Try to figure this one out

Forum Index > News > Try to figure this one out > Post a New Reply

Share/Bookmark this Topic:

Message

Author

by runamok on Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:53 pm

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/10/08/Company-accused-of-bypassing-tobacco-rules/UPI-74411255023407/

A major U.S. tobacco company appears to be trying to bypass federal rules on product marketing
with new branding approaches, researchers say.

Harvard University researchers, along with specialists focused on tobacco control and educational efforts, allege R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is using packages with lighter colors as a means to suggest a safer product in the face of an upcoming ban on certain words in cigarette marketing, The Boston Globe said Thursday.

Starting on June 22, 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will have the power to cite tobacco companies for using words such as "mild" and "light" when promoting their cigarette products.

"These tricks are now well-established,'' tobacco control specialist Stanton Glantz said regarding R.J. Reynolds' new lighter-color packages for products like Salem Lights. "The real question for the FDA is, are they going to let them get away with these shenanigans?''

R.J. Reynolds, which has also rebranded Pall Mall Lights to Pall Mall Blues, told the Globe it was not attempting to circumvent the new regulations by altering their popular products.

Tricks? Shenanigans?

What the hell are they supposed to do to distinguish between the varying tar and/or nicotine strengths of their products?

runamok

Smoking Lobby Sponsor Joined: Dec 20, 2004 Posts: 1288

by gilster on Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:12 pm

I want a light, heavy tar, 100's, short filtered cigarette...
What color can that be?
Burnt Umber?

Phillip Morris and the FDA are azzhats

Notice RJR got stung in this article? They had no hand in the FDA writing or ruling and they were against it...

What a lovely puff-piece propaganda Public Relations article this is - PM wins RJR loses. Not...

gilster

Smoking Lobby Sponsor Joined: Apr 19, 2006 Posts: 1212

by libertarian99 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:13 am

What difference does package color make, if all the cigarette packs are going to be plastered with photos of diseased organs in a few years, anyway? Am I missing something? I can't see where a lighter colored box can suggest a safer product when it's got a photo of a tumor plastered across the front. Is the box color even going to show around the edges of the medical photo?

At least it makes sense now why RJReynolds gave me a beautiful cigarette case a few years back. All I had to do was log onto their Web site and enter my customer code to claim it. I couldn't imagine why they were giving away such lovely cig cases for free. Unfortunately, I gave mine away as a gift because I thought it would be a nuisance moving all my cigarettes from the box to the case.

I wish RJR would run that promotion one more time, but they probably just gave away free cases to find out which designs would sell the best. I'm sure Stanton Glantz would be horrified to find out that smokers were allowed to give their opinions about whether or not they liked the cases. It is obviously evil for the tobacco companies to make any attempt to relieve my shame or interfere in the antis efforts to mentally damage me beyond repair.

Last edited by libertarian99 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

by gilster on Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:00 am

I forgot about those gruesome pictures showing up on cig packs - hey, I MYO, I haven't bought a manufactured cigarette in over 3 years....

How about a gruesome picture scale to represent strength of flavor of the cigarettes?

Rotting teeth - Lights
Lung Cancer, where they show a picture of a pig lung - Regular
Abnormal Fetus - Full Strength
Amputated Foot - Non-Filter

It could work /sarc

Congress should change the Milk ratings too, I've seen studies that whole milk is better for children up to a certain age, I've seen other stories that milk is harmful to the drinker - and they do everything for the children nowadays - they need to stop labeling the cartons (Skim,1%, 2%, Whole) Offering a milk choice to consumers is a detriment to 'The Children' and a burden on the health care industry...

Make the consumers guess - no writing on the bottles - no color coded caps....put Milk behind the counter....

Disclaimer: I don't drink milk (yuck) and could care less what they do to the industry - I'm like a non-(non-smoker)cow milk drinker who can't grasp what stupidity the government pulls to make a false name for themselves in messing with industries and consumer choice.

Oh, and Soy Milk - heck - that's like e-cigarettes.....

But seriously - if certain whacked out sectors of government could do away with Milk labels, and say only 22% of the population drank milk and they cherry-picked studies on the harmful effects of milk - this scenario would be very plausible...

gilster

Smoking Lobby Sponsor Joined: Apr 19, 2006 Posts: 1212

by libertarian99 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:16 pm

gilster wrote:

You are hilarious. Great post!

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

by libertarian99 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:22 pm

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

I found this interesting article about a tobacco company lawsuit aimed at blocking some of the new FDA regulations. Maybe we will be saved from some of the packaging insanity.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/09/tobacco-companies-file-lawsuit-claiming.php

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Tobacco companies file lawsuit claiming new federal regulations violate First Amendment
Safiya Boucaud at 10:53 AM ET

[JURIST] Several US tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard, filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging a new tobacco regulation law on First Amendment grounds. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, challenges portions of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which contains several provisions that the tobacco companies allege restrict or ban truthful speech in violation of the First Amendment. The complaint alleges among other things that the act:

…severely restricts Plaintiffs' ability to communicate with adult consumers through advertising in magazines, on packaging, through direct mail, and at retail points of sale throughout the country. It also restricts almost every other remaining thoroughfare of speech, such as brand name sponsorship of artistic events in adult-only venues. Indeed, the Act even compels Plaintiffs to carry anti-tobacco messages drafted by the Government by appropriating a large portion of their packaging, simultaneously violating the Plaintiff manufacturers' First Amendment rights and taking their property rights. And many of the Act's provisions are not even limited to commercial speech, but go so far as to prohibit Plaintiffs from participating in core scientific and policy debates regarding their lawful products.

