And you thought the new cigarette labels were graphic???

[Smokin' Toaster]

Leave to the Aussies to drive the point home.

Note: if you are squeamish about abused internal organs, you might not want to open the link. If you want motivation to quit smoking, by all means take a look!!

Australia's gruesome tobacco warning labels*Pictures - CBS News

[nick_aua]

Haha, Love it!

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

Leave to the Aussies to drive the point home.

Note: if you are squeamish about abused internal organs, you might not want to open the link. If you want motivation to quit smoking, by all means take a look!!

Australia's gruesome tobacco warning labels*Pictures - CBS News

Well, unfortunately, some on this forum will see this as government control of our lives. sigh....... I see it as...if you want to smoke, this is what could happen to you.

[Smokin' Toaster]

Originally Posted by Quickie

Well, unfortunately, some on this forum will see this as government control of our lives. sigh....... I see it as...if you want to smoke, this is what could happen to you.

I would be against it if the government told people they COULDN'T Smoke. Presenting someone with information is hardly controlling their lives. Again, as I am so apt to do, I'll cite the 10th amendment and point out that nowhere in The Constitution of the United States of America is the right to disseminate information about smoking granted to the Federal Government. So if the states or the people want to do it, fine. However... this is the Australian government and as such, The Constitution of The United States of America does not apply.

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

I would be against it if the government told people they COULDN'T Smoke. Presenting someone with information is hardly controlling their lives. Again, as I am so apt to do, I'll cite the 10th amendment and point out that nowhere in The Constitution of the United States of America is the right to disseminate information about smoking granted to the Federal Government. So if the states or the people want to do it, fine. However... this is the Australian government and as such, The Constitution of The United States of America does not apply.

What took you so long? But the government does this here, don't they? "Surgeon Generals warning" if I am not mistaken.

FDA unveils new, graphic cigarette warnings - The Washington Post

the federal government unveiled a plan designed instead to shock customers with images of tobacco’s impact: sick smokers exhaling through a tracheotomy hole, struggling for breath in an oxygen mask and lying dead on a table with a long chest scar.

By Joe....I was right.

[L-A]

Looks a lot like what we have in Canada.

[fenderhutz]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

If you want motivation to quit smoking, by all means take a look!!

I could also have my head crushed by an oncoming car while driving. I don't want to see photo's and I still choose to drive.

I could also have my leg severed walking down the road by a car that looses control. I don't want to see pictures and I still choose to walk.

I could choke on a McDonalds cheeseburger sitting by myself at home and my wife and kids walk in on me all black and blue. I don't want to see pictures and I will still have a cheeseburger.

See where I am going?

I am not a smoker and detest the smell of smoke and have a slight allergy. Scare tactics to get people to stop aren't going to do anything. It's actually quite rude to those that don't smoke. All I need is for my kids to be walking down the street and someone pull out a pack of smokes and they see black lung.

Wanna fix that works better than pictures or threats on a package? Make anyone that tests positive for nicotine ineligible for medical or life insurance and raise the price of smokes to 20 bucks a pack. You will see MANY people cut back then.

Just my .02

[Skitch it!]

The U.K. have had graphic warnings on packs for quite some time now, I don't know what kind of difference it has made though, be interesting to find out.

[Big_Daddy]

Not a big fan of the gruesome pictures for smokers. It's not going to do anything. All the smokers are going to do is cover the images with duct tape if they're on the pack they're smoking.

I agree with Fender on this one.

However, I am a big fan of what Australia did with their impaired driving and speeding advertisement campaign. There was real footage from ER's on television, overly realistic commercials of kids getting hit (because he was exercising the 'ten over the speed limit rule'), et cetera. In the end, their ad campaign showed results. Unfortunately, Canada is too much of a panzy to allow stuff like that on our televisions.

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by fenderhutz

I could also have my head crushed by an oncoming car while driving. I don't want to see photo's and I still choose to drive.

