Great news: FDA ready to require photos of corpses on cigarette packs

posted at 9:33 pm on November 10, 2010 by Allahpundit

Don’t blame them. It was your elected representatives, in bipartisan fashion, who passed an anti-smoking statute last year requiring the FDA to impose more “graphic” health warnings on cigarette packaging. Evidently putting “you’ll get cancer” on the side of the carton is no longer deemed a sufficient deterrent to lighting one up, so now we’re actually going to thrust photos of putrefying flesh into smokers’ faces in hopes of steering them away. Coming soon, presumably: Mandating special flavor additives to ciggies so that you actually throw up while smoking.

You can see the images they have in mind, section by section, by clicking here and then following the links under the heading “Proposed Graphic Health Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements.” Things really start hopping in the “Smoking can kill you” section, but if you think that’s bad, have a look at the sort of sick-making imagery Brazil puts on their cigarette packs. They look like stills from the set of “Dawn of the Dead.”

We all know where this happy trend is headed; watch the ad below from Nanny Bloomberg’s health department in case you missed it last year. Here’s a label cooked up by a creative Twitter pal to help usher in the new golden age of gross-out disincentives. Slap it on the side of a Happy Meal and you’re good to go — assuming Happy Meals are still legal in your city, that is.

Update: Belated exit question: Does this mean we’re ready for a law requiring pictures of dismembered fetuses on the walls of Planned Parenthood? It’s all about informed choices, after all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Tobacco is a legal product, one that enjoys federal subsidies, one that is exported liberally overseas, all perfectly legal.

Smoking is a choice. A personal decision. A legal decision.

Now, somebody using a legal product in the manner in which it was intended to be legally used has to face “gubmint” shoving pictures of all manner of disgust in their faces?

So, I am to believe that “gubmint” now considers all Americans incapable of making choices, incapable of using a legal product in the manner in which it was legally intended?

What next? Ban Happy meals?

coldwarrior on November 11, 2010 at 6:18 AM

what an idiotic idea…

cmsinaz on November 11, 2010 at 6:18 AM

The same f***ing idiots who want to legalize pot want to make filtered tobacco illegal. People with childlike minds run our government. If your logic functions and emotional development are both locked in at 6th grade levels, you should not work in government.

Jaibones on November 11, 2010 at 6:22 AM

How about pictures of people with AIDS on packs of KY.

Where does this government intrusion end?

stenwin77 on November 11, 2010 at 6:34 AM

It would serve ‘em right if we did all quit… and de-fund SCHIP while we’re about it. Hmmph.

Murf76 on November 11, 2010 at 6:45 AM

I may start smoking again just to carry around a picture of a tarred out lung in public.

This is just dumb, no one looks at the pack while they smoke. half the time it will ride around in a pocket, for no one to see.

Gatsu on November 11, 2010 at 6:52 AM

Invest in cigarette cases now.

RedRedRice on November 11, 2010 at 6:55 AM

Seriously. It’s time to start growing our own tobacco, brewing our own beer, and telling the government to stuff their sin taxes and their intrusion.

They’re such appalling hypocrites with their faux-concern about our health while all along, they’re taking huge cuts off the top and destroying our relationships with our doctors.

This is why they’re so snarky about electronic cigarettes. They’ve got no proof that they’re harmful, but they aren’t making as much dough off e-vapor as they make off tobacco.

Murf76 on November 11, 2010 at 6:55 AM

Can we get Leftists to wear shirts showing graphic images of the dead due to Socialist policies across the globe?

Gas chamber photos.

Images from Pol Pot’s reign.

Some of the pictures from Stalin’s time and later of political prisoners?

How about listing the dead that Che! killed and tortured, that should be a good front/back sort of deal to know why the peasants turned on him…

“Vote for a larger government and this is what you get!”

A bit of ‘truth in advertising’ would help a lot with Leftists, too.

ajacksonian on November 11, 2010 at 7:02 AM

Mail the empty packs to your congress members.

zoyclem on November 11, 2010 at 7:06 AM

Repeal this immediately. This is sick. I can just see the kids collecting the various pictures on the packs.

SC.Charlie on November 11, 2010 at 7:07 AM

Stay away from the bacon!

davidk on November 11, 2010 at 7:14 AM

Will they soon require photos of corpses on Obamacare policies?

Tommy_G on November 11, 2010 at 7:16 AM

I miss them NOT because I miss the smoking (sometimes I do), but because I miss the freedom we had. I’d rather the freedom than the smoke-free environment.

