Some of the biggest news in health this week was the revelation of the new federally-mandated cigarette warning labels. One of the things that I like most about this development is that there are several different image and message combinations, as opposed to the single, brief Surgeon General warning that now covers cigarette packages. So, come September of next year, smokers get to take their pick between nine enticing "buy me" messages when shopping for smokes:
- "Cigarettes are addictive."
- "Tobacco smoke can harm your children." [see left]
- "Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease."
- "Cigarettes cause cancer."
- "Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease."
- "Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby."
- "Smoking can kill you."
- "Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in nonsmokers."
- "Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health."
Personally, I'm interested to hear if tobacco companies have a choice as to which labels they can use on their packaging. For example, is Phillip Morris going to be able to place the "Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby," message on the traditionally masculine Marlboro Reds? I might be reading too far into it, especially because there hasn't been much research correlating graphic warning labels with decreased smoking levels in the other 39 countries that are a step ahead of the US. Either way, never before have I seen such antithetical messaging included on something for sale. The new packaging even features a cessation hotline number: 1-800-QUIT-NOW.
What do tobacco companies think? RJ Reynolds says that the requirement violates the First and Fifth Amendments. I sort of understand their concern with restraint on freedom of speech, but self-incrimination...? That's a stretch. Reynolds says that the government has unconstitutionally "confiscated" the top half of the cigarette pack, and is telling consumers not to buy or use cigarettes. Technically, the latter point isn't true, so they'll likely have a tough time challenging the law in court. Phillip Morris, on the other hand, only objects to the size of the new warnings--50% of the package as opposed to the 35% standard set by the World Health Organization...I'll just assume the government values symmetry.
Check out all of the new warning labels when you get a chance.
Cost of Smoking
Forget about the rising prices of cigarettes, and forget about the recent cigarette tax hike. Cigarette use incurs costs beyond consumers' immediate purchases. A recent study conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network estimates that, if the 27 states without comprehensive smoke-free laws were to establish them, the US would realize the following savings in health care costs:
- $316 million in lung cancer treatment
- $875.5 million in heart attack/stroke treatment
- $43 million in state Medicaid funds
- $128 million in smoking-induced pregnancy treatment
Another blogger estimated that, in 2000, the purchase of a cigarette pack triggered $40 in social costs, including $33 worth of private costs, $20 of which is attributed to loss in productivity due to early death. Very interesting stuff.
Other News (in brief):
- After passing through the Texas House, the bill for the Lone Star State's indoor smoking ban was declared dead by its author...but was later revived! No word on what's happened since. Meanwhile, the city of San Antonio is within two months of going smoke-free.
- The mayor of Philadelphia signed an executive order to ban smoking from city-owned outdoor areas of recreational facilities.
- RJ Reynolds launched a Snus (smoke-free, spit-free tobacco) campaign in New York City that coincided with the city's recent smoking ban. Nobody ever said tobacco executives were stupid...
- Long Island is looking to ban smoking on all outdoor ticketing, boarding and platform areas of railroads.
- Princess Cruises, Carnival Cruise Lines and Holland America are all tightening up their smoking policies. I happened to be on a Carnival cruise a couple of weeks ago, and after running a few miles in the fitness center one morning, I walked outside for a cool-down walk. Instead, I was greeted by a couple of people smoking on the deck. So, I'm glad to hear that this is changing.
- A story that I've been following for a couple of years: The University of Michigan, which, in 2009 announced that all three of its campuses would be going smoke-free, is preparing for the change, effective late next week. Many thanks to my friend, Jiean Li, for the photo. If only UC Berkeley would get on this train...
- Close to home: The city of Glendale, a suburb of Phoenix, is looking to take the Smoke-free Arizona act a step further by creating designated smoking areas.
- Also close to home: The Coconino National Forest, which has been ablaze for several weeks now, now has a smoking ban in effect to prevent more wildfires. Why is smoking permitted in forests at all? Something about that just sounds like a bad idea. Oh wait, I just heard a news anchor mention that a lit cigarette may have caused another fire in eastern Arizona...no joke.
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment