Back in 2007, the cigarette company Camel published an ad wrapped around an illustrated Rolling Stone insert that featured dozens of indie bands—a setup that looked so suspiciously like a giant ad that federal regulators clamped down on Camel (noting that cartoons were banned in cigarette ads) and some of the bands sued. The backlash to this ad was so strong that Camel stopped advertising in magazines for more than five years—a trend that recently changed. (via @cschweitz)
Young New Yorkers would not be able to buy cigarettes until they were 21, up from the current 18, under a proposal advanced Monday by Dr. Thomas A. Farley, the city’s health commissioner, and Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker.
The proposal, which would give New York the highest smoking age in the country among major cities, is the latest effort in a long campaign to limit smoking that began soon after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took office, with bans on smoking in restaurants and bars, and expanding more recently to bans at parks, beaches, plazas and other public places.
Given some of the responses to New York’s last major health initiative, we imagine more than a few residents won’t be particularly fond of the proposed change; however, it is likely to see some support. Thoughts?
Follow ShortFormBlog • Find us on Twitter & Facebook
This case raises novel questions about the scope of the government’s authority to force the manufacturer of a product to go beyond making purely factual and accurate commercial disclosures and undermine its own economic interest — in this case, by making ‘every single pack of cigarettes in the country mini billboard’ for the government’s anti-smoking message.U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Janice Rogers Brown • In her opinion regarding the graphic packaging used for cigarette packs, which are federally-regulated. The Washington D.C. Court of Appeals struck down the ads in a 2-1 ruling Friday, with Brown writing that the government “has not provided a shred of evidence” that the packaging actually reduces smoking, and the court as a whole saying that the images violated corporate speech requirements. Five cigarette companies challenged the branding rules — which were upheld by another appeals court, raising the chances that the Supreme Court will rule on the issue.
Your doctor may have to give you the go-ahead if you want to keep up the habit. Officials are hoping to do this as an effort to get people to quit. Recently, they’ve raised taxes on cigarettes and they’re on the way to banning them in many public places. Under the proposal, smokers would have to go through treatment programs to try to kick their habit. If they couldn’t pull it off, they’d get prescribed cigarettes. This seems like a bit far to reach, if you ask us, and it could create a black market because it’s so restrictive. Regardless, it should help people quit, should this measure pass —because that’s a lot of trouble to go through for a smoke. (photo via Flickr user mamagrrl) source
This photo of Barb Tarbox didn’t make the cut for the FDA’s new cigarette warning labels, but she wanted people to see the truth.
Photo: Tarbox on May 13, 2003. View more photos at the gallery. Credit: Greg Southam, Edmonton Journal
Starting next year, cigarettes Will have to put warnings like this on all their packs. The graphic warnings will cover up about half of the pack — both front and back. (For a slideshow of the graphic images, check here.) They should hit around September of next year. While the FDA says that this will help people quit, others say smokers are already aware of the risk they take when they light up. It’s also worth noting that other countries have had much harsher warnings on their cigarettes for years, and studies have shown they’ve helped people quit smoking. Either way, tobacco companies aren’t happy with this, and neither are many smokers. What do you think? source
If you’re an unemployed smoker, don’t bother trying to be a nurse. Around the country, hospitals are implementing no-smoking-allowed policies for their employees, subjecting new applicants to urine tests and treating smoking as a terminable offense. This isn’t entirely without merit: an average smoker costs their employer about $3,391 per year in health costs and lost productivity. On the other hand, it may set a troublesome precedent for other lifestyle choices that result in higher-than-average health costs (skiing, eating meat from Taco Bell). Oddly, though both the SEIU and the tobacco lobby have voiced opposition to the law, neither are aggressively campaigning against it. (thanks for the tip, toutlejour) source
I can’t add much to what’s already been (and will be) ...
One of the perks of being an early employee...
Over the last 90 days, the Digg...
#FMMDI (at 30 Rockefeller Plaza)
Thanks. I guess my thoughts are as follows:
1. I think...
Two Months Ago I set out to interview the principal cast...
There are many many others that the FDA wants to put on the sides of packs of cigarettes, and some are amazingly depressing. The problem with these labels is that the design of many of these looks downright amateurish, like they just got a bunch of random stock photos to use. Would a marketing campaign make more sense? We sense a meme coming on. source
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
