Is it wrong to fill cigarette packs with warnings?

Personally I feel like it's too much and an attack towards people's rights. I don't smoke cigarettes often and wouldn't advice anyone to do so, because it's unhealthy and the worst of all, many people get addicted to it. However many people want to smoke daily. They like it and it's a part of their everyday life (I know many). I think it's very important that we know what the products we consume do to us. That's why it's good to make for example ads and articles about the health hazards that a great amount of cigarettes may cause, but filling a legal product with mostly misleading arguments and disgusting pictures is just another way to put good people on their knees, and show disrespect to them and to their choices.
To me this is a big deal, because I believe in capitalism and in trade without a government interference. What's next? Is it beer or maybe candies?
Pack of cigarettes in the USA. Probably because of the Constitution and Republicans.
Pack of cigarettes in the USA. Probably because of the Constitution and Republicans.

Pack of cigarettes in the UK.
Pack of cigarettes in the UK.

Pack of cigarettes in Australia.
Pack of cigarettes in Australia.
  • Yes
    Vote A
  • Hard to say
    Vote B
  • No
    Vote C
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

1|0
3759

Most Helpful Guys

  • The cigarette companies have to put those warnings there. It’s every persons legal right to be made aware of possible side effects of a product. If they didn’t put them there, and one of their consumers developed lung cancer for example, the company would be legally held liable because they did not put the proper warnings on their product. I’m all for capitalism as well, but just as everyone has the right to choose their product they also have the right to be made aware of what it could do to them.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I agree that people should made aware of the health risks (as I said), but obviously they shouldn't change all branding to disgusting warnings..

    • There are probably less graphic ways to do it, but honestly I can’t really bring myself to care. Those are pictures of what can actually happen to those who smoke. They’re likely extreme cases, but you know what they say “seeing is believing”.

  • No, it's not wrong. If you believes in the freedom of choice, it would make sense you're also supporting informing people so they can take an informative decision and know which consequences there are. There's no free choice if they don't know they've a free choice and know what it's about.

    0|0
    0|0

Most Helpful Girls

  • I think there should be a fine print on the box that states the risks but not photos because it clashes with the companies branding and logos which isn’t fair. Yes smoking is harmful but just about everyone knows it and people still do it I just don’t care to walk around with a picture of a clamped open eyeball🤷🏻‍♀️

    0|2
    0|0
  • My country has universal healthcare. Given how much smoking related illnesses cost the system I’m all for discouraging people to smoke.
    Do it to McDonald’s next 👍🏻

    10|11
    0|0
    • Well, in America you have to warn more than McDonald's eaters.
      Is it wrong to fill cigarette packs with warnings?

    • @WhatAboutBob I like how this meme is just trying to portray false equivalence... While also being an example of false equivalence at the same time.

    • @SketchForger
      Glad you liked it.

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls & Guys Said

3557
  • My Mom died of Lung Cancer, My own Dad, Has Near Now 4th Stage Emphysema, I have a Roommate with PAD and Bad Circulation with A-Fib and Know many Others who have Gone to the Grave because of Smoking.
    Keep those Warnings Coming. xx

    3|4
    0|0
  • No. The disgusting pictures are what happens to your body when you smoke. The warnings are there because smoking is in fact, bad for you and highly addictive. It's not misleading to tell you what you're getting into just because you don't like it.

    2|2
    0|0
    • For example that horrible picture of an eye and "smoking causes blindness". It's missleading, because you rather get hit by a lightning than lose your sight because of smoking. Warning messages should be true and they shouldn't ruin the branding. It's an attack towards free trade and towards consumer rights.

    • Show All
    • Dude I don't know where you live but cigarettes are marketed extensively. In print, film/tv, and all over every gas station. It's impossible to go a day without seeing at least 3 ads

    • They promote cigarettes in stores in the USA, but it's not allowed in Europe.

  • I'm totally for banning this shit but not because it hurts people who smoke it, I totally don't care about this aspect. What triggers me is that those people are also hurting me, and that should be totally unacceptable. So those warning are a good thing because there is a chance that someone won't contribute to polluting air and people around him, but unfortunately most smokers don't give a fuck about those warnings

    3|2
    0|1
  • No.. why would it infringe on someone's rights to have a warning.. if they banned them all together that is an attack on people's rights. Of course I feel the same about another smokabel plant, and I see it as less dangerous than tobacco.. in any case no it's not an attack to have warnings..

    0|1
    0|0
    • Buying a legal product is between manufacturer, retailer and then the customer. Government should take the taxes from it, not fill that product up with questionable arguments and disgusting pictures. If you can't even see the product you're buying, your rights are under attack.