Gob on November 10, 2010 at 11:59 PM

Give me liberty, or give me *cough cough* death!

Seriously, though. I agree with you.

Businesses should be allowed to set their own rules. Smoke-free; smoking/non-smoking; or smoking.

It’s a private (property) place. Let the owners choose. If I don’t like the place because of cig smoke, I can go somewhere else, stay at home, or start my own business.

davidk on November 11, 2010 at 7:22 AM

FDA office:

I don’t know guys, we need to do something or our funding will be cut back. We need a controversy, so we seem relevant. Any suggestions?….

right2bright on November 11, 2010 at 7:35 AM

I recall that the expansion of the SCHIP Program was predicated on increasing the program’s revenue stream by dramatically raising taxes on tobacco products. An additional effect of the legislation would be to “coax” smokers into healthier lifestyle choices, thereby reducing the need for medical care, and reducing those costs, as well.

If smokers change their habits and buy fewer tobacco products at a steady or increasing rate, due to this “advertising” plan, then the function “f(x)” will be to REDUCE the revenues available to the SCHIP Program. Where and how will our tax masters make up the shortfall?

Oh…wait…I know…

grumpy_old_soldier on November 11, 2010 at 7:43 AM

Now that the left is close to legalizing marijhania, I suppose the pictures on a pack of joints will feature all of the great phycidelic posters of the sixties.

This marketing is not ment to keep the user healthy or warn them of the harm its use can cause, its primary purpose is to fixate the user so much on the packaging that they do not move or do anything useful.

MSGTAS on November 11, 2010 at 7:43 AM

Alcohol = liver disease
Cars = car crash
Sun = skin cancer
Sugar = diabetes
Laziness = fat folks with diabetes
Sitting at the computer = bad back and carpel tunnel

I’m imagining graphic warning labels everywhere! Blah blah blah …

j_galt on November 11, 2010 at 7:46 AM

It was your elected representatives, in bipartisan fashion, who passed an anti-smoking statute last year requiring the FDA to impose more “graphic” health warnings on cigarette packaging.

Obviously Congress has too much time on their hands. Let’s cut the legislative session to three months/year. What doesn’t get done in three months doesn’t get done.

Gubmint may have a legitimate function to inform, but it has no legitimate authority to indoctrinate, especially when it comes to consumer choices.

petefrt on November 11, 2010 at 7:46 AM

Car accident victims on the advertisement of every car! Pics of people with liver disease on every 6 pack. There’s no end to this, for the leftist trash so into snuff.

Of course, said leftist trash could just move to ban the product. But if they did that, no more sugar daddy buying their 30 year old “child” their health insurance.

MNHawk on November 11, 2010 at 7:47 AM

Will they soon require photos of corpses on Obamacare policies?

Tommy_G on November 11, 2010 at 7:16 AM

Corpses and Death Panels.

And remember this? FDA may pull Avastin approval over cost concerns FDA, in its infinite wisdom, may decide that because certain drugs are too expensive for some people, they will ban them for all people. FDA runs amok.

petefrt on November 11, 2010 at 7:59 AM

Great idea. Lets just add in the language that requires the same type of photos for each abortion.

Kill an unborn Eagle (egg) get 10 years Federal Prison.
Kill an unborn Human (fetus) get monetary assistance.

barnone on November 11, 2010 at 8:18 AM

Buy some tobacco and roll your own.

ConDem on November 11, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Mandated packaging advertising propaganda has to be paid for by someone. Whether or not I smoke (never have) I’d certainly not vote for taxpayers to pay for the new packaging requirement.

Even laying the burden on the smoking industry, requiring one of America’s oldest and prosperous crops to kill itself is not the legitimate role of government. Hearst paid Congress and the Potus to make America’s oldest most useful crop illegal, Hemp that makes the best fabrics, ropes, paper and a multitude of industrial products including ecological auto frames and clean burning FUEL. If the tobacco plant could produce similar industrial products as hemp, then the government could give tax credits encouraging the industry’s transition.

I understand that addictive tobacco repeated used kills and maims the human body. I also understand that our federal socialist government has undertaken to provide health care for everyone, and that though I protest, tax funds are spent mending bodies suffering from the results from their choice, the effects of smoking. Given mandated eugenics and rationed health care, we see the immediate transition making everyone wonder why should those who forgo smoking/drinking be forced to pay for those who chose to, and be forced to wait longer for medical treatment given the load of self-made rotten bodies in the health care system.

