If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(South Jersey Courier-Post)   Federal appeals court rules that government cannot force you to stare at graphic photos of diseased lungs every time to you try to buy a Slim Jim at the convenience store   (courierpostonline.com) divider line 81
    More: Spiffy, United States courts of appeals, cigarette packs, health effects of tobacco, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., lungs, color image, court ruling, majority opinion  
•       •       •

4120 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2012 at 9:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-25 09:55:16 AM
You mean can't force manufacturers can't be forced to put that on there.

I'm guessing that means the surgeon general's warning will be next on the chopping block, because corporations are people my friend, and they deserve free speech just like anyone else.
 
2012-08-25 09:57:43 AM
" every time to you try to buy a Slim Jim". Were you thinking "BITE INTO A SLIM JIM" while typing?
 
2012-08-25 10:00:15 AM
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington affirmed a lower court ruling that the requirement ran afoul of the First Amendment's free speech protections.

That's OK, Obama can still tell us what we can and can't put on Facebook.
static1.businessinsider.com
 
2012-08-25 10:00:51 AM

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: " every time to you try to buy a Slim Jim". Were you thinking "BITE INTO A SLIM JIM" while typing?


Did you mean SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM while typing that?
 
2012-08-25 10:03:00 AM

meat0918: You mean can't force manufacturers can't be forced to put that on there.

I'm guessing that means the surgeon general's warning will be next on the chopping block, because corporations are people my friend, and they deserve free speech just like anyone else.


Do you think, at this point in time, that there's anybody anywhere who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you?
 
2012-08-25 10:04:59 AM
In Canada they're so graphic that I think I would be in violation of Fark posting guidelines if I posted them here.
 
2012-08-25 10:05:45 AM
I say that the government should either make tobacco illegal (and stop taking tobacco taxes) or stop harassing me while I buy and use a legal product.
 
2012-08-25 10:06:16 AM
i98.photobucket.com

Agrees!
 
2012-08-25 10:06:41 AM

MFAWG: meat0918: You mean can't force manufacturers can't be forced to put that on there.

I'm guessing that means the surgeon general's warning will be next on the chopping block, because corporations are people my friend, and they deserve free speech just like anyone else.

Do you think, at this point in time, that there's anybody anywhere who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you?


And that right there will be part of the argument.

And if they win that hypothetical case, then warning labels on a lot of other things will start being challenged and going away, especially those "These statements not evaluated by the FDA" on supplements.

I don't like the slippery slope argument, but this is one of those times where I do see the potential for a cascade of rulings because "corporations are people and have free speech rights".
 
2012-08-25 10:07:01 AM
Wait, aren't those made from diseased lung?
 
2012-08-25 10:07:32 AM

lenfromak: I say that the government should either make tobacco illegal (and stop taking tobacco taxes) or stop harassing me while I buy and use a legal product.


They won't, the tax money is too much to pass up. Plus, prohibition doesn't work.
 
2012-08-25 10:08:03 AM
That's okay. I'm picking up a pack of chewlies gum instead.
 
2012-08-25 10:09:33 AM
In other news, marijuana is still illegal. I assume because it's so much more dangerous than tobacco and booze... WTF
 
2012-08-25 10:10:44 AM
Smoking is bad for you. Everyone everywhere is aware of this. Calm it down government. No matter what you do a certain number of 15 year olds will still smoke
 
2012-08-25 10:11:15 AM

meat0918: MFAWG: meat0918: You mean can't force manufacturers can't be forced to put that on there.

I'm guessing that means the surgeon general's warning will be next on the chopping block, because corporations are people my friend, and they deserve free speech just like anyone else.

Do you think, at this point in time, that there's anybody anywhere who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you?

And that right there will be part of the argument.

And if they win that hypothetical case, then warning labels on a lot of other things will start being challenged and going away, especially those "These statements not evaluated by the FDA" on supplements.

I don't like the slippery slope argument, but this is one of those times where I do see the potential for a cascade of rulings because "corporations are people and have free speech rights".


I'm getting a tad suspicious of the 'ZOMG KORPRATIONS FREESPEECH' arguments myself.
 
2012-08-25 10:11:42 AM
And they shouldn't. Every smoker knows the risks.
 
2012-08-25 10:13:12 AM

Smackledorfer: Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: " every time to you try to buy a Slim Jim". Were you thinking "BITE INTO A SLIM JIM" while typing?

Did you mean SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM while typing that?


You meant "STEP INTO A SLIM JIM." when you replied.
 