R.J. Reynolds senior vice president and general counsel Martin Holton said that the suit does not challenge Congress's right to grant the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate the tobacco industry, but rather certain provisions that they believe unlawfully restrict their free speech.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was approved by Congress in June and signed into law on June 22 by President Barack Obama. It attempts to safeguard the public by granting the FDA certain authority to regulate tobacco products, among other provisions.

Last year, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 38-12 to approve the bill. At the time, supporters said the bill would help to inform the public of the risks of smoking and make cigarettes safer. Opponents criticized the legislation, saying it could give the public a false sense of security about smoking and that the FDA might not be able to handle the burden of regulation.

The US Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved a similar in August 2007. Shortly before that, the former FDA commissioner said that the FDA lacked the resources to handle tobacco regulation.

The FDA first began to regulate the tobacco industry in 1996, but in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. that Congress had not provided the FDA with the authority to regulate tobacco products.

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

by runamok on Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:39 pm

http://www.thestate.com/business/story/978007.html

More on the same story but with this gem:

FDA spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn said her agency was aware of changes being made to cigarette packaging and intends, before the labeling ban goes into effect, to "thoroughly review the use of descriptors, including the use of color."

Seems they are not going to stop at just banning use of the term "lights". Apparently the FDA doesn't much care for the term "smooth" or pastel colors either.

This is somewhat bizarre. I'm pretty certain the FDA didn't expect the tobacco companies to quit manufacturing what they now call "lights", and that they would have to re-package and re-name them in some manner that would identify the various "grades" so, what did they expect would happen?

I think it will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Whatever they end up doing, I'm sure it'll be so ridiculous and overbearing as to be laughable except.....this is not fiction. Is it? Is all of this really happening?

runamok

Smoking Lobby Sponsor Joined: Dec 20, 2004 Posts: 1288

by libertarian99 on Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:48 pm

runamok wrote:

I think it will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Whatever they end up doing, I'm sure it'll be so ridiculous and overbearing as to be laughable except.....this is not fiction. Is it? Is all of this really happening?

It's obvious to me that smokers' ability to see the package at all is at the root of this problem.

Here is the solution:

Place all the cigarettes in a darkened room. Then, just to be sure smokers can't detect hidden messages that evil tobacco marketing reps have secretly written on the packages with invisible ink, put blindfolds on them and make the smokers feel their way along the shelves.

As an extra precaution, wire the cigarette cartons so they will deliver an electric shock when a smoker actually touches them. This gives the smoker a chance to change their mind before actually picking the carton up. If they don't change their mind and do pick up the carton, have a sniper fire a few shots in the air and/or at the smoker's feet just to give them one more chance to change their mind.

If all that doesn't work, make the smoker sit in a chair with a bright light hanging over their head. Use terrorist interrogation techniques and waterboarding to "help" them change their mind about purchasing the cigarettes.

If, after all that, the smoker is still able to crawl out of the room with their cigarettes, let them go but remind them that the stakes will get higher on their next visit.

Then, and only then, can Stanton Glantz be sure that smokers are not being seduced by just one more evil tobacco company plot.

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

by runamok on Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:53 pm

The vast majority of smokers are not paying attention to any of this FDA stuff (or much of anything else I might add) that is coming down the pike and will be caught by surprise by all of this re-branding.

I suppose that, even after these labeling restrictions come into play, most folks will still ask for their Camel lights, or whatever, and the employees at the retailers will quickly become familiar with how that relates to the new branding and the term "lights" will live on in infamy, much to the chagrin of the FDA.

They may have to pass legislation outlawing use of the word "lights" within the context of purchasing cigarettes. It will become the L word.

runamok

Smoking Lobby Sponsor Joined: Dec 20, 2004 Posts: 1288

by libertarian99 on Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:46 am

runamok wrote:

It's true. I didn't know Web sites like this existed until the April tax increase. I'm sure a lot of smokers are still unaware that any forums or groups like this exist.

We need to get more people coming to this forum. The best way I can think of is to get some cheap business cards printed up and ask the smoke shops if they would be willing to keep a stack on their counter. Back in April, people were griping their heads off in the smoke shops and it would have been a good time to get people involved.

runamok wrote:

I suppose that, even after these labeling restrictions come into play, most folks will still ask for their Camel lights, or whatever, and the employees at the retailers will quickly become familiar with how that relates to the new branding and the term "lights" will live on in infamy, much to the chagrin of the FDA.

They may have to pass legislation outlawing use of the word "lights" within the context of purchasing cigarettes. It will become the L word.

The FDA will need a strategy to erase the word "light" from smokers' minds. "Silver" will have to go, too. I can see smoke shop owners being required to keep cattle prods behind the register so they can zap any smoker who utters the word "light" or "silver" while making their purchase. After a few zaps, they'll learn not to say it.

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next Smoking Lobby Smokers Rights Forum Index ~ News

Smoking Lobby Forum for Smokers Rights