Cigarette campaign causes controversy
Wednesday, November 16th, 2011
We’re all aware of the risks associated with cigarette smoking. Tobacco intake has been linked to cancer, lung disease, stroke, heart disease, premature wrinkling of the skin, decreased circulation and immune system deficiencies. Cigarette smoke smells bad — it saturates your furniture, hair, car and clothing with a distinct musty smell — which is a major turn off. Tobacco stains everything from teeth to bathroom walls.
Each time you take a drag, the chemicals found in tobacco — tar, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, ammonia and cyanide — seep into your body. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), tobacco use is the leading cause of premature and preventable death in the United States and claims almost half a million lives each year.
Smoking is a personal choice. If the possibility of acquiring cancer isn’t enough of a deterrent to keep people from smoking, what will be effective in persuading them not to?
In 2010, the FDA proposed a campaign that would introduce new warning labels on cigarette packages. Exerting new power to regulate tobacco products under The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA proposed that requiring larger, more prominent warnings on cigarette packaging would encourage tobacco users to quit and empower youth to say “no” to tobacco.
The set of cigarette warnings contain nine different text warnings accompanied by graphic labels. The labels, which would be larger and more visible to the consumer, would be required to appear on the upper portion of the front and rear panels of the cigarette pack, taking up at least the top half of box panels.
The colorful, yet controversial, labels include: A man blowing cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole; a baby being held by its mother enveloped by a cloud of cigarette smoke; a set of healthy lungs juxtaposed next to a set of diseased lungs; a man breathing into an oxygen mask; a cadaver on a table with post-autopsy chest staples; a premature baby in an incubator; a diseased mouth distressed with cancerous lesions and missing, yellowing teeth; a woman weeping; and a man wearing a T-shirt labeled “I Quit.”
The FDA is taking this too far. On Monday, Nov. 5, 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon blocked the federal requirement, which was to go into effect in October 2011. He claimed it’s likely tobacco companies will succeed in winning a lawsuit to stop the labels from being circulated. He found the labels go beyond simply warning against the health risks of smoking.
Tobacco is legal to anyone 18 and older. Sure, smokers know the dangers of smoking, but they have the right to smoke if they choose to. Reinforcing the idea that bad health comes with prolonged smoking isn’t breaking news. Adding graphic pictures to the packs is only going to anger those exposed to them. If increased cigarette prices haven’t discouraged people from smoking, how are grotesquely displayed images going to persuade society?
If the FDA wants to warn the public of major health risks linked to commonly used items, why not add a picture of a diseased liver or a graphic image of someone lying in a casket at the hands of a drunk driver to a 12-pack of beer? Affixing an image of a paraplegic to a football helmet, indicating possible injuries linked to playing the sport, would certainly restrain people from joining the team, right? Wrong. People are going to do what they want to do when they want to do it, and this is certainly an individual right granted to society through the ability to express ourselves freely.
What about non-smoking consumers and store clerks who are forced to look at the graphic images? Exposing people to the graphic images is pandering. The FDA is commercially exploiting cigarette packaging. If the regulation were to take effect, tobacco companies would be forced to meet the demands of the FDA even though they’re not reasonable. Cigarette packs would be distributed in a manner that’s invasive and offensive.
With a wall full of cigarettes in every convenience store, it’s nearly impossible for unwilling people not to be exposed to the graphic images. Certainly smokers would be disturbed by the images as well. People shouldn’t be pressured to view the images for choosing to pursue smoking, regardless of the health effects.
Our generation is far more conscious of the dangers of smoking than past age groups. Propagating graphic images isn’t going to cause a cessation of the habit, it’s only going to rile the public. Let people make decisions for themselves. If they don’t want to live healthy lives, they have the right to choose.
If we put things into perspective, enacting Brockport’s smoke-free campus initiative didn’t force people to quit smoking simply because there are now designated spots to smoke. Students have merely relocated, and some don’t even abide by the rules. The policy did create a more pleasant and healthier campus atmosphere for those who choose not to smoke.
The best way to deter people from smoking is to offer them solutions to quitting. Providing a quit line number on the proposed packages is a helpful and a less encroaching method to assist those who want a healthier lifestyle. Investigating other avenues such as counseling, nicotine patches and e-cigarettes would grant the FDA a free pass out of lawsuits. These options are much more effective and encouraging than slapping a smoker’s cadaver on a cigarette box.