Utilize public education properly. Rather than squander our children’s upbringing with lurid encouragement to participate in sexual activities, have real empirical science health class.

In fourth grade P.E. on a rainy day hence “health class”, we had a lesson about smoking and saw pictures of lungs, contrasting the lungs of a lifelong smoker to healthy lungs, and pictures of hospitalized patients who’d smoked their entire life. I deciding that whatever smoking was supposed to be, it certainly wasn’t worth doing that to myself, performing my own slow suicide through an excruciating death, each breath intense pain. The message was that every cigarette smoked took a day off your life, and healthy children don’t want to die. Age appropriate lessons would get more and more realistic and gruesome, including ALL of the personal and financial costs for medical treatment attempting to reverse the effects smoking has on the body.

maverick muse on November 11, 2010 at 8:27 AM

If the feds were so intent on keeping us all safe from cigarettes, why don’t they just ban them? I mean, hey, smoking-related deaths are certainly higher than cocaine-related deaths, and coke is illegal.

Nah, just tax it to death to help fund other ridiculous projects, and condemn the cigarette companies to hell while surreptitiously pocketing their campaign contributions.

Pope Linus on November 11, 2010 at 8:32 AM

Late to the party. These types of lables have been used in Canada and Europe for years. The only people they dissuade are people who don’t smoke to begin with. The rest of us smokers ignore the photos. Great job Government, another waste of money.

ExPat on November 11, 2010 at 8:33 AM

Let’s cut the legislative session to three months/year. What doesn’t get done in three months doesn’t get done.

Biennial Sessions during which no new laws are passed.

We already have all the laws we could ever need, MORE laws than should be on the books, and a government that refuses to enforce constitutional law and those laws on the books.

Amend the Constitution to make legislating new laws illegal.

Leave Congress to rescind socialist programs, and pare down to constitutional law and a minimalist federal government. That will be the day.

Congress members, the Administration, and everyone in government won’t willingly relinquish their guaranteed wealth via kickbacks from earmarks and government deals.

maverick muse on November 11, 2010 at 8:36 AM

coldwarrior on November 11, 2010 at 6:18 AM

Except that smoking where others can smell it causes them distress.

Count to 10 on November 11, 2010 at 8:36 AM

Except that smoking where others can smell it causes them distress.

Count to 10 on November 11, 2010 at 8:36 AM

Many things cause others distress. My ex-wife, for example…

That said, a bit of simple common sense should prevail.

Was a time when it was customary, obligatory, really, to ask, “May I smoke?” And the others in the group could say “no.” Done deal. Restaurants had no smoking signs long long before gubmint mandated it.

Allowing the marketplace to decide also is common sense. If the restaurant you favor allows smoking…then do not patronize it. If the customer base drops off, perhaps management will take a look at setting up seperate facilities, or perhaps not allowing smoking at all.

As for employees…ask them when they hire on if they are averse to smoking or not. Proceed from there.

But for all the money wasted over the decades, the reality is that smoking is declining not the result of government pogroms but of personal choice.

As it should be.

coldwarrior on November 11, 2010 at 8:45 AM

I smoke for the children!!

kringeesmom on November 11, 2010 at 8:46 AM

I smoke for the children!!

kringeesmom on November 11, 2010 at 8:46 AM

Chuckle, I smoke for the penal system. The system that the taxes from my habit fund. Anthother case of unintended consequences. People stop smoking though education (not mandate), tax revenues go down, taxes are raised on the remaining population. Rinse/repeat.

ExPat on November 11, 2010 at 8:50 AM

My first thought was well at least now they can’t scream about graphic anti abortion ads can they?

ctmom on November 11, 2010 at 8:50 AM

When I was smoking you could have made the cigarette packs out of lung tissue and I wouldn’t have cared. I needed the damned cigarettes and the packaging didn’t mean squat, just the sweet, sweet nicotine and the pleasure of sucking on that paper-wrapped cellulose nipple.

Extrafishy on November 11, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Cry me a river. All you folks who want to ban smoking need to consider just how much money the Federal, State, and Local governments will loose. Where will they make up this lost revenue, we have already seen that they will not reduce spending just because they steal less in taxes.

What about the folks who grow, process, sell, manufacture, and distribute tobacco products? What crop will they grow? How many hundreds of thousands will become unemployed? How much revenue will the Federal, State, and Local governments loose from their unemployment?

