| |
|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by gilster
on Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:29 am |
|
Maybe they can name the cigs after that kids jump rope song.
I still remember it....lol
Quote: High, low, medium, wavy, walky, talky, slowly, peppers...  |
|
|
gilster
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 1212
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by runamok
on Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:10 am |
|
Seriously -
What I find so frustrating is that there is no logical end to what the FDA and Glantz are saying (not that there ever was but this issue is really twisting my brain). Seems that any and all attempts by the tobacco companies to re-package and re-name what were formerly "lights" is under serious attack. So, what is the alternative?
Force all the tobacco companies to manufacture only one brand each that conforms to strict FDA specifications? Then package them in identical, black and white cartons and packs (except the gory pictures will be in vivid color) with the only difference being the manufacturer's name in very fine print in an unobtrusive location? And when you purchase them, you ask for them by, perhaps, a number? "Ones" for Philip Morris brand, "Twos" for RJ Reynolds brand....etc?
Omigod....I think I just answered my own question. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:15 am |
|
runamok wrote: So, what is the alternative?
Force all the tobacco companies to manufacture only one brand each that conforms to strict FDA specifications? Then package them in identical, black and white cartons and packs (except the gory pictures will be in vivid color) with the only difference being the manufacturer's name in very fine print in an unobtrusive location? And when you purchase them, you ask for them by, perhaps, a number? "Ones" for Philip Morris brand, "Twos" for RJ Reynolds brand....etc?
Omigod....I think I just answered my own question.
At any rate, before the FDA could adopt such a strategy, they would have to run controlled, double-blind studies using test groups to determine whether anyone has a positive reaction when exposed to black or white square packages, tobacco company names in fine print, or specific numbers.
Some numbers are bound to elicit more positive responses than others, which means the FDA would have to make a rule stating that tobacco companies can only use numbers like 13, 666, etc. Long numbers would be better because then smokers would have to carry around a small piece of paper with their brand number on it. You can never make the process too inconvenient! |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by smallbird
on Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:04 pm |
|
libertarian99 wrote: runamok wrote: So, what is the alternative?
Force all the tobacco companies to manufacture only one brand each that conforms to strict FDA specifications? Then package them in identical, black and white cartons and packs (except the gory pictures will be in vivid color) with the only difference being the manufacturer's name in very fine print in an unobtrusive location? And when you purchase them, you ask for them by, perhaps, a number? "Ones" for Philip Morris brand, "Twos" for RJ Reynolds brand....etc?
Omigod....I think I just answered my own question. Even that strategy would be suspect. After all, you just posted it in a smokers' rights forum. How can Stanton Glantz be sure that evil tobacco company executives didn't secretly hack into this forum and plant that idea in your mind without you being aware of it? Ever heard of hidden text?
At any rate, before the FDA could adopt such a strategy, they would have to run controlled, double-blind studies using test groups to determine whether anyone has a positive reaction when exposed to black or white square packages, tobacco company names in fine print, or specific numbers.
Some numbers are bound to elicit more positive responses than others, which means the FDA would have to make a rule stating that tobacco companies can only use numbers like 13, 666, etc. Long numbers would be better because then smokers would have to carry around a small piece of paper with their brand number on it. You can never make the process too inconvenient!
Hey, hey, hey! Don't give the FDA any ideas |
|
|
smallbird
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jan 03, 2007
Posts: 362
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:36 am |
|
runamok wrote: What I find so frustrating is that there is no logical end to what the FDA and Glantz are saying (not that there ever was but this issue is really twisting my brain).
In the case of tobacco, we have a situation where all the checks and balances have been removed. Instead of having a process where competing interests are balanced, we have a process where all the antismoking people are assumed to be wearing white hats, while all the tobacco supporters are wearing black hats.
There is no need for checks and balances in a scenario where people believe one side represents good and the other side represents evil.
It doesn't matter if the white hat people have turned into a bunch of power-hungry psychopaths. People will go on believing they're the good guys until there is some very public and melodramatic event that convinces them otherwise. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:10 pm |
|
libertarian99 wrote: 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?
"...Most galling to companies, as their complaint tells it, would be a government takeover of the top half of cigarette packs for anti-tobacco images and messages, leaving only the bottom for the companies "to communicate with adult consumers." Even that message would likely be obscured in stores, the companies say."
I found this information on the NPR Web site. It was included in a story about the lawsuit cigarette makers are filing about marketing restrictions. Here's the link:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/09/cigarette_firms_sue_government.html?ps=rs
------------------------------------
Of course, we know that taking over the top half of the box will be followed by taking over the bottom half of the box. Taking over the whole box in one fell swoop might have triggered people's defense mechanisms, but once we all get used to the antis owning the top half of the box, we will be properly conditioned to accept it when they take over the bottom half, too. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:06 pm |
|
I see a total takeover of the domestic cigarette business by the Feds within ten years. They'll keep a highly paid puppet regime in place at the various companies to absorb the daily beatings from anti-tobacco, but the writing is on the wall. We're not that far from it now anyway.
As I said to crackerhack a while back; When you cozy up to the enemy in an attempt to curry favor, you inevitably end up in the same cell with your former allies anyway and now you have NO friends.
Philip Morris seems to think they will escape the showers but, in the end, they will be prodded in there with the rest. Perhaps they actually realize this and the top dogs there are planning on being those highly paid puppets. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:39 pm |
|
runamok wrote: I see a total takeover of the domestic cigarette business by the Feds within ten years. They'll keep a highly paid puppet regime in place at the various companies to absorb the daily beatings from anti-tobacco, but the writing is on the wall. We're not that far from it now anyway.
I'm not sure where I saw that. It was an older article, but it goes along with what you're saying about a takeover of the domestic cigarette business.
It makes sense that the government would attempt a complete takeover. Why share the profits with tobacco companies when you can just legislate them out of existence and keep all the proceeds for yourself? The government could get every penny of the profit, plus taxes, all the while pretending to be benevolent protectors of the common good. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