    • Show All
    • 20 years from now we're gonna have the same conversation when alcohol products are covered with warning and in 40 years when sugary products have. If it's ok to remove the branding of the product by government, because the product is unhealthy, it's gonna be hard to draw a line.

    • No disagreement there.. I personally prefer less government involvement not more..

  • Not necessarily, the only thing I have a problem with is that many of them are blatant lies and they do so needlessly.

    For example, often you see pictures of a pair of lungs. On the left, white. On the right, black. Claiming that smoking causes the lungs to turn black. Actually, those black lungs aren't caused by smoking, they're caused by a disease literally called black-lung, the disease that coal miners get. Also people who work in unhealthy environments for extended periods of time e. g. a guy who works in a fibreglass plant and never wears a mask.

    Unless somebody has cancer, doctors actually can't tell the lungs apart from a smoker vs a non-smoker - and the same is true when comparing a non-smoker vs a smoker's lungs when they both have lung cancer.

    Check this out: a smoker's lungs can be used for transplant even if the smoker smoked a pack a day for 20 years. In fact in some cases those who did receive smoker's lungs had a higher survival rate:

    www.independent.co.uk/.../...nsplants-9101647.html

    From the above article:

    "Over a six-year period since 2007, a total of 237 lung transplants were carried out at Harefield, and 90 per cent were double-lung transplants. Just over half, 53 per cent, had lungs from non-smokers, while 29 per cent were from donors who had smoked for less than 20 years, and 18 per cent had the lungs of people who had smoked 20 or more a day for at least 20 years.

    Results show that one-year and three-year survival figures were about the same for all three groups. Those with lungs from non-smokers even fared slightly worse in terms of one-year survival. A total of 77.7 per cent with non-smoking donors' lungs were alive after the first year, compared with 90.8 per cent with smokers' lungs. There were also no differences in a number of other measures, including overall effectiveness of the lungs, the amount of time spent in intensive care, and the length of time in hospital."

    Strange considering all we've been told right?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yeah, it’s a bit of an insult to the intelligence of smokers. Plus some of the warnings are really subjective, I saw one the other day that said ‘smoking makes you unattractive ‘ like what the actual fuck 🤷‍♀️. by the way I don’t smoke.

    2|3
    0|2
  • I am one hundred percent sure everyone knows whats going to happen when they smoke a cigarette. But do they care? No. Why? Because they're addicted to them and showing them disturbing pictures is not going to help them stop smoking. Therapy, help, and lots of support will. Instead of putting those absolutely abhorrent images on a cigarette box, leave an addiction support number, because thats what they really need.

    0|2
    0|0
    • These facts make the smoker entirely responsible for his decision to pick up the cigarette; "you are free to choose but you are not free from the consequences of your choice".

    • Show All
    • @Dchrls78104 Okay let's put it this way, when you started smoking you were young and dumb. Your friends had peer pressured you into doing it a couple of times because it was "the thing to do". You were never informed of the health risks smoking came along with, and soon you are addicted. Fast forward to the present and you're still addicted, and know the risks of smoking, but you can't stop. You try to but you get anxiety, sweaty, and nauseous. You can't sleep and you always have a headache, making you extremely irritable. So you relapse back into smoking because you can't handle the withdrawal symptoms. Are we really going to shame people who made the decision when they were in their teens and literally cannot stop, or should we give them a phone number to an addiction help centre where they can get the help they need.

    • First of all, I'm not here to shame anyone because of his addictions; I don't need to, since the addiction on its own is itself the source of the shame. Secondly, you can give the addicted one the number of any of the centres you mention but the truth is that the first thing that will persuade him to visit such a place is the desire to change his life for the better. To change his life for the better, the person must first acknowledge that he has a problem, come to terms with it and with the fact that his own choices led to the problem, realise the damage that the addiction has done to him, and take responsibility for his own self improvement.

  • Gees! Let them smoke. Every add out there already says it's bad for you-- heck, I can't even watch a YouTube video without seeing a damn maggot or vape or cigar add right in your face. It's just irritating at this point!

    If people still smoke with all that, then they are gonna damn well keep smoking even if you put "you're stupid go to hell smoker" pictures like that on the packages! That's just insulting and it's patronizing, that's what I think. LET THEM SMOKE! It's their life!

