Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Bulletin: Cigarettes Remain Dangerous to Your Health

1 year ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
The drug pusher companies known as Big Tobacco, those anachronistic but determined manufacturers of nicotine delivery systems, have been smoked out for marketing their deathly products in a manner misleading to their addicted buyers.

Even before the 1964 surgeon general's report warned consumers that cigarettes may be harmful to our health, advertisers were assuring doubtful smokers their tar-, nicotine-, flavoring- and preservative-laced packs of rolled-up tobacco were smoked by more doctors than any other brand.

Effective on Tuesday, the Food and Drug Administration, now regulating cigarette labeling, will ban selling cancer sticks promoted as low tar, mild or otherwise suggesting they are less lethal than other coffin nails. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) concluded that people who switch to so-called light cigarettes typically compensate, consuming enough nicotine to satisfy their craving by inhaling more deeply, taking longer or more frequent drags and smoking a few extra cigarettes each day. "More than half of daily American smokers – including nearly two-thirds of women who smoke – say they smoke brands marketed as 'light' or 'ultra-light,'" according to health advocates at the nonprofit Tobacco Free Kids.

As we all suspected, products marketed to appear less risky are every bit as dangerous to the health of the users and victims of second-hand smoke as the full-flavored and regular varieties of smokes. Through the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, enacted one year ago, the FDA is cracking down.

Not surprisingly, however, just as Don Draper counseled his Lucky Strike clients in the first season of "Mad Men": "We can say anything we want" ("It's toasted!") -- tobacco manufacturers are weaseling by switching packaging to color-coded boxes that signal healthier option misconceptions. R.J. Reynolds has changed Salem Lights and Ultra Lights to "Gold Box" and "Silver Box."

Thursday, Philip Morris Company had its wrist slapped by the FDA for attempting to perpetuate customers' mistaken belief their "light" cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes. ("Your Marlboro Lights pack is changing. But your cigarette stays the same . . . ask for 'Marlboro in the gold pack.'").

Maybe the FDA should insist on less ambiguous poison warnings? I suggest they start with "deadly," "equally deadly" and "no healthier than any other brand."
Filed Under: Woman Up, Medicine

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

3 Comments

Filter by:
ettu

Dangerous, YES, but no more so than alcohol. Why is it our Local, State, and Fed Gov'ts recognize the dangers of one, but not the other. I know they recognize the "cash cow" when they see it, and would suggest the taxes applied to tobacco products can now be considered extortion, or, at a minumum, discrimination against a segment of society. I would feel much more willing to tolerate the ever increasing taxes on tobacco, if the same was applied to alcohol. My only conclusion to why this is not done is because the DC elite, and the wealthy who must provide this little personality boost to those who attend their soirees, do not want to have to pay the price.

June 25 2010 at 12:38 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
JohnR

How is it that these companies are allowed to sell products that are known to cause cancer, other diseases, and even kill people?

Then, on the other side, we have warnings on cell phones, because they MIGHT POSSIBLY, in some cases, cause cancer.

There are all kinds of product ingredients or additives that are tested with the most sensitive statistical methods, to see if they could possibly be cancer-causing, and, if they are, they are banned.

But, still cigarettes and other tobacco products are allowed to be sold. How is this possible? Tax income? A big lobbyist presence?

It's time to bring back that "shards o' glass" PDA. Then, prohibit the cultivation, harvesting, and any use of tobacco that ends up in consumer products or consumer use.

June 18 2010 at 9:12 AM Report abuse -3 rate up rate down Reply
ettu

Was this planned to coincide with the 25 cent increase per pack of cigarettes? Our upstanding career politicians sure do recognize a cash cow when they see it. Unfortunately, they do not see the same dangers in their favorite vice, alcohol, and our children are subjected to numerous ads that show people enjoying life to the hilt, as long as they have a drink in their hands. As always, never about your safety, always about the revenue.

June 18 2010 at 8:23 AM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily


  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>