2012-08-25 10:14:13 AM

flucto: Wait, aren't those made from diseased lung?


Came here to say this.
Going to the Fair now.
 
2012-08-25 10:14:24 AM

EZ Writer: In other news, marijuana is still illegal. I assume because it's so much more dangerous than tobacco and booze... WTF


What we need is a bigger government. Then they will make weed legal and we will all have much more personal freedom.
 
2012-08-25 10:15:18 AM
We The People win another one. We've been prevailing a lot lately. Only 75 years of damage left to reverse.
 
2012-08-25 10:15:56 AM

MFAWG: meat0918: You mean can't force manufacturers can't be forced to put that on there.

I'm guessing that means the surgeon general's warning will be next on the chopping block, because corporations are people my friend, and they deserve free speech just like anyone else.

Do you think, at this point in time, that there's anybody anywhere who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you?


I was in a restaurant with calorie labels yesterday. Without them, apparently I would have purchased a meal with 1700 calories. It was a ciabatta turkey and avecado sammich. I have no clue how a sandwich (at a bakery, not a novelty oversize purveyor od 'drunk food') gets those numbers.

It isn't the same, but I wouldn't be opposed to a graphic pic of a fatty on some food items either.

Labels are a good thing, and fighting in favor of lower consumer knowledge is assinine. Smoking labels are good for everyone except the sellers of an addictive poison. Sellers who spent a long time lying about whether what they sold was habit forming and whether it was poison.

fark defending corporate behavior that is bad for the consumer.
 
2012-08-25 10:16:06 AM

swaniefrmreddeer: n Canada they're so graphic that I think I would be in violation of Fark posting guidelines if I posted them here.


Yeah the tounge one is especially gross. Anytime a cashier hands me a pack with that picture on it I ask them to grab another. I'm fine with the goverment not wanting me to smoke anymore but geeze do you really have to make me want to vomit each time I purchase them.
 
2012-08-25 10:16:15 AM
Soon you'll be able to buy condoms with just about as naughty porn as you can imagine on the package, showing you who's gonna like you and what they like. Money talks free speech.
 
2012-08-25 10:17:04 AM

lenfromak: I say that the government should either make tobacco illegal (and stop taking tobacco taxes) or stop harassing me while I buy and use a legal product.


Follow the money, it'll never happen. The charade will go on
 
2012-08-25 10:17:41 AM
Last week at the Woodward dream cruise in Detroit, some dickwad on a corner had a 4'x4' sign of an aborted fetus head in forceps. Many families with kids had to walk by that prick. There is a time and place people. Go protest at the clinic, freak.
 
2012-08-25 10:18:47 AM

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: Smackledorfer: Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: " every time to you try to buy a Slim Jim". Were you thinking "BITE INTO A SLIM JIM" while typing?

Did you mean SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM while typing that?

You meant "STEP INTO A SLIM JIM." when you replied.


Did you mean "slip into a slim Jim" while typing that?
 
2012-08-25 10:20:04 AM

Ooba Tooba: Last week at the Woodward dream cruise in Detroit, some dickwad on a corner had a 4'x4' sign of an aborted fetus head in forceps. Many families with kids had to walk by that prick. There is a time and place people. Go protest at the clinic, freak.


That is an odd venue to choose, but I also like it when abortion is exposed for what it is
 
2012-08-25 10:20:43 AM

Biness: Smoking is bad for you. Everyone everywhere is aware of this. Calm it down government. No matter what you do a certain number of 15 year olds will still smoke


People know tobacco is bad for you largely because of the governments efforts. If it was up to tobacco companies, the "no scientific link between tobacco and cancer" myth would still be the norm. The tobacco PR firms are, after all, some of the same PR firms promoting "climate change isn't real" myth.
 
2012-08-25 10:22:18 AM

MFAWG: Do you think, at this point in time, that there's anybody anywhere who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you?


Yes, I do. Or at least they believe it's overblown, or it won't happen to them etc.

I know a guy who insists the fact that his grandfather who smoked until he died at 90 of a heart attack is proof that cigarettes aren't as bad as everyone said. Because the heart attack had nothing to do with him smoking, apparently.

I knew someone in college who cited George Burns as proof that smoking isn't bad for you.

I work with a guy who wakes up 2-3 days a week coughing blood, but he insists it's due to stress, not smoking. Why no, he hasn't seen a Doctor about it either, why do you ask?
 
