Comments:United Kingdom to introduce graphic images on cigarette packets

None of the government's business
As long as people aren't endangering others with second hand smoking (ie, not smoking around kids, and stop smoking when asked to anywhere), the government has no business in this. If people want to hurt themselves, that's their own damn business. Special interest groups have no business forcing their ads on commercial products. --Poisonous (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem in the UK is that the State has a fairly strong monopoly on health care because State provided care is free at the point of use. There are a few private providers, but it means you have to pay twice - once in tax for State health care and then again, privately for your own health care.


 * As a result, amongst other things, the State takes the line that smoking is bad because people who smoke get more unwell than unusual and as such cost more.


 * Of course, the actual problem is that the State should not have a monopoly on health care, so if I want to smoke, I can, and then *I* will bear the costs of doing so. 77.248.1.33 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Private hospitals/healthcare providers in the UK simply won't treat smoking related illnesses - they're not equipped to. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I live in the UK and the above comments i find offensive. We have an excellent healthcare system that is more than equiped and willing to deal with any illnesses even smoking related ones. i would have you know that if i had my leg broken by a car tomorrow, i would rather go to a doctor not worrying if i have enough money to pay for the fix, and tell you what, this makes doctors better able to do their jobs when they don't have to constantly worry about this either. having known people myself that have died of cancer due to smoking even before this legislation was brought in i am more than happy that this is happening for us. Oh, and if you remember the "State" represents a democracy in our country, so this has been decided by the people in our country and not by the companies that make the cigarettes. --Uniqueid (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Extreme? I think not
Smokers already endanger others with second hand smoking, damage the environment with their smoking pollution, and encourages kids it's 'cool' to smoke. I'm glad this is being introduced, smokers DO need to feel bad about their bad choices. —Sidorvich (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'd be happy if smoking were banned in public, I feel like these ads are an unwarranted intrusion into a manufactured item; the verbal ads should be adequate. Jade Knight (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Unwarrented? Smoking is like a legal method to commit manslaughter and suicide! There's evidence/proof that smoking can also kill OTHER people. Verbal ads are NOT enough, people just hear ' Smoking gives you lung cancer, blah, blah ', but it's until they see the full damage they realize the intensity of the situation. Look at those graphical picture, doesn't it shock you? Doesn't it make you regret you smoke everyday? If it does, congrats to them, it's WORKING. -Sidorvich (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Health Insurance?
My 2 cents. While I agree that we should let people do whatever they want, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else... What about insurance? It is a universal fact that smoking is bad for your health. More than likely it will give you something (yes, I know there are some cases where people smoke a pack a day till they are 90 years old). Getting sick and possibly dieing costs money, alot of money depending on how slowly. Either your family has to pay for it, or your insurance is paying for it - which they end up taking out of _everyone_ of their subscribers. In countries that have national health systems, well then _every_ taxpayer is forking it over. If a substantially less amount of people were getting sick, theoretically taxes could be lowered - or if not lowered - the money could be put to better things like education.

Plus, lets be honest. Killing yourself effects the people around you in one way or another. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 08:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about in the U.S. but in most European countries the amount of tax on cigarettes themselves would cover a substantial part - if not all - of the money spent on healthcare. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It _should_, but we all know the government squanders it. As for the US, they are taxed, but not nearly as heavily as europe. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 08:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen this claim made by smoking organisations but I've yet to see it substaniated. In reality, I personally doubt the taxes cover all the costs of smoking to the goverment (i.e. taxpayer), including health costs, support costs (smokers who are unable to work will be supported by the government), research, advertising, cleanup, etc that comes from smokers. Indeed the idea that the government has no right to try an stop people killing themselves just doesn't work in countries with a strong social welfare system. Even if the costs do cover all the extra costs smokers bring to society there's still the fact that the government have a vested interest in keeping their population health and contributing to society. Remember that in most developed countries outside the US, the government (i.e. taxpayer) in some part contributes to the education, upbringing and ongoing support of all individuals. The idea is that these people will hopefully contribute back to society in taxes and other ways. Of course some people will contribute less then others, some will die earlier whether of no fault of their own or partly their fault or complete their fault, some will end up largely being a drain on society, some will immigrate. But nevertheless the government obviously has a vested interest in keeping everyone as healthy as possible and encouraging everyone to contribute to society for as long as possible. I know some people argue that because smokers die young, they are actually less of a drain since the government doesn't have to support them into old age but I'm not convinced this is the case since many of them contribute far less in a variety of ways, including in old age because of their addiction Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the government try to stop smoking?
A government should warn citizens about any known health hazard. The written warnings on cigarette packets adequately serve that purpose. Graphics might be an effective alternative to written warnings in countries which have low literacy rates or in multilingual countries. I don't think the UK falls into either category. —Eodril (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As a smoker, I have to say that if the government tries to stop smoking totally, I hope the British consumer will be ready for a vast hike in VAT and taxes on other stuff, since the government make a huge amount from taxation on tobacco. Do they not realise that they are cutting off their nose to spite the rest of their face? God help us all. Iceflow (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether the UK or US government, it is not their decision to stop or ban smoking. We as adults (18 and over in the US) have that right to smoke. Big Brother will never ban smoking anyways. They benefit from the taxes they charge, (which are outrageous in New York state) because so many smoke...its about dollars and cents, not your health. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW these images are added after organizations bitch and moan to the government. So they eventually give it. It beats the number of useless and likely frivilous lawsuits they file to clog up the legal system. Yes everyone knows smoking is bad, but in the end no one is pointing a gun to our heads and making us smoke. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No you do not have the right to smoke. I don't care if you drink, inject yourself with heroin, eat until you can't walk, or shoot yourself in the face with a shotgun. None of my business. I don't care what you do to yourself, and neither should anyone else. But smoking? That has an effect on ME. That I care about. So smoking ANYTHING (tobacco, marijuana, or anything else) is out. If you want a nicotine fix there are other ways to get it. Take up chewing, use gum, or inject it straight into your bloodstream; I don't care. Your drug use is your own business. Just don't smoke. Don't smoke anything, ever. (Along the same vein, don't drive while intoxicated, whether by alcohol, coke, or Tylenol 3. That affects me too, so it isn't allowed.)


