
  Healthy people work and bring in income taxes and do not cost the goverment in medical care.
- andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"I must be a liberal hippy since I think everyone should be cared for. I don't care if you are a drug addict/prostitute/smoker or health freak. If you get sick you should get help."
  
  Not with my money.
kotton, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Everybody from a 9 year old to a old person knows that cigarettes are bad for you, and if the young ones dint know its cause their parents are ***** morons and didn't tell them. I'm a smoker and I tell people all the time that they should never start but at the same time these companies are just out to make money and have a successful business. I think enough is enough I mean how many years has it been since the news that "cigarettes kill" has been publicly announced.
- Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The problem is that a 9 year old (or most 30 year olds) don't seem to realize that eating 7 meals at KFC a week and having a Snickers for lunch is just as harmful.
- matrixneo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2well said.
- kamisama, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1What impact do you think that will have coming from a smoker?
lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Some of the anti-smoking commercials we've been getting in Australia lately are great:
http://www.quitnow.info.au
Lots of graphic pictures of the damage done by smoking. They even put the pictures on the packs now, I think it's a good idea. As to whether or not it works, who knows, I still see lots of young people smoking and it's depressing to think they're going to have so many health problems later in life. All I know is I don't smoke, and I don't ever plan to.
- postapoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd be really depressed if your perfect healthy body was accidentally ran over by a truck tomorrow
eltower, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The world of government is filled with double standards to the brim.

I'm a non-smoker and I don't smoke because I don't like the taste or the smell. However, I do recognise that people have a right to smoke if they want to, just like people have a right to drive a car, play videogames or drink alchohol (notice all of these activities are ghastly according to mainstream media - something I can't stand because I love my cars, videogames and alchohol and I'm none the worse for it).

The government has a duty and a responsability to keep minors away from tobacco because they are not mature enough to come to their own decisions about smoking. It also has a duty and a responsability to inform the citizens about the possible dangers of smoking (athough it is seldom pointed out, nobody has ever died 'from smoking'. Many peolpe have died from lung cancer, but many of these were also non-smokers, because cancer is fundamentally a genetic condition. Something to think about the next time human tragedy is manipulated for political gains by the lifestyle pundits).

The moment the government moves in to throttle the tobacco industry I inevitably wonder - where are similar actions against fast-food chains, which are far more dangerous and are the leading cause of heart disease in the states? The only thing this article proves is that the fast-food lobby, the alchohol lobby, the car manufacturer lobby, etc. are much stronger than the tobacco lobby. If the judge is so concerned about the wellbeing of the nation, perhaps she would benefit from not taking advantage of a moral authority she conceeded unto herself and start taking action against the real lifestyle danger - suffocation through puritanism.
- fallingstars, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Many peolpe have died from lung cancer, but many of these were also non-smokers, because cancer is fundamentally a genetic condition."
  
  The carcinogens present in cigarette smoke cause genetic mutations which lead to abnormal cell growth (cancer). Sure, some non-smokers will get cancer, but the chances of that happening are tiny compared to a smoker.
  
  "...where are similar actions against fast-food chains, which are far more dangerous..."
  
  Fast-food is not physically addictive. That is, whether to consume it is always a choice of the consumer. Not so with tobacco, where there is a physical mechanism of addiction. Plus, even a single cigarette has harmful effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. A single Big Mac, although not the most balanced meal one could choose, is not harmful in and of itself. That is, anything can be harmful in excess, but any amount of tobacco use is harmful.
- eltower, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"A single Big Mac, although not the most balanced meal one could choose, is not harmful in and of itself."
  
  Not the most convincing scapegoat for the fact that 119 million Americans are overweight or obese.
  
  "but any amount of tobacco use is harmful."
  