2012-08-25 10:22:20 AM
The Slim Jim factory blew up back in 2009, and I got to be on the team that investigated the way the explosion spread throughout the factory and how it affected the structure. We went into this facility a full 6 months after the explosion and all of the meat that had been exposed to the elements was still in perfect condition and untouched by wildlife. I haven't eaten a slim jim since.
 
2012-08-25 10:23:40 AM

meat0918: MFAWG: meat0918: You mean can't force manufacturers can't be forced to put that on there.

I'm guessing that means the surgeon general's warning will be next on the chopping block, because corporations are people my friend, and they deserve free speech just like anyone else.

Do you think, at this point in time, that there's anybody anywhere who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you?

And that right there will be part of the argument.

And if they win that hypothetical case, then warning labels on a lot of other things will start being challenged and going away, especially those "These statements not evaluated by the FDA" on supplements.

I don't like the slippery slope argument, but this is one of those times where I do see the potential for a cascade of rulings because "corporations are people and have free speech rights".


Its not a slippery slope if you connect the dots correctly. I can see a claim that one label is put on to shock consumers while another could be said to be merely informative, but the second and informative label like the cancer warning goes, all bets are off on everything from calorie counts to accurate ingredient lists (which already contain ingredients with name changes as a response to public awareness of their unhealthiness).

We don't need to move in a direction of decreasingly informed consumers. That should be agreed upon by capitalists who worship the invisible hand, religious people who worship gods, hippies who care about their fellow man, and everyone in between.
 
2012-08-25 10:25:02 AM

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: Smackledorfer: Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: " every time to you try to buy a Slim Jim". Were you thinking "BITE INTO A SLIM JIM" while typing?

Did you mean SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM while typing that?

You meant "STEP INTO A SLIM JIM." when you replied.


Touche :)
 
2012-08-25 10:25:40 AM

Biness: Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: Smackledorfer: Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: " every time to you try to buy a Slim Jim". Were you thinking "BITE INTO A SLIM JIM" while typing?

Did you mean SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM while typing that?

You meant "STEP INTO A SLIM JIM." when you replied.

Did you mean "slip into a slim Jim" while typing that?


Did you mean "EAT ME!!" while typing that?
 
2012-08-25 10:26:22 AM

Smackledorfer: MFAWG: meat0918: You mean can't force manufacturers can't be forced to put that on there.

I'm guessing that means the surgeon general's warning will be next on the chopping block, because corporations are people my friend, and they deserve free speech just like anyone else.

Do you think, at this point in time, that there's anybody anywhere who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you?

I was in a restaurant with calorie labels yesterday. Without them, apparently I would have purchased a meal with 1700 calories. It was a ciabatta turkey and avecado sammich. I have no clue how a sandwich (at a bakery, not a novelty oversize purveyor od 'drunk food') gets those numbers.

It isn't the same, but I wouldn't be opposed to a graphic pic of a fatty on some food items either.

Labels are a good thing, and fighting in favor of lower consumer knowledge is assinine. Smoking labels are good for everyone except the sellers of an addictive poison. Sellers who spent a long time lying about whether what they sold was habit forming and whether it was poison.

fark defending corporate behavior that is bad for the consumer.


The free market only works when the consumer has knowledge. It cannot work when companies obfuscate and sometimes outright lie about what their products do.
 
2012-08-25 10:29:04 AM

Girion47: The Slim Jim factory blew up back in 2009, and I got to be on the team that investigated the way the explosion spread throughout the factory and how it affected the structure. We went into this facility a full 6 months after the explosion and all of the meat that had been exposed to the elements was still in perfect condition and untouched by wildlife. I haven't eaten a slim jim since.


Dried salty meat is supposed to do that...
 
2012-08-25 10:33:12 AM

Smackledorfer: Girion47: The Slim Jim factory blew up back in 2009, and I got to be on the team that investigated the way the explosion spread throughout the factory and how it affected the structure. We went into this facility a full 6 months after the explosion and all of the meat that had been exposed to the elements was still in perfect condition and untouched by wildlife. I haven't eaten a slim jim since.

Dried salty meat is supposed to do that...


Shhhh, the foodie hipsters don't realize that.
 
2012-08-25 10:42:07 AM

meat0918: Smackledorfer: MFAWG: meat0918: You mean can't force manufacturers can't be forced to put that on there.

I'm guessing that means the surgeon general's warning will be next on the chopping block, because corporations are people my friend, and they deserve free speech just like anyone else.

Do you think, at this point in time, that there's anybody anywhere who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you?

