A reader writes:
The latest round of emails illustrates why this campaign really bothers me. I have no problem with warning labels (on tobacco or anything else). That, to me, seems like a useful role for government. Consumers should be informed about the potential dangers of any product they are considering and private industry cannot always be relied upon to deliver that (as evidenced by the tobacco companies themselves).
These pictures go beyond that.
It's not enough to inform consumers anymore, because people know the risks and they still smoke. So now the government has to try to scare them into not using the product. (Of course, they have been doing this for years and I would bet that most people are greatly overestimating the odds of a smoker developing lung cancer.) The health care costs are exaggerated and, at any rate, until the government begins offering free lung cancer treatments to all citizens it really has no interest in the matter.
But what about the children? Scare tactics are probably an effective way to prevent children from smoking. They are also a very effective way to instill distrust in the government because, generally speaking, people don't like being deceived.
Another writes:
I can't believe you posted this reader email, especially the following bit:
I think most American people have addictive personalities. If you take cigarettes away, it's going to be something else they smoke, drink, chew, or inject. Americans in general are lacking when it comes to nutrition and health. I'd like to see the insurance companies spend some of their profits to educate the public about healthy lifestyles, and not some brand-building, feel-good, jingly-jangly message, but more of a scared-straight kind of approach.
I'm glad that person "thinks" that, but we shouldn't decide public policy simply on what people "think" is the case. In fact, Terry Gross had a wonderful interview with David Linden (neuroscientist at John's Hopkins) on yesterday's Fresh Air. First, he noted that cigarettes are 80% addictive, as compared with, for instance, heroin, which comes in at 30%. Second, he remarked that, "Any one of us could be an addict at any time. Addiction is not fundamentally a moral failing – it's not a disease of weak-willed losers."
As for the "nanny state" issue, sure, one could look at this as an instance of government overreach and micromanaging. But one could also look at it as an issue of a child's right not to be lured into an expensive and deadly addiction by sexy marketing. People decry the "nanny" state when it coddles adults, but in this instance the main concern is children, who last time I checked did not have the same fully developed frontal cortex that I presume most adults have.
Another:
Instead of putting obscenely gross photos on cigarette packages and ads, why not try something new and unique – stop subsidizing tobacco!
The Dish 