Consider what happened to the settlement money from the lawsuits against big tobacco – where did it all go?

More importantly, what will be next? Step on your scale – oops, you’re over the Federally mandated BMI – pay your tax! Or will it be your Big Mac and fries or your Dunkin’ Donuts?

Quite beside the point of the Federal government regulating and taxing a commodity, just where in the constitution does it give the government the power to decide that an adult may or may not consume a product that is legal and heavily taxed? In the 20′s they tried it with alcohol and gave birth to organized crime. What will be the result of trying it with tobacco or fast food or any other legal (today) commodity?

Those of you who wish to ban smoking (for whatever reason) need to consider what will become the next big bad item. And you need to decide just how much government regulation you will allow over your life. Wasn’t this the reason we (Americans) left Europe?

jackal40 on November 11, 2010 at 8:59 AM

Was closing down the FDA on the blue ribbon panel’s list of savings? If not, that is an important omission.

Vashta.Nerada on November 11, 2010 at 9:01 AM

In NY a pack costs $11.00…..$6.00 of that is tax. So, if anyone is wondering ” If it’s so dangerous to smoke, and it increases medical insurance, blah, blah, blah….”
Well, the gubmint is making some nice cash off of tar lungs.

centre on November 11, 2010 at 9:01 AM

I think they should include a copy of Stephen King’s short story Quitters Inc. with every carton of smokes.

mizflame98 on November 11, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Update: Belated exit question: Does this mean we’re ready for a law requiring pictures of dismembered fetuses on the walls of Planned Parenthood? It’s all about informed choices, after all.

Aptly put, AP.

KinleyArdal on November 11, 2010 at 9:07 AM

The govt is forcing private companies to say things publicly.

Whatever one thinks of smoking, that should be of concern.

Akzed on November 11, 2010 at 9:27 AM

And at the same time, they want to legalize pot.

Inhaling smoke is bad for you! Regardless of what is burning. People who smoke cigarettes know that it is unhealthy. Telling them again isn’t going to do anything about it.

I remember Drew Carey doing standup talking about how he likes to smoke and he knows it is going to kill him. Then he goes on to say that he knows it because everytime he decides to smoke a dozen people walk by and tell him. His reply was something along the lines of “If you don’t let me smoke in peace, I will out live you.” LOL

I’m sure I could go to YouTube and find the clip, but I’m too lazy to do so.

I hate the smell of smoke. When I was single I would even go to clubs with roof decks or patios to get away from the smoke. And I support Smokers’ rights.

jeffn21 on November 11, 2010 at 9:33 AM

I think they should put a photo of aborted fetus’ at abortion clinics then.

lilium on November 11, 2010 at 9:36 AM

FDA office:

I don’t know guys, we need to do something or our funding will be cut back. We need a controversy, so we seem relevant. Any suggestions?….

right2bright on November 11, 2010 at 7:35 AM

Sadly this is repeated in every federal agency daily.

When I was smoking you could have made the cigarette packs out of lung tissue and I wouldn’t have cared. I needed the damned cigarettes and the packaging didn’t mean squat, just the sweet, sweet nicotine and the pleasure of sucking on that paper-wrapped cellulose nipple.

Extrafishy on November 11, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Dang! I’m ready to start up again!

TugboatPhil on November 11, 2010 at 9:44 AM

How about a picture of decaying inner cities on food stamps, as it encourages dependency and discourages family planning? Or a child-labor sweatshop on social security checks, representing the debt we’re placing on our children? Instead of cheery signs on road projects paid for by the Stimulus, how about a picture of Uncle Sam toiling under the whip of the Red Chinese, representing the money we borrow from them to pay for the stimulus? On ethanol enriched gasoline, an emblem showing a dollar bill being burnt, or alternatively starving third world children, as ethanol is not cost effective, and artificially drives up food prices.

Paul-Cincy on November 11, 2010 at 9:46 AM

I lost both my parents to cigarette related disease. I’ve always hated the smell of tobacco smoke, especially on my clothes. I’ve never smoked. I hate cigarettes.

Having said that, let people do what they do. I live in Ohio, which has a state-wide ban on smoking. What is this, fascist Germany? Blue collar guy works in a steel mill all day, wants to have a beer and smoke in the local bar … nope. Against the law!

Paul-Cincy on November 11, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Waste of money. There’s a ton of psychological research that explains why this approach doesn’t work.