 * In other words, you can do anything you want as long as there is no substantial negative effect on anyone other than you. That's part of being in any relationship - give and take. And living in a society is just one big relationship. If you want to get along then you can't hurt others and others can't hurt you. If everyone could do anything they wanted, regardless of the consequences, then our civilization would collapse. (It's all good until someone does something to hurt you, isn't it?) Gopher65talk 05:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What I do in the privacy of my own home, or outside in the open air, does not affect you. The only way your healthier is effected is when you are right there breathing the smoke with me. Other than that, and how it smells or looks, it should not affect you in the least. I am 27 years old. I have the right to smoke. If we choose to ignore the warnongs about smoking, whose fault is that? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon') 10:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not going to work
Being a smoker myself i believe this will not stop smoking. When i wrote this article i called up my friend and told her about it. She did not like it for the reason of the intensity of the images. Despite how bad they are i will not give up for those reasons. We have decided that we will buy white sticky labels and stick them over the images. I think it is two extreme and is opening up 'Sick' images to children who dont nessacraly smoke. They will be viewable from shop displays, packets left in the street and family members that leave there packets lying around just to name a few. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't that a good thing then? That objection comes across odd to me. Imagine a smoker objecting to this packaging talking to his kids: "Hey kids, I want to make myself sick and die, and maybe kill you in the process, but I don't want you to see what is going to happen to me until it does. Then you can be outside in the waiting room while I cough up my lungs for the doctor!" 66.20.174.90 12:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If the images are telling the truth then it's fine
I think intuitively the graphic images will be more effective than just writing in preventing young people taking up smoking in the first place. If they don't get you young, they usually don't get you at all. Presently addicted individuals I'm sure will for the most part ignore the warning and puff away (as is their right). The images might be disturbing to little children but cigarettes aren't displayed in prominent places (and also it's the truth so maybe they should be disturbed).

Is it the governments business to warn the population of health risks? Yes, because the NHS is paid for by taxpayers and in any case smoking kills thousands of individuals which has a significant effect on any society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.145.200 (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me
I'm a smoker and I live in Canada where the graphic warnings have been in use for at least several years. Written warnings came into place sometime during the 1990's. I was surprised to see that the the United Kingdom, or any other country in the EU for that matter, hadn't already used graphical warnings. I think it's fine.

Also, somebody mentioned that in countries with universal health care, which Canada is one, taxes would be lowered if everyone stopped smoking. Not true, at least not in Canada given the high rate of tax on cigarettes. Taxes here would likely rise without the tax revenues derived from tobacco products. Smokers often buy these products for years before they die. And often, death is fairly swift, and premature. That's less burden on the health care system than a non-smoker (someone who isn't paying the stiff taxes on tobacco) spending 15 years in and out of the health care system for things like Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, ect...

Ihatefile007 (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If the people who die prematurely, instead lived, then wouldn't that extra 15 years added to their overall productivity decrease individual burdens? I've always thought that was a a big reason to support national health care systems; everyone is more productive when they are not sick, and if they get quick treatment when ill they are not sick for as long before being able to go back to work. 66.20.174.90 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "graphic" warnings being discussed here are of the 'blood and guts' variety, other pictorial warnings such as showing people on ventilators and such have been in use in several European countries for a number of years. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this different from medication warnings?
People have a right to do what they want with their own bodies, but the government has a right, perhaps even a responsibility, to warn them about the consequences of their actions. Putting warning labels on cigarettes is no different from requiring pharmaceutical companies to list side-effects of their products. I do think the warnings are a bit blunt, but I wouldn't say they're intrusive. - Lone Star Libertarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.36.137 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What about drinking?
It seem Smokers always get crap for their life style but it's ok to do everything else to your body.--66.229.17.181 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think drinking is probably targeted less because it's already been proved in places like the United States and Canada that prohibition against alcohol doesn't work. It hasn't really been demonstrated against tobacco products thus far, so people are pushing for a ban, albeit more slowly. Ihatefile007 (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, drinking isn't targeted because it doesn't hurt other people if YOU drink. If you smoke, it does. As I've said before, no one (sane) cares if someone wants to commit suicide, or indulge in drugs, or whatever. What we care about is if you harm *us* in the process (or not). And, if you'll note, the one part of alcohol intake that harms other people (drinking and driving) is brutally targeted in most civilized areas of the world. Far moreso than any actions that have been taken against smokers. Gopher65talk 05:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after all, no one dies from drink driving, from drunken behaviour, nor does alcoholism bring serious emotional challenges to problems. It also doesn't cost the NHS loads of money to treat alcohol-related disorders. I like your way of thinking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.3.31 (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes!!!
This is a big step to warn humans about the harms that tobacco can do to our health, knowing that tobacco is the first cause fo deaths in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.68.212 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