I was in a restaurant with calorie labels yesterday. Without them, apparently I would have purchased a meal with 1700 calories. It was a ciabatta turkey and avecado sammich. I have no clue how a sandwich (at a bakery, not a novelty oversize purveyor od 'drunk food') gets those numbers.

It isn't the same, but I wouldn't be opposed to a graphic pic of a fatty on some food items either.

Labels are a good thing, and fighting in favor of lower consumer knowledge is assinine. Smoking labels are good for everyone except the sellers of an addictive poison. Sellers who spent a long time lying about whether what they sold was habit forming and whether it was poison.

fark defending corporate behavior that is bad for the consumer.

The free market only works when the consumer has knowledge. It cannot work when companies obfuscate and sometimes outright lie about what their products do.


FWIW, I'm not advocating that consumers be outright lied to, and I'm OK with The Ebil Gubment ensuring transparency in the marketplace through prudent regulation.

That said, these labels seem to go beyond that.

OTOH, it would make me LOL on the inside every time I pulled one of those packs out of my pocket in a public place.
 
2012-08-25 10:45:07 AM
I was worried about that.
 
2012-08-25 10:50:47 AM

meat0918: The free market only works when the consumer has knowledge. It cannot work when companies obfuscate and sometimes outright lie about what their products do.


www.prettymotherearth.com
 
2012-08-25 10:51:29 AM
If you're buying Slim Jims with the intent to consume, you ought to be forced to view pictures of diseased colons.

That is all.
 
2012-08-25 10:57:01 AM

meat0918: You mean can't force manufacturers can't be forced to put that on there.

I'm guessing that means the surgeon general's warning will be next on the chopping block, because corporations are people my friend, and they deserve free speech just like anyone else.


Is it really necessary? Everybody in the US knows about the dangers of smoking just like they know how you contract HIV/AIDS. Those that start smoking or continue to do so are just like those who engage in behavior that put them at risk for contracting and STD. They:

A. Don't care and are going to do it anyway perhaps believing they will be oe of the lucky ones who suffer no harm.

B. Don't believe the warnings

C. Or are just plain stupid. Do you really need a warning to tell you that smoking anything or that having unprotected sex with that stranger you just met an hour ago is a bad idea?
 
2012-08-25 10:58:54 AM
171.67.24.121
 
2012-08-25 11:05:14 AM

Smackledorfer: Girion47: The Slim Jim factory blew up back in 2009, and I got to be on the team that investigated the way the explosion spread throughout the factory and how it affected the structure. We went into this facility a full 6 months after the explosion and all of the meat that had been exposed to the elements was still in perfect condition and untouched by wildlife. I haven't eaten a slim jim since.

Dried salty meat is supposed to do that...


But the smell man, the smell...
 
2012-08-25 11:05:39 AM
Denis Leary not invoked yet, I'm impressed
 
2012-08-25 11:07:00 AM

whatsupchuck: If you're buying Slim Jims with the intent to consume, you ought to be forced to view pictures of diseased colons.


Can I start with Sharon Osbourne and Farrah Fawcett?
 
2012-08-25 11:57:25 AM
I don't smoke.

I have never smoked.

I never intend to smoke.

Can I sue the government for making me nauseous every time I go to pay for gas by plastering the whole wall behind the counter with little pictures of rotting human flesh? I don't want to get sick walking through your second hand smoke but I don't want to have the government assault me with messages that make me sick either. I can usually move upwind of smokers. It is somewhat harder to stay upwind of the government.
 
2012-08-25 11:58:58 AM
I wonder if the government could require 'tax stamps' that were printed by the government to be included in each pack of smokes. These 'tax stamps' could include whatever images or verbage the government deemed necessary and would be required for each legal sale of tobacco product. That way the fda could still get their graphic images out without interfering with the freedom of speech issue with the mandated labeling.

FWIW, I wish tobacco would go away entirely. It costs society much more money than any tax revenue it creates. It has taken too many people I loved out of my life too soon. I should not have to walk through a cloud of people smoking outside with my kids and breath that foul poison to go in a restaurant or mall.
 
2012-08-25 11:59:41 AM

david_gaithersburg: We The People win another one. We've been prevailing a lot lately. Only 75 years of damage left to reverse.


We The People meaning "one guy and forty corporate sponsors"

/Syndicate was actually about the future.
 
2012-08-25 12:02:15 PM
I wonder what former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop (the guy who first got the surgeon general warnings on the packages) thinks about all this.
 
2012-08-25 12:41:16 PM

Dufus: It is somewhat harder to stay upwind of the government.


QFT!
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report