I could also have my leg severed walking down the road by a car that looses control. I don't want to see pictures and I still choose to walk.



See where I am going?

It's actually quite rude to those that don't smoke. All I need is for my kids to be walking down the street and someone pull out a pack of smokes and they see black lung.

Wanna fix that works better than pictures or threats on a package? Make anyone that tests positive for nicotine ineligible for medical or life insurance and raise the price of smokes to 20 bucks a pack. You will see MANY people cut back then.

Just my .02

Wow, Where to begin?

Test someone for a legal product to refuse them medical insurance or life insurance?

Your kids will see on a pack of cigarettes a picture of a black lung? Really? Really? They should be watching out for cars as their father seems to have bad luck with them.

Wow! Now I understand why some here see me as a bit radical.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by Quickie

Wow! Now I understand why some here see me as a bit radical.

That wasn't the adjective that sprang to mind...

[fenderhutz]

Originally Posted by Quickie

Wow, Where to begin?

Test someone for a legal product to refuse them medical insurance or life insurance?

Your kids will see on a pack of cigarettes a picture of a black lung? Really? Really? They should be watching out for cars as their father seems to have bad luck with them.

Wow! Now I understand why some here see me as a bit radical.

Don't want too go the legal or political road here, so I will leave it at the only reason it is still legal is because there is too much tax revenue for it not to be. I don't even think big pharma cares, smokers give them more business. Nicotine is a poison that acts as a stimulant in low doses. So poison away, I don't want to see graphic photos on your product, what's next? Billboards?

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by fenderhutz

So poison away, I don't want to see graphic photos on your product, what's next? Billboards?

Assume much? I don't smoke.

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

That wasn't the adjective that sprang to mind...

Touche my friend.

[Smokin' Toaster]

Originally Posted by Quickie

Wow, Where to begin?

Test someone for a legal product to refuse them medical insurance or life insurance?

Your kids will see on a pack of cigarettes a picture of a black lung? Really? Really? They should be watching out for cars as their father seems to have bad luck with them.

Wow! Now I understand why some here see me as a bit radical.

Why not? Most insurance companies will charge you more for a policy if you skydive or scuba dive, and both of those activities are legal. I like the idea myself. My insurance premiums (and yours) are affected by the cost of treating smokers. If you're going to to do something dangerous, which you are certainly free to do, I should be free of having to foot the bill for your dangerous activity.

[Skitch it!]

[fenderhutz]

Originally Posted by Quickie

Assume much? I don't smoke.

That was intentional to mean the company, not the person

[5StringBlues]

Every since I lost one of my lungs (GASP),I cut my smoking in half.

[Quickie]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

I like the idea myself. My insurance premiums (and yours) are affected by the cost of treating smokers.

I see, so if it benefits YOU (premiums) you have no problem infringing on a person who chooses to use a legal product? Hey, why not? YOU will save money.


You lost me here toaster.

[Chebass88]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

Why not? Most insurance companies will charge you more for a policy if you skydive or scuba dive, and both of those activities are legal. I like the idea myself. My insurance premiums (and yours) are affected by the cost of treating smokers. If you're going to to do something dangerous, which you are certainly free to do, I should be free of having to foot the bill for your dangerous activity.

They are also paying for the obese who wanted to eat more than their fair share of Krispy kremes, the drunks with damaged livers, the people with STDs who did not practice safe sex, etc.

But god forbid someone take responsibility for his/her own actions. Why should someone pay (completely pay) for their medical treatment themselves when insurance pays for it?

It is easier to keep everything the way it is now than to change the payment structure based on your health and frequency of using the system. Could you imagine if someone in office suggested something like this? They would be tarred and feathered and thrown out of office quickly.

"They were going to make my poor grandmother pay for her own treatment & she can't afford it"

"No, she earned it by smoking a pack per day for 60 years. Now is her time to pay the piper".

"How horrible! She is just a poor old woman. Where is your compassion?"