  At least statistically. And statistically, you're more likely to die being a pedestrian than smoking.
  
  digg up to you though, you gave a sober answer to what I was expecting to be a childish reply.
kirashira, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3theres actaully people in cuba who smoked CIGARS since they were 13 and live to be 90 and still smoking them...yes very bizarre
belmulletman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's been like that in Ireland for years...
instead of the Light, Ultra Light brandings, it's done by color stop the people thinking they aren't doing as much damage!
H011yJ3susB411s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Here in Europe, "light" cigarettes were baned long time ago...
Now we have red, silver, blue, silver blue, one, ant ETC.... :)
shame *****, different name
kamisama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This whole anti cigarette thing is getting way out of hand. And that is in general due to the non smokers being total Nazi's about the whole thing. I need my clean air , i want them banned. All fine by me, but think about this.

My mom never in her life smoked, she was very active and rode her bike around the city even at age 58. Always driving her bike swiftly next to rows and rows of cars standing still. This is a real pest where i live. People are just too lazy to pick up their bike or go a bit on foot, they rather sit in a car for half an hour.

Anyway my mom died of a very aggressive cancer, most likely caused by being surrounded by fumes every time she went out on her bike.

And you people are discussing if cigarettes should have a light label or not? Bleeding hypocrites. Have some priorities in life for once.
brindon, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Smokers are turds.
- clickwir, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6I'd have to agree. I've been around way too many, it's disgusting and dirty. Add on top of that their sense of taste is shot to hell, don't bother taking a smoker out to a nice restruant for some fine food, as far as they know you could be serving them bark with tater sauce and it'd taste the same.
  
  Smokers are stupid (for starting) and weak (for not quiting).
- citizenwhite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Disgusting? you might have that argument, although that comes down to a personal taste. Dirty? you're mad. Rolling in dirt is dirty, smelling different is not.
  
  And being a smoker myself, when I go to nice restaurants, I order a filet. Do you want to know why? It's not because I can't taste it. It's because it tastes good. Mm Mm. I don't use salt on any of my food. I can't stand overpowering food.
  
  You can argue that I'm stupid for smoking. I know it hurts me. It comes down to this: Does the enjoyment I receive from cigarettes and cigars outweigh the negative effects on my body? Yes. And that is decided of my own volition, not from being tricked into it by tobacco companies. Do not generalize and call me weak. You have no idea.
- LocalH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@brindon:
  ***** you, *****.
rnelsonee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Stupid. If a cigarette has lower tar than other brands, the maker should be able to label it as "low tar". This judge is probably aware that people who smoke 'light' cigarettes end up getting as much nicotene in their system as those who smoke regular cigarettes,* but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to be truthful in their advertising.

*Smokers of low tar cigarettes still desire just as much nicotene, so studies performed by the cigarette companies showed that the light smokers simply drew in more smoke during each drag. As far as "light" cigarettes go, note that people put the fingers over the tiny 'filter holes' found in light cigarettes - holes that allow the smoke to mix with normal air. The machines ("smokers") that test nicotene levels draw smoke that's been mixed with air, whereas a regular smoker has his/her fingers over the holes, preventing the smoke from being diluted.
foofooz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was a smoker once upon a time, and in the begining I smoked Camel Lights because a drag was not as harsh as a regular. Over time I adapted to the smoke and before I quit was smoking a pack of Camel Non-filters a day (which are very hard to find, I wonder why. =)

The Light label to me symbolized that a drag wasn't as harsh on the throat, not that it had less agents in it causing cancer.
- hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haha, Camel nons, aka "desert dogs"! The crack of cigarettes. I used to smoke those when I did; now I smoke a pipe (see pipe-speech further down).
  
  I gave up trying to buy Camel nons just because not only were they hard to find, but when you *did* find a pack it was a stale sawdust one from a carton they bought when they first opened the store and haven't sold them all yet. I bought filters instead and simply got good at breaking the filters off - voila, a fresh, non-filtered smoke.
truck87bp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2We are talking about Freedom here. I think it's time for LAME Do-good-er politicians to ask smokers their opinion about the subject then make a decision. It's not about what politicians want, its about what smokers want.

People seem to forget that smokers are Inventors, Scientists, Engineers, Professors, Fireman, Soldiers, Doctors and yes they know smoking stinks but it's THEIR RIGHT to do it. Don't call them DUMB and Stupid because they are far from it. What nice thing has a smoker done for you lately, like save your life, or made your car safer and what have you done for them lately?

