Tobacco lobbying preceded label retreat

This is just disgusting. I can understand the rationale for all kinds of government decisions, and the lobbying behind them, that are favorable to business interests like subsidies for the oil sector, corporate taxes, favorable policies for important domestic industries. But I cannot understand caving to the makers of poison. Cigarettes are poison. We don't owe the tobacco companies anything. Where they employ Canadians, those Canadians should see the writing on the wall and find other lines of work.

This is just indefensible.

So all wineries, bottlers and beer producer employees should look for another job too?
Alcohol is just as poisonous...
While we are at it, lets stop all alcohol producers from sponsoring any event, and since we still don't really know for sure what cellphone radiation does to ones brain, lets stop the Rogers, Bells and Telus's from sponsoring and producing too.

Alcohol is not just as poisonous. Alcohol doesn't poison the people near you while you drink like second hand smoke does. There are even health benefits associated with the moderate consumption of red wine. Smoking is just bad for you and the people around you.

The health effects of smoking and excessive drinking are clear, identifiable, and undeniable. We've been bombarding ourselves with cell phone radiation for over a decade now. If there was a link between them and brain cancer even a fraction as strong as the link between smoking and lung disease or drinking and liver disease, it would have presented itself by now. It just hasn't.

And this isn't even about bans or restrictiosn in sale of cigarettes, it's about updating the warning labelling that hasn't been changed in that decade we've supposedly been irradiating ourselves with cell phones. And hey, I'd be in support of warning labelling on alcohol products. People are still not getting the message about drinking and driving. People are still pickling their livers. I drink in moderation, and I don't drive drunk.

This wasn't a radical change. This was an incremental change to something already in place, and it was scuttled to appease the peddlers of death.

Well, while alcohol be poisonous if one's intake borders on the heroically stupid, plenty of studies have also showed that 1-2 drinks a day can be beneficial to your health.
Outside of the 1920s, I haven't seen anything that would suggest tobacco is beneficial in any way whatsoever.

I see your point in one area though. I think it's absurd that tobacco companies can't sponsor sporting events but a brewery CAN sponsor a racing event ie: Molson Indy.

Another argument to outlaw ALL lobbyists. When special interest groups, industry and multinational corporations have direct influence on our lawmakers and the average citizen can't even contact them, somethings wrong.

I hate to say it, guys, but they should outlaw alcohol for women of breeding age, just like they do with some other drugs. Just too many FAE/FAS babies being born. As for the effects on young men's sex lives, they'll just have to take one for the team,

Why do we need more warning labels in the first place? Anyone who can read write or watch TV gets bombarded with the "tabacco is a killer" adverts non stop.

So, if that isn't enough to make a rational person stop smoking, or at least prevent them from starting, what good would more labels do?

BTW What happened to personal responsibility?

Apparently there are alot of people out there who need someone with half a brain to do the thinking for them and have willingly given the government that onerous duty.

Yeah, I'd actually be curious to see how much of an impact the labels have had as opposed to outright education on the matter.
I've had friends in the past that joked about the labels, treating them like hockey cards in a joking manner. Saying stuff like, "Got it. Got it. Need it. Got it."

What apparently has the greatest impact is making the packages very drab. So they should force the manufacturers to put out identical drab packages with just the name to differentiate them.

But in the end, it's a personal decision, and as FOG says - if you don't know ciggies are bad by now, you've got bigger problems than smoking.

But the real point of the story is about the influence of lobbyists in Ottawa. They should have bee told to get stuffed.

Well, while alcohol be poisonous if one's intake borders on the heroically stupid, plenty of studies have also showed that 1-2 drinks a day can be beneficial to your health.
Outside of the 1920s, I haven't seen anything that would suggest tobacco is beneficial in any way whatsoever.

I see your point in one area though. I think it's absurd that tobacco companies can't sponsor sporting events but a brewery CAN sponsor a racing event ie: Molson Indy.
Exactly. But Marlboro on a F1 car is illegal...

This. Every smoker sees the current warnings, I mean they're impossible to miss. Seems like these people constantly calling for label changes are so focused on being against tobacco that they're not thinking at all. There's no magic warning that will suddenly cause everyone to stop smoking, time to face that fact and quit wasting everyone's time and money about it.

The current warnings effective. They need to change though. You see the same ones over and over and they don't stand out anymore.

As a quitter ( ) I can say that I didn't quit because of the warnings on the packages. I couldn't care less if they were on there or not.
Everybody knows what smoking does to a body. Smokers either don't care, or are in denial. A set of smoked up lungs on a package isn't going to change it, nor will a bunch of flowers make them realize they smell.

Everybody knows because of an extensive advertising campaign including the warnings on cigs. Stop that and people will gladly forget about it again. You don't actually know what unconscious drives got you to quit. I'm sure you rationalized it in your conscious mind, but that's such a small part of your motivation.