Dee2008 on November 11, 2010 at 9:52 AM

People who smoke aren’t going to be scared off by pictures of dead people. I read the warning label once and kept right on puffing. I quit because I wanted to, not because some govt wanted me to. I’d start again but smoking in bars is against the law.

Kissmygrits on November 11, 2010 at 10:03 AM

A picture of zero dragging on a cigarette with the caption
“smoking can severely damage the ability to make correct decisions.

dragondrop on November 11, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Then I think the new Democrat logo ought to show pictures depicting slavery, segregation, and abortion. We should have truth in advertising after all.

Vote D for death.

Mojave Mark on November 11, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Hey, right, let’s publicize this total waste of government money by using that picture of Obummer with the cig hanging out of his mouth and photoshop a pack with a body on it.

Brilliant. Smoking rates skyrocket and the government gets a windfall, which is all this is about, as usual.

ORconservative on November 11, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Said Health and Human Servies Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Today marks an important milestone in protecting our children and the health of the American public.”

Uhhh, ok? If you’re so concerned, make them illegal. All this talk about protecting people from the dangers of smoking while the government is swimming in the tax revenue brought in by people smoking is a disgusting display.

I quit a year ago, I’m happy for it. I didn’t quit because of health hazards though, or because people had to run up in my face and tell me it was bad for me; I quit because I couldn’t bear paying an additional 50$ in taxes to the government each week for the privilege of killing myself.

Heralder on November 11, 2010 at 10:42 AM

So how long before they mandate writing things like IF YOU BOUGHT THIS CRAP YOU’RE LOOSER WHO GONNA DIE HORRIBLE DEATH all over the pack?

Alexey on November 11, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Perhaps the government should force the treasury to put pictures of Obama on social security checks.

Dhuka on November 11, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Life is very stressful…

Then I go to the range and all is good again.

Can I get a medical discount on my ammo for stress relief, please?

ajacksonian on November 11, 2010 at 11:14 AM

A sticker on the ballot showing that if you vote democrat, you’ll get violently mugged.

lorien1973 on November 11, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Next … pictures of dead people on IRS forms.

“Death and Taxes”

J_Crater on November 11, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Uhhh, ok? If you’re so concerned, make them illegal. All this talk about protecting people from the dangers of smoking while the government is swimming in the tax revenue brought in by people smoking is a disgusting display.

OOH! TAX REVENUES!! Which is why NO politician will make a move to outlaw tobacco. Plus the fact that tobacco is probably one of our primary exports.

I quit a year ago, I’m happy for it.

I quit when my daughter was born. Trust me, you’ll feel the improvements, though depending on how long you smoked you body will take a few years to do repairs.

Heralder on November 11, 2010 at 10:42 AM

oldleprechaun on November 11, 2010 at 11:27 AM

How about they put up pictures on small cars of what happens in case of accident: Feds should propose graphic warning labels on small cars they are pushing rather than cigarettes. Here are two suggestions

theblogprof on November 11, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Just one more example where government is over stepping its bounds. Government needs to be reigned in at all levels. The problem with agencies like HHS and the EPA they are staffed by Zealots and control freaks.
.
Reduce federal payroll by 5 percent per year for 10 years.”

Dasher on November 11, 2010 at 11:47 AM

So Car accident victims should be shown in all future car brochures, right?

portlandon on November 11, 2010 at 12:00 PM

I haven’t read them all, but I have to love the utter santicmony of the obvious anti-smokers. Guess what? We all die. Healthy people who’ve never had a smoke in their lives die too. If I want to smoke, it’s MY business. If you run a business where you want smokers, that should be YOUR business. If you don’t want smokers, that should be YOUR business too. The government should stay the he!! out of it. As for the proposed pictures, won’t mean a thing to me. Seeing my non-smoking Mom lying in an ICU after a terrible motorcycle accident just happens to be a defining image for me, thanks, corpses can’t compare, and I doubt I’ll ever get on a bike again. But I will smoke, and eventually die of something (could be ANYTHING), and I’ll eat salt, fat, and whatever else I damn well please as long as busy-bodies don’t ruin it. Genetics never gets a nod, but it should, I smoke, I drink, and I eat what I want. I am also MUCH healthier than most of the people I know, even the non-smoking, non-drinking, bland-food eating health freaks, who all look like they’re about to die anyway. I’ll take responsibility for my choices, you take responsibility for yours, and LEAVE ME ALONE.