Smokers don't have rights anymore. You put them out in the cold to catch cold and get sick. You People are so quick to give up someone Else's rights that you forget that they are your rights too. If this is how you treat freedom then pull our smoking troops (smoking relaxes them) out of Iraq, then you dumba$$ non-smokers replace them on the front line. Why do Politicians think they can save the world?

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm put the highest Tax on cigs in the country, not to get smokers to quit but to pay for last years Super Bowl Detroit $286 million dollar spruce-up. Whats weird is the Michigan tax increased estimate on cigs would bring in $286 million...DUH...health care my a$$. Politicians all think you are dumb a$$e$. Since her new tax went into affect, she has lost her cig tax base back to the level of 1955. That's how smart Politicians are, destroy the tax base that everyone should be paying equally into, put 97,000 manufacturing people out of work for free trade and become the 45Th worst state to work in. Nice job Governor! She probably bought stock in Toyota.

Show me a Politician that gets re-elected when peoples rights and jobs are taken away. Bush wants to Wiretap at will, and now you don't like him cause it infringes on your rights of privacy....poor baby!....What about smokers rights? Judge Kessler that started this is probably looking to run for President some day or owns stock in the Cigarette Package Printing Business....red, blue, green....who gives a rats a$$.

It's funny how Judges push smokers rights aside...thought Judges were to be impartial?
HarleyQuinn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Everytime some anti-smoking subject comes up, we are right back to the tired arguments about: Cheese, Potato Chips, Big Macs, Soda Pop and Alcohol.

Healthcare costs aside, lets be clear. YOU eating or drinking any of the above listed items DOES NOT, give ME liver damage, lung cancer, high cholesterol, etc.

If you want to smoke, fine, do it in the confort of your own 'enclosed' space or clearly out of range of neighbors and passerbyers.

Maybe cigarettes need to feature "re-breathers/burner" that keep 100% of the smoke contained within your body. :)

(And don't start with the drunk driver stuff, there are laws against that, and a drunk driver can just as easily be a sober person with a gun).
postapoc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What happens when smoking is banned completely and people still die of lung cancer?

I hate to break this to some people but your going to die. If you make it to an old age it's a good chance that you'll die of lung cancer, smoker or not.

Second hand smoke is no worse for you than standing a few feet from a running car. I'm a cyclist (haven't owned a car in 5 years.) If I didn't so strongly believe in peoples right to choose their lifestyle a would ban driving cars.
queekus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They should make filters illegal as well, less litter.
jeffn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I, as a smoker, am sick and tired of all of these nit-picking laws here and there on a legal product. Look, if cigarettes are the terror they are depicted to be then outlaw them altogether or shut up about it already!!
georgelogy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1They should just rename them "Cancer Sticks". It'd be amazing how fast people quit.
- postapoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, because people think smoking is soooooo good for you as it is
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No they won't. They could be labeled: Beware: Contains Plutonium ... and some people will still slap down 5 bucks a pack and continue on. Sad, but true.
scuzzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm getting really annoyed by this. Just take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself. If it's labeled Rat poison or Drain Cleaner, I'm willing to bet you probably shouldn't drink it. When it comes to smoking, YOU'RE BREATHING SMOKE!!! How can any person think this is healthy, regardless of what the label says? For clarification, I'm a smoker for about the past 5 years. I do it because I enjoy it. I started doing it after I was given one and liked the buzz, not because an ad told me to.
mozzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I have 2 non-trolling questions for the smokers:

Those of you who choose Light cigarettes do so because you feel it is less harmful or because there's a discernible change in taste?

How does the smoke/taste differ between Regular and Light (or Ultra Light for that matter)?
- szembek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6They taste different. I think it's all just personal taste. whatever you are used to, you like.
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Light cigarettes don't taste as harsh for some reason...which is really silly, though - because when you are sometimes desperate for a cigarette, anything tastes great.
  I've been trying to kick the habit on and off for years...they really are all just little white death sticks and should be labeled as such.
- scuzzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Honestly, I think Light cigarettes taste like burnt popcorn. There are those that disagree. Mostly though, choosing a particular brand/type of cig is all about taste.
mwilding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2America is a country founded and made great by self reliant men who took responsibility for themselves, hoisted themselves up by their bootstraps and went about their lives without looking for handouts.

