New FDA Tobacco labels

[mmburtch]

So since when did an AIDS victim and a meth addict have anything to do with cigarettes causing cancer?

FDA Labels

 

[jfields]

Looks just like some of the warning labels I've seen on cigar boxes coming from across the pond.

 

[grateful1]

I think the science is off.

Do they really 'cause' cancer or is the science flawed?

:0

 

[bfreebern]

So does every smoker get cancer?

 

[The Black Cloud]

I saw an anti-smoking commerical that compared a cigarette to a black widow and a black mamba. Yeah, because one cigarette is a death sentence . I wonder what they would compare a cigar to. A meteor collision?

 

[Setharsis]

Not every smoker gets cancer. It's just a correlation of those that smoke, get cancer.

I believe there's a statistic, 10% of heavy smokers get lung cancer. This doesn't include heart disease, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, etc. Also, your % chance of developing lung cancer doesn't actually go up until after 10 years of smoking. (These statistics were stated at a cancer symposium 8 years ago, but I've never actually seen these statistics published anywhere).

But the prevalence of lung cancer in the general public is increasing, although this isn't know if it's increases in detection or actual presence. Lately, it seems that there's a better distinction between smoking-induced lung cancer and non-smoking induced lung cancer in the types of cells and location within the lungs.

 

[The Green Monkey]

So since when did an AIDS victim and a meth addict have anything to do with cigarettes causing cancer?

I don't care for the stickers either, but this is mildly rude in a variety of ways.

 

[jnknzz]

This should lead to similar lables on fast-food wrappers.

"Warning: Double cheese may cause diabetes!"



oh ya...RABBLE, RABBLE! :angry:

 

[mmburtch]

So since when did an AIDS victim and a meth addict have anything to do with cigarettes causing cancer?

I don't care for the stickers either, but this is mildly rude in a variety of ways.

It wasn't intended to be. In the blown-up pictures, it's quite obvious that is what is being photographed.

My point is; if the real picture isn't shocking enough, then by damn, we'll find one that is and nobody will be the wiser.

 

[The Green Monkey]

I guess I'm missing something. How can you "quite obviously" tell that the person pictured is "an AIDS victim" and not a cancer patient on chemotherapy?

 

[J-Rod]

Regardless of who the picture is of, it's still just plain creepy.

 

[mmburtch]

I guess I'm missing something. How can you "quite obviously" tell that the person pictured is "an AIDS victim" and not a cancer patient on chemotherapy?

In the enlarged picture here the man appears to have Kaposi's sarcoma lesions on his hand and face. That coupled with the long painted nails leads me to believe this is a person dying from AIDS.


All that aside, it is certainly a picture of a very sick person. I just don't like the use of misleading images to promote bad science.

 

[MoeCizlak]

I like the "I Cause Cancer" one. Why not put a picture of George Burns on a box of cigars? "Go ahead and smoke cigars, you heathen. You'll be dead before you reach 101!"

 

[Bsneed51]

In the enlarged picture here the man appears to have Kaposi's sarcoma lesions on his hand and face. That coupled with the long painted nails leads me to believe this is a person dying from AIDS.

Kinda looks like Clint.

 

[LilBastage]

They should put pictures of one armed ugly women on whiskey bottles.

 

[grateful1]

They should put pictures of one armed ugly women on whiskey bottles.

 

[DePasta]

Am I the only one that kinda finds some of those funny? They actually should say "Smoking cigarettes causes cancer; Smoke a joint instead!"