Researcher...MO on November 11, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Remember those cool, sleek, cigarette cases everyone used to have in the movies back in the 40s?

Yeah, sales are about to be booming again.

Daemonocracy on November 11, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Up next, all beer commercials will need at least one violent, gory car crash?

hawksruleva on November 11, 2010 at 12:19 PM

If I was the tobacco companies, I’d lobby to be made illegal. Look how popular pot is. If marijuana had to do all sorts of explicit warnings, and were taxed similarly, it wouldn’t be nearly as popular.

As an illegal product, they wouldn’t have to worry about enforcment, either. RJR can just call themselves narco-terrorists, and the Obama administration won’t be willing to anger them.

hawksruleva on November 11, 2010 at 12:21 PM

What happened to “it my body”, I thought the Demwits thought you had the right to chose what you wanted to do to your body, kill a baby, or kill yourself, they say kill the baby.

WoosterOh on November 11, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Hah! If I smoked I’d love it, I’d try to get the pack with the most disgusting picture and hold it like a badge to my bad-ass-ness. It was thew whole reason we drank Everclear, Oorah!

Alden Pyle on November 11, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Found this message from Kathleen Sibelius at the Smoker-in-Chief’s W.H. website.

Buy Danish on November 11, 2010 at 1:10 PM

But, remember, pro-lifers are sickos for wanting women to see pictures of fetuses before they decide to kill them.

Y-not on November 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Genetics never gets a nod, but it should…

Granny smoked all her life. Cigarettes killed her at the age of 102.

itsacookbook on November 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Update: Belated exit question: Does this mean we’re ready for a law requiring pictures of dismembered fetuses on the walls of Planned Parenthood? It’s all about informed choices, after all.

Only when cigarettes are $400 a pack, are only sold at doctors’ offices or hospitals and require a 24 hour waiting period to consider after the receipt of a document describing the procedure, the fetus’ development and real risks before you can buy them.

Jimbo3 on November 11, 2010 at 2:12 PM

How about pictures of people with AIDS on packs of KY.

Where does this government intrusion end?

stenwin77 on November 11, 2010 at 6:34 AM

Heh, Heh, Heh, Heh…He said “intrusion”.

Jimbo3 on November 11, 2010 at 2:14 PM

maverick muse on November 11, 2010 at 8:36 AM

Too true! Just a while back the Congressional Research Dept was asked to compile a list of all the laws congress has written. The response…”it is literally impossible to even know the number of laws written.”

This my friends is gov’t run amok.

If “ignorance of the law is no defense”, then abosultey no-one is safe from prosecution or persecution, the CRD with this confirms that no-one knows what laws are out there. And there some truly bizarro – antiquated laws still on the books.

In Idaho, the law still is listed that when released from custody thae have give you a horse and a gun. Good kuck in trying to get them to make good on this. In Georgia, it remains against the law to copulate with your wife in position other than “missionary”, really.

Cogress should be required to strike 2 laws for every new one written, period. Rand wrote Gov’t has no desire to jail everyone, just the ability to jail anyone.

Archimedes on November 11, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Granny smoked all her life. Cigarettes killed her at the age of 102.

itsacookbook on November 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Dammit! Cut down in her prime.

Extrafishy on November 11, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Does this mean that dead aids victims (cough) and pictures of victims of syphilis and gonorrhea will appear on condom labels?

How ’bout pictures of really, really large dead people (you know the ones they had to knock a hole in the side of the house to get out and were buried in a piano crate.) on the side of Big Mac cartons?

PLeeeeaasee will you jackhole liberals just stop with the nagging? Don’t you believe in Darwin and the Survival of the fittest? The stupid and self-indulgent have always had a higher mortality rate.

jcw46 on November 11, 2010 at 2:43 PM

You’re upset because you have to see what you’re doing to your internal organs? oh noes!

That being said, they’ve had these in Oz for years, and I really don’t know if they’ve had an impact. It’d be interesting to see if it has, though

I’m still against the idea nonetheless, but a lot of that boils down to how it ties in with the notion of public/’free’ healthcare, really.

Reaps on November 12, 2010 at 8:18 AM

“So Billy, you brutally slayed your classmates because of your playing violent video games?”
“No, I got the idea from a pack of cigarettes and Earth First PSAs.”

Coronagold on November 12, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Hey, lets put warning labels on ObamaCare.

petefrt on November 12, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Maybe next we can put similar pictures on recruitment posters? /morbid mind

Dark-Star on November 15, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3