    Stop trying to make everyone do everything healthy! You know I've been a vegetarian for almost two years now because some girl on a website kept yelling at me that cow puss is in milk, and their legs break from how fat they are? I don't even want to be a vegetarian! You know what? Screw it-- I'M GONNA EAT MEAT AGAIN. Hah. In your face, warnings! Leave me alone and let me do what I want. It's legal, I've been doing it all my life, and it's MY FUCKING CHOICE prick, so back off!!!

    That's how I feel about the matter...

    0|0
    0|0
  • The thing is that people keep smoking, so they wasted their time and ink for all those stupid pictures...

    2|2
    0|0
  • The tobacco companies fought it on First Amendment grounds and lost.

    1|1
    0|0
  • We should put adverse effects on everything.

    Large Consumption of fast food has been linked to obesity, heart disease and complications caused by these health risks such as heart attack and stroke.

    Smoking much like fast food is engineered to be addictive.

    Just about every medicine can kill you if taken improperly.

    We can talk all day about about current smokers, but what the people that come after them?

    0|0
    0|0
  • The more fucking warnings the better.
    Or better still, ban the filthy fucking shit once and for all.

    2|5
    0|1
  • No it's always good to remind the people so they can possibly have a 2nd choice towards it and change it but images like the eye one no that's just uncomfortable

    0|1
    0|0
  • It would be more wrong to not inform people of the consequences. It may not cause a change for tolerance to high risk smokers, but research shows it does for individuals with low tolerance for risk, so it can prove useful for a subset of the population. Those who don't really care about stopping are free to ignore the advertisement labeled "disgusting" by other commenters.

    0|2
    0|0
  • No, I think it’s good to have the warnings on the pack... it’s to let others know about what they’re consuming. My dad’s addicted to smoking and he smokes 10 or 20 pack a day. It’s quite disgusting and even with the warnings on the cigarette packs... he still doesn’t care SMH

    0|0
    0|0
  • If it were truly a choice I would back you up 100% however when the tobacco companies hire the best scientific minds on the planet to come up with new chemical combinations ( currently there are over 700 additive in a cigarette ) they are taking your choice from you. Also people have the, right to make their own choices but must be given true and correct information. However that all being said I don’t give shit smoke or not I don’t care

    0|0
    0|0
  • Why would it be wrong? There's legal obligations to display any side effect/warnings that could cause harm to the user.

    Plus, they turn more people off, especially the visual packaging we used to see in Australia of the real life effects and diseases etc they cause.

    I think the packaging should be worse to deter more younger people from cigarettes in the first place.

    0|0
    0|0
    • They should display the side effects, but it's not the way that the government orders them to replace all their branding with awful pics and messages, which are often even misleading. This is not ok.

  • The information is all out there on the dangers of smoking. If smokers still make the dumb choice to smoke it should all be on them. There shouldn't be government enforced warnings, but at the same time, anyone having smoking related problems should not have any government-sponsored healthcare assistance either. No one else should have to pay for somebody's stupidity.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Personally, having had a smoking related heart attack, I'm all for warning people about the dangers, but putting pictures on cigarette packets did nothing to make me think twice. It's proper education about it that people need, and would be a great subject to start Biology classes with.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Cigarettes are horrible things, if anything they should get rid of them completely, it has no positive affect on people's health... So by right they should know how bad it is for there body and be warned

    1|0
    0|0
  • I smoke but who’s rights is it attacking to have warnings on packaging?

    1|0
    0|0
    • Trade between manufacturer and the customer. It's not ok to force a product to stop branding and force them to fill the packs with disgusting pictures and messages.

    • That is extreme but just having the shit on the packaging is fine.
      Besides that doesn’t hurt anyone’s rights at all. Just makes things awkward.

  • No, my friend. Not at all. I believe in small government and economically, yes. It is an interference on companies' rights. But it's kinda like saying that making murder illegal is infringing on a murderer's rights. Or that public health campaigns is infringing on sugar industry's rights.

    Yeah... Right.

    (See what I did there)

    1|0
    0|0
  • Warning signs are mandatory by law in most countries in hopes of reminding people about the risks they are taking when smoking. If the warning labels weren’t on the packages, the tobacco companies could get sued if someone died from smoking.

    0|1
    0|0
  • No. Smoking not only affects the person doing it, it also affects everyone around them (passive smokers. Affects them way more), and the environment. But since that business isn't going anywhere anytime soon, the least thing they can do is put warnings.

    0|1
    0|0
  • As I just quit smoking myself 3 weeks ago I can say with out a doubt that Smokers know everything bad that will happen to them by smoking. You do not need warnings because Hollywood and the general public will tell you the dangers non stop until you stop.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I strongly support Individual Rights and Free Market. But Smoking costs NHS billions. If healthcare wasn't Nationalized and individuals paid for their own healthcare like America then yes I'd be against it.