images on cigarette packets
United Kingdom to introduce graphic images on cigarette packets

"Well no one said that smoking is good" and each one of us is free to smoke or stop smoking as far as we don't distuirb others.

Sounds somehow ironic seeing most of the Goverments have prohibited smoking in various areas,while they permit all cigarettes factories to produce their stuff!! ( good business no?) Same is happening with alcoholic drinks that are free for sale everywhere!!!(another good business hm!!)

There are so many factors causing health damage whereever we live, ie: air pollution (cars-trucks-autobuses)nuclear stations and trials but who cares!! Also on food stuffs: such as high consumptions of faty food stuffs -salt (increasing blood presseure- heart failure -kidney damage and strocks) But very few states talks about this, except the doctors when the problem has been reported. Question: Can any goverment shut down immediately all cigarette's factories?? George —Preceding unsigned comment added by George32 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually in many countries (other then the US perhaps), the government talks a lot about unhealthy foods and how to discourage people from consuming them and often is heavily envolved in trying to promote healthy diets Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Smoking cannot be stopped.
If Prohibition of old times and today's "War on Drugs" prove anything, it's that people will get what they want, whether it is legal or illegal. It is a better idea not to ban smoking completely, but rather to regulate it - true, smoking kills, but as long as it is going to exist, it might as well be regulated and held to some standard. We cannot force anyone to "see the light", or see my light, or yours, or ours, but we can at least provide education; by doing so can one promote the general welfare, and at the same time protect the individual's rights. By the way, I am not a smoker - never have, never will. Jared —12.25.104.8 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The government has no business telling citizens what they can or cannot put into their bodies.

Taarax67.53.155.109 11:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone who in this day and age who doesn't know of smokings dangers?
Smokers are discriminated against, simple as that. It is socially acceptable to hassle a smoker on a life-style choice. It is actually kind of sickening that our society not only accepts this (despite their politically correct non-sense) but, as shown by this new course of action, is actively embracing it. It is completely pointless to put more warning labels on cigarettes. It is the same thing as showing a body after its been run over by a train at every train station to prove the point that a written sign isn't deterrent enough to keep people from playing on the tracks, which every man, woman, and child is well aware is dangerous and could kill them. My point being that this is an excessive and frankly officious point of view being taken by our governments, be it the UK, the US, or any nation really, against citizens that honestly don't deserve it. Why don't we show a destroyed liver on the side of every beer bottle? Lver failure is a horrible way to die too. The answer being, its not socially acceptable to look down upon drinkers. Anyone who looks down upon smokers honestly should be ashamed of themselves. Eric Cartman said it best, "Wow. It's like, it's like, smoking brings a lot of people just a little bit of joy and, and you get to take that away from them." You are selfish, self-righteous, and hypocrites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.213.194 (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually people do look down on excessive drinkers. The difference is that with smoking, the consensus is there is no such thing as an acceptable level. And BTW, as the article states, the evidence is that these labels work. You might not like that fact, or perhaps you disagree with the studies, but you'll need better evidence then 'I don't think it'll work' before anyone believes you Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * with smoking, the consensus is there is no such thing as an acceptable level


 * Where are you getting that? I've looked at alot of the misinformation that creeps into anti-smoking campaigns but I haven't seen that one before.  I don't think anyone actually tries to examine things like that; the "conventional wisdom" about smoking is accepted quite blithely.


 * I wouldn't be surprised if filling up your car with gasoline regularly exposes you to the same amount of toxic chemicals as an occasional smoker might get. But anti-smoking agitators wouldn't want anyone to examine that or the way that all of the chemicals in tobacco smoke pervade the modern environment anyways, nor would they stand for graphic pictures of benzene-induced cancer on petrol pumps; they're invested in being able to pat themselves on the back for being such courageous crusaders against unambiguous evil.  Can't have people questioning, y'know.  --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely
I definitely believe that the government should try to stop smoking. Smoking kills people, and the government should do everything it can to lower the death rate.

However, if people know about the dangers, but want to start smoking anyway, fine by me. If they want to kill themselves, fine. Just keep the damn smoke away from me. I don't want to get lung cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.176.176 (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)