NY anti-smoking signs

[Tempest]

 Quote:

NEW YORK - The New York City health department is moving forward with a plan that would require about 12,000 cigarette retailers to post large anti-smoking signs. It's billed as the first such regulation in the United States. The eye-level signs would have information about the harmful effects of smoking, possibly with an image. The assistant commissioner for tobacco control, Sarah B. Perl, says it can be effective to display gruesome health effects such as amputations and throat cancer. The city's Board of Health is now seeking public comment. At the earliest, it would vote in September. If the proposal is passed, the department says it's poised to fend off lawsuits.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--anti-smoking-reta0625jun25,0,50725.story

 

[Johnny]

Well, bless their hearts.

 

[greenaccord02]

It's a good thing we have the government to look out for us - lord knows people are too dumb to know it's bad for you.

 

[Gary Allan]

There's nothing wrong with informed risk. Then it is truly a choice to engage in the behavior. Or are we seeking a world of dullards to feed the P.T. Barnum's of the world? STOP!!! You're interfering with my success!!!

 

[Kruse]

 Originally Posted By: Tempest

The eye-level signs would have information about the harmful effects of smoking, possibly with an image. If the proposal is passed, the department says it's poised to fend off lawsuits.

Didn't they put warnings on cigarette packs years ago? If the warnings haven't worked so far, why will the news ones be any better?

 

[Johnny]

They won't. Just spending more of the tax payers money.

 

[CivicFan]

I wonder if removing the brand name and design from packaging would discourage smoking. If all the cigarette packs are plain white with a description of the product on it, it will remove the need for marketing their brands by the manufacturers. It will save them a lot of money, I presume.

 

[moribundman]

I hear Joe Camel is looking for a lung transplant.

 

[Kruse]

 Originally Posted By: moribundman

I hear Joe Camel is looking for a lung transplant.

Maybe Joe Camel could get one from the Marlboro man. Oops. That one is already at ground temperature.

 

[Kruse]

 Originally Posted By: CivicFan

I wonder if removing the brand name and design from packaging would discourage smoking. If all the cigarette packs are plain white with a description of the product on it, it will remove the need for marketing their brands by the manufacturers. It will save them a lot of money, I presume.

It probably would discourage smoking. But if it starts with cigs, what's to stop the government from doing that to all forms of enjoyment, even if it isn't healthy? Beer, donuts, candy bars, automobiles all having a generic label....

 

[Tempest]

If they reduce smoking, how are they going to make up the lost tax revenue?

 

[Johnny]

BINGO! Tempest is a winner.

 

[moribundman]

 Originally Posted By: Tempest

If they reduce smoking, how are they going to make up the lost tax revenue?

Are you saying smokers don't constitute a burden in regard to health care cost?

 

[Shannow]

Won't make a crackers' worth of difference. Oz has had health warnings on smokes, and graphic images for years. FIL (used to own a newsagengy) tells stories of customers getting him to rummage through the packs to pick the health warning that offended them the less. Pregnant women didn't want "smoking harms your unborn baby" on their cigarette packet.

 

[Win]

Do they? I don't know. Has it been quantified? And if it has, I'd like to know how much fatties, boozehounds, motorcyclists, crackheads, promiscuity, fast food, all the other vices I don't engage in, cost me as well. I want all of them cracked down on. Let them all pay their own freight for a change. Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.

 

[XS650]

 Originally Posted By: Shannow

Won't make a crackers' worth of difference.

Something is reducing smoking in the US. The usual suspects will deny that it has anything to do with govt mandated anti-smoking campaigns. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm

 

[oilyriser]

 Originally Posted By: moribundman

 Originally Posted By: Tempest

If they reduce smoking, how are they going to make up the lost tax revenue?

Are you saying smokers don't constitute a burden in regard to health care cost?

One man's cost is another man's profit.

 

[Cutehumor]

 Originally Posted By: XS650

 Originally Posted By: Shannow

Won't make a crackers' worth of difference.

Something is reducing smoking in the US. The usual suspects will deny that it has anything to do with govt mandated anti-smoking campaigns. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm

the ones from the 60's are dead from lung cancer?

 

[XS650]

 Originally Posted By: moribundman

 Originally Posted By: Tempest

If they reduce smoking, how are they going to make up the lost tax revenue?

Are you saying smokers don't constitute a burden in regard to health care cost?

A few years ago I saw an analysis that showed that smokers actually reduced costs. Although their health care needs were more severe, they didn't live as long so didn't suck up health care, pensions or social security as long as the non-smoker. Here's a reference... http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/2009/04/07/20090407biz-FDA-Tobacco0407.html

 

[moribundman]

Get puffin', folks!