    So in UK there are health warnings and their is duty on tobacco. Ideally I want state to stay out of private business but in this case product has negative affects which costs state billions. Which then results in warnings being put on packs.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Think of it like listing the side effects on a medicine packet, or signing a form before partaking an activity saying you are fully aware of the potential risks. Everyone consumes products or does things that have risks. Tabacco and cigarette companies need people to be fully aware of those risks before consumption, also so that the responsibility for consequences from the risks won't fall onto them, but onto the consumer

    0|0
    0|0
    • It's ok to put little warnings, as long as it doesn't ruin the branding. I've never seen a medicine packet without branding in my life.

    • I don't know where you live, but in the UK I think there is a law that prevents the companies from uniquely marketing their brand. I know it made sense why but I honestly can't remember what that reason was

    • I think the images are there to try and put people off, but I can't even look at that eye one at all. I think just written warnings should be enough but I understand that they would want to deter people further

  • No, I think it's fine.

    Whether they enjoy it or not does not seem a legitimate argument to why warnings should be illegal.

    It's fine for the government to intervene in the market to an extent, just like it heavily taxes cigarettes. There's a greater goal at hand, public health. If we have to introduce government intervention in the market, which for various things I'm all for, for the sake of public health, so be it.

    0|0
    0|0
    • It's morally wrong to ban the whole branding from a product and it doesn't even help. People smoke more in the UK than in the USA and the UK bans the branding and taxes more. Also it's gonna be hard to draw a line after this.

    • Show All
    • Do you think that's not being done?

    • I don't watch dutch commercials. 😃

  • Well it doesn't actually make a difference for smokers or people choosing to start smoking so I think they should stop, it's pretty disgusting.

    0|3
    1|1
  • You don't live in America. In America you have to put warnings on everything. You have to tell pregnant women not to drink whiskey. Because if you didn't, once the deformed baby was born, then the whiskey company would be sued.

    Remington is currently being sued for manufacturing bullets!

    0|0
    0|0
  • Not at all. They aren't misleading. Theyre stating facts and risks. Its a dangerous habit and it can affect others. 2nd hand smoking is a danger

    1|1
    0|0
  • Well let's just say that with all the warnings and info they put on the packs of cigarettes hasn't exactly done much to lessen the percentage of smokers out there...

    0|1
    0|0
  • "Misleading arguments" tell that to a lung cancer patient, dick.

    0|1
    0|0
    • "Smoking causes lung cancer" is a good and truthful argument. For example "Smoking causes blindness" is a misleading argument.

    • Show All
    • Are you familiar with how they are caused?

    • Not really. If it's smoking related, it'sok to mention it on the pack. As long as the branding is not ruined.

  • no its not wrong actually cuz smoking is super dangerous, maybe beer and alcoholic drinks should have warnings too cuz they are no better, as a biology student i dont want to get in details on what such things can cause to your body, its basic bio and you probably know it already but they shouldn't be compared to candies cuz thats super stupid lol

    0|0
    0|0
  • These warnings might be pointless, but there is a bigger chance of a person stopping smoking with the warnings on it than without.

    Candies already have a tax, obesity is a problem here afterall. Alcohol also has a huge tax because it's a problem here aswell, best way to root out the problem is to make it more difficult to buy it.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Yeah I know. I'm from Finland and I have seen a lot this socialistic stuff. In my opinion alcoholic drinks are normal drinks. Just with the age limit. I think that in Finland it was dusgusting how for example wines and liquors were sold only in the government's own little boutiques. There is two problems with that. Those *asterds can charge you what ever they want and someone for example in Lapland might have to travel 100km+ to get a bottle of wine with dinner. Also the taxes were ridiculous. Little cans/bottles were many times well over 2€. I know the retail prices quite well, because I worked in a supermarket for a while as a part of my school. There is other absurd alcohol laws as well. Finland is not the most cheerful place in the first place and stuff like this doesn't make it better.

    • Show All
    • Se on vielä ymmärrettävää jos viinat on alkossa, mutta ainakin viinit pitäisi olla normaaleissa kaupoissa. Ei ihmisrt juo viiniä siksi että tulisi humalaan. Englantilaiset on todennäköisesti vastuuttomampia alkoholinkäyttäjiä keskimäärin kun suomalaiset, eikä aiheuta mitään katastrofia jos saa lidlistä pullon viiniä 3-5 punnalla (4-6€).

