Why Cigarettes Packs Should Be Changed?

As a former smoker I feel that cigs should be banned and as a pot legalist that MJ should be legal. Cigs do nothing but harm to you and if we had Gov regulated MJ from state sponsored shops, responsible adults would get the chill smoke they need and if that works out, the evil industry of tobacco would and should go bankrupt. Tobacco is the real evil. MJ is on the same par as beer is. Sure you should not work stoned but what you do on your own time is your own business but what you do on the road is everyone’s business so therefore I would support breathalyzers to test for stoned driving just like drunk driving but I clearly have seen that I have driven a tangent from the path of the question so I need to regress.

Cig packs should have a skull and cross bones on them as well as a picture of a wheezing person. That’s my favorite. Cigarettes are really stupid and tobacco does no one any good and the government should subsidy tobacco farmers to grow anything else such or lettuce of peppers. I would make tobacco illegal if I were in charge of such opperations.

@Kraken the evil industry of tobacco would and should go bankrupt.
Yeah right, because planting and refining marijuana is so much different and it is abosultely impossible to convert the plantations!

And for the record, the problem is not that you smoke tobacco the problem is that you smoke. Your lungs are damaged by the waste of combustion that exists wether you smoke tobacco, MJ or paper.

As for MJ being on the same tier as beer, no. Just no. Alcohol makes you violent, obnoxious and stupid. MJ makes you stupid and mellow. I tink beer is far more dangerous than MJ when it comes to damaging others. Then again i live in italy, where every sunday drunken hooligans act like the law is on vacation, mainly because policemen largely fall in the same demographics as drunken hooligans.

Are they doing it becuse the terms are misleading? “Light” might imply less nicotine, or “low-tar” might imply less tar. Both terms do not truly quantify anything.
Maybe the Tar and Nicotine numbers should be made larger, or printed in a bolder font.

I believe the calorie content printed on food packaging should be in larger font as well.

Funny, my family and I were talking about this earlier! I agree, tobacco companies should not be able to put “low-tar” on a pack of cigarettes (low-tar compared to what? not smoking…?) Also, I understand that the fonts, box colors, and label designs vary from one brand to the next so that the consumer can easily distinguish between the brands, but packs of cigarettes are kind of PRETTY, don’t you think? So joyfully colorful. IMHO, the boxes should be plain and have fonts like the ones on prescription bottles from the pharmacy.

BUT.. now that the US government has full control over the disbursement of tobacco in my country, we are really screwed. I guarantee it will either A) stay just as ridiculous as it is now, or B) get much worse. I think it might be B)...

As a smoker I hate all of the new anti-smoking laws. I’m perfectly comfortable with not being allowed to smoke in a public venue anymore, that doesn’t bother me. I would much rather smoke away from non-smokers than have them be forced to smell or inhale my second hand smoke. On the other hand, I don’t feel like my health is anyone’s business but my own. I think it’s smart to change the packaging to some degree, but not much. I don’t want anyone that has never smoked a cigarette before to start. It’s a terrible habit that’s incredibly hard to quit. I can’t help but feel like most people already know that smoking is terrible. The packaging has little to do with it in my opinion. I also feel like the more taboo it is to smoke, the more likely rebellious teenagers are to try it. Regardless of the package.
Marijuana (most street drugs, for that matter) usually come in a clear, rumpled plastic baggy. I don’t see people drawn to the packaging.

@Thammuz I would thoroughly suggest that mj smokers would use converters that takes the tar and other harmful free radicals out of their smoke. It would be a lot safer if the government were to regulate it and hence the ‘war on drugs’ could then be more sternly focused against cocaine, heroine and meth. This not only makes sense, it also makes cents. I am not talking about profit but mainly I am talking about loss that the DEA spends and decent weed that the US gvmt. sells to 21+ yr. olds would put a lot of small time dealers out of business and lots of drug sellers would dry up. Why do you think the US leads the world in per capita inmate population. More $$$ for clinics and less $$$ for prisons since MJ would be legal and dealers would have no more product. It’s a win / win situation.

It’s not a ban, per se, it’s more of a labeling restriction. It’s the same way cereals aren’t allowed to use phrases like Boosts Immunity!

I think it’s important because it keeps the tobacco companies acting in a more honest manner. Tests have shown again and again that the way cigarette levels are tested doesn’t mimic the way humans smoke- so the addition of labels such as ‘low tar’ don’t mean much in the real world. They are just phrases used by the tobacco companies to make it seem healthier.

Maybe to lessen the impact tobacco companies have on people when they use words like “light” and “mild.” Those words are there to convince the purchaser that smoking tobacco is not that bad.

“Now, Carbon Neutral with No Net CO2 !”
Can’t wait to see who’s first.

@Kraken @Thammuz I would thoroughly suggest that mj smokers would use converters that takes the tar and other harmful free radicals out of their smoke.

Except even without tar and nicotine your lungs would still be shit if you smoked too much, the residues of combustion are not dependent on tar and tobacco. You’re still smoking. If you, i dunno, drank it like tea, it would be different, but smoking is smoking. It can be more or less cancerous but it still is.

It’s the smoke, that will kill ya.