America has become a country filled with people who feel entitled to everything and have cozied up to the notion that government can fix society's myriad problems by legislating them away.

To take a product that already has a warning on the side telling you that it causes cancer and forcing the manufacturer to remove the word "light" is comical at best and a tragic condemnation of what our society has become at worst. A few politicians get to pat themselves on the back and win some votes and tobacco companies have to find new packaging. Whoopeefriggindoo.

Can we focus on some REAL issues, please - like a balanced budget, immigration reform, political corruption, etc?
thehans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The tabacco companies will no label them as no carbs.
scboxer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I smoked Marlboro Menthol for years and then switched to Milds a few years back.
Not because of any perceived notion that they were better for me, but because they were less menthol-y than the regular ones. (And, yes, I like the particles of fiberglass in my tongue and crystallizing in my lungs, so don't even bring it up.)

I've ALWAYS been a considerate smoker. I didn't smoke around people who were non-smokers and I asked first. Even if they didn't mind, I still didn't do it. I never threw my butts on the street. If no trash can was available, I'd put 'em in my pocket. (Not to digress-try that sometime and then smell your clothes, if you really wanna quit-that should do it. lol) If I had to wait at an intersection, I stood away from the other pedestrians as best as I could so as not to bother anyone. I mean I really tried...

Since the ban as gone into effect, I have been accosted by some of the nastiest, most hateful people on the planet(excluding Southern Baptists) about my smoking. Now, at the the intersections I crawl right up in the middle of everyone and exhale. I like to see just how far from the trash can I can flick it. If you don't smoke and you're in one of the few places I can smoke, I'm not askin' first because I could give a rat's ass. I used to but that got knocked right outta me.

I'm all for not smoking in restaurants, but, bars are made for drinkin' and smokin'. People don't go to bars to get healthy. And ANYBODY who goes to work in a bar expecting it be a healthy environment for them needs to be taken out of the gene pool anyway.
hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Disclaimer: No matter what I say below, smoking is still bad for you. Heap Surgeon General speak big-gum wisdom. The following will interest only smokers looking for a way to cut back without quitting cold:

Now then: I've been a life-long smoker, tried often to quit cigarettes and even made it a whole year one time, but ended up back.

A few years ago, I tried smoking pipes instead. And discovered that it's completely different. One, my hacking cough simply went away. But if I even try cheap store-bought brands of pipe tobacco like Captain Black, I start coughing. Only when smoking quality specialty store tobacco does the cough vanish. I get a mix of about 80% golden Virginia and 20% cavendish (called "Dovercourt", if that means anything). We're talking the kind of specialty shop that handpacks their own blends.

Second, and this is the big part, is that I'm *less* addicted to it. Since there's no (or is it fewer?) additives in the tobacco, I noticed that the rush from a cigarette and the clammoring urge to smoke again soon is *gone*. No more do I get cranky or hyper if I've missed a smoke. I can go all day without, and it doesn't bother me. I only smoke at home; if it isn't around while I'm out I simply don't think about it. I read a list of cigarette additives - I forget where but here's a similar list:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/cig-additives.htm

No wonder cigarettes make you feel different!
As a nice side benefit, I get compliments all the time on my pipe's aroma. That certainly never happened with cigarettes! Even cigarettes stink like garbage to me now, and I smoked Camel nonfilters for years! Now, cigarette smoke doesn't even smell like it contains *any* tobacco to me.

OK, Don't anybody get me wrong, I'm not deluded that smoking is now good for me just because I smoke pricey stuff out of a pipe. But I think there may be a measurable difference between the health damage of cigarettes (and cigars - I tried cigars, too) and natural tobacco. I honestly feel much better since taking up a pipe. - for what that's worth.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

New limits for cigarette marketing: no more "light" cigarettes

Login or register to add a comment