    • Hyvä pointti.
      Olishan se joo kätevämpää, jos väkevämmät viinit olis tarjolla ruokakaupoissa. Siitäkin tuli hirveä haloo, kun nelosoluet tuli ruokakauppoihin, mutta siitä päästy jo yli.

  • No, that's a warning. A warning that should have other consequences. If someone still smoke after reading this, then he shouldn't have any financial help from the state if he has health problem because he smokes.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I think a person who thinks that it's ok for a government to ban branding from a legal product and fill it with misleading warnings, is a communist rather than capitalist. Shocking if 84% of people who answered are more or less commies.

    • Misleading warning? Are you going to fucking tell me that smoking doesn't kill or cause health problems?

  • Given that most of the time others have to suffer around you when you smoke and have to inhale the even more harmful particles you exhale, I believe that allowing cigarettes is a plainly stupid decision, and the risk is simply undermined. In UK, second hand smoke kills at least 12 000 people each year. That is about 2% of the total deaths, and probably a similar proportion exists in other developed countries. Fist hand smoking kills the most out of all the preventable death causes.
    So no. Just a small warning is not even enough for the damage smoking causes. Even if you do it once in a while, the fact that it affects you and those around you doesn't change.

    0|0
    0|0
    • And if you think those numbers are low, note that the given statistics are only for one country, uk.

  • I think it’s mainly to make people aware. It’s not like they’re telling people not to just warning of the dangers, and you yourself said you wouldn’t advice it. Yeah it may be obvious but they have to do it to prevent lawsuits.

    0|0
    0|0
    • "They have to do it to prevent lawsuits" That's what I mean. Of course the tobacco companies wouldn't do it, if these countries wouldn't force them. It's against free trade and humiliating towards consumers.

  • No.. warning signs are needed.. Smoking kills people... When I was 15 my uncle was died of smoking addiction.. He had holes on his cheeks and blood oozing out from them.. I was scared and never ever thought of starting smoking..

    0|0
    0|0
  • I was in high-school when it was debated whether tobacco companies should put warnings on cigarettes. In our debate I argued that it shouldn't be required. It seems to give the government too much power in our lives to be able to dictate that a product must contain a warning, but the reason why I argued that a warning shouldn't be required was because then when someone was injured by their tobacco product the company could say they were warned, thereby letting tobacco companies off the hook. I argued that this warning helped the tobacco companies against the consumer. It's still applicable today.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Cigarettes should be completely illegal, as poison packaged for people to commit suicide with is illegal.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Im not sure how that stuff is misleading since its all true. It might be offputting, but that's ok cuz it doesn't have to be nice.

    I do have a better alternative though. I actually believe that all costs from health related issues should be paid by people that smoke. So, in addition to the taxes on cigarettes that are not going directly to pay for health issues caused by smoking every pack should be hit with a tax large that when added up in total would cover all costs to cover health related issues stemming from smoking.

    The CDC estimates that annually direct cigarette related health costs total $170 billion dollars. Currently, about $27B is collected annually. So, we would need to increase the taxes on cigarettes by about 6 times. Id be fine with that. Remove warnings, increase taxes by 6 fold so people can fund their own health expenses for smoking.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I smoke a ciggy every now and then and I couldn't care less. at least someone gets his bills payed with making ugly cigarette packages.

    1|0
    0|0
  • If they are going to keep putting warnings on them they need to put them on everything else as well.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Nope but it in essence won't change the minds of people if they wish to do it we can't fully stop them without banning them and that does not work well from history

    0|0
    0|0
  • Not wrong, but right and responsible. The tobacco companies force no one to buy their products; smoking is a conscious decision people use the right and freedom of their personal choice (s) to make.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Smoking is not cool. Packs should not be cool. Advertisment should not be cool. It's gross, bad for you and others and kills you.

    0|0
    0|0
  • They aren’t misleading. They’re based on facts and they’re trying to help you realise that you slowly kill yourself by smoking.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It is highlighting the dangers which is a good thing but if someone wants to do it they still will

    0|1
    0|0
  • It's a big mockery to be honest. Cigarettes are designed to get people addicted so they can't quit, and then they tell you it will kill you. They never say they are designed ONLY to get you addicted and buy them again and again. When that's the truth. Cigarettes don't give you any high or any positive effects, only negative. The only "high" you get is when you satisfy your addiction by smoking again. They create low and when you smoke you get back to normal state. But even then it's not really normal state because it poisons you.

    No one WANTS to keep smoking, people smoke because they CAN'T quit.

    0|0
    0|0
Show More
42

Recommended myTakes

Loading...