Posted on 06/23/2011 6:30:24 AM PDT by shortstop
On six packs of beer they will put pictures of gosh-awful ugly women who you will be tempted to sleep with if you drink the contents.
Ice cream containers and packages of steaks will have photographs of cottage-cheese thighs and clogged arteries.
Table saws will have pictures of severed fingers and New Year's champaigne will have images of crippled livers.
The possibilities are endless. The government has decided that it has the power to put images on the packaging of consumer products in order to protect the public health and the public good. So, it seems natural to speculate a bit on where this new-found power will take us.
Yes, cigarettes sicken and kill people. But, then, a great many things sicken and kill people.
Like alcohol. It has a far more damaging impact on American society than does tobacco. So does saturated fat. So do automobiles.
You wonder when the government will decide to warn us away from those products.
The background is that this week the federal government released various images it will require cigarette manufacturers to carry on their packaging. On both the front and back, at least half of the surface area must contain one of these government-mandated images. And they must be at the top of the product, for maximum visibility. This is done in the name of protecting the public from the wiles of the tobacco companies.
Never mind that government is the prime profiteer from cigarette sales -- in New York, for example, $4.35 of the $9 price of a pack of cigarettes is state tax. Never mind that there's not a person left on the planet who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you.
Just put the pictures on the packs, because we're the government and we said so.
That was announced this week, and there wasn't a whimper of protest or discomfort.
In spite of the fact that we have the government telling a private company what it must put on the packaging of the legal product it sells. Not just a warning, not some nutrition information, but what specific pictures how big and where.
Which just goes to prove the point: The government can't protect you without enslaving you.
And in the name of protecting you, the government would very gladly enslave you.
Don't get me wrong. I hate cigarettes. My mother and grandfather were killed by cigarettes. Emphysema is our family disease.
But I love freedom more than I hate cigarettes. And in a free society, the government doesn't design the packaging. In a free society, freedom of the press extends to the press that prints the package.
Oddly, we seem oblivious to those truths. In the name of being protected, we hand over liberty left and right.
I will gladly state the obvious: It is none of the government's business what is printed on a package of anything.
But now that this genie is out of the bottle, now that this battle of freedom has been lost, it might pay to look at the ridiculous ends to which this new power could just as easily be applied.
Any product that poses a health threat falls under government dictate as to packaging. In the future, as political correctness gets deeper into our diet, how long before the vegetarians require meat packaging to show pictures of human stomach cancers or suffering little calves? Would bags of candy carry close-up photographs of rotten teeth and Insulin needles? Should hot dog packages show choking children?
All of those possibilities are ridiculous.
Just as ridiculous as the warning pictures on cigarettes.
If cigarettes are a legal product -- and they are -- and if people can lawfully buy them -- and they can -- then it's none of the government's business what the labeling is. The pack belongs to the cigarette maker or the store until it is bought by the customer, then it belongs to the customer. Neither set of owners should be forced to decorate its property any other way than they way they choose. It is just not anywhere near being the government's business.
And it's a sad thing that nobody realizes that.
I wish the tobacco companies had the courage to stop production of cigarettes for 3 months. The gov’t would beg them to start making them. Maybe even bring back TV ads. I loved the commercials (It’s what’s up front that counts! lol)
I know several guys who are big time ‘chubby chasers’,would love to see pictures of large women on a 12 pack of beer or a gallon of ice cream and would definitely increasing their consumption of both.
Nanny staters never anticipate the proverbial ‘unintentional consequences’ of any plan.
Just as long as any Obama re-election literature ALSO includes a warning photo of an empty wallet and an Unemployment application. . . .
My response to an earlier thread. Guess someone will fix this issue, but here are a few thoughts.>>>>>
I have an answer to this si$t. I wanted to make a fortune on this, but wanted to get this out for some enterprising freeper.
Simply make a very cheap condom (like a thin film) that can easily be placed over the pack. Disposable. Could have waterfalls, beauties, words like F You O, anything that makes the image you like.
Granted, smoking isn’t good, wish I could quit, but this morbid idea from the FDA will send some to the lawyers to sue. For hurting my kid. Just thing of the pack with FDA sick pic laying on a picnic table and some kid sees it. Or in a bar where you can smoke. Law suits galore.
My idea could be made in Texas (love that state) or China or anywhere that it is cheap. Less than a penny a pack. Ladies with purses will probably use cig cases, but guys want something easy, quick and no hassle to slide on. 100 for 50 cents. The tobacco co. probably already thought of this. Do you get my drift?
If cigarettes are a legal product -- and they are -- and if people can lawfully buy them -- and they can -- then it's none of the government's business what the labeling is.CPSC dictates all sorts of language and labeling, especially safety warnings on toys and some children's clothing. Most of it sucks, as in it doesn't describe the hazard or how to avoid the risk. In contrast, the photos on the cig packs are probably quite effective.
Looking at a picture of 2nd hand smoke can give you cancer..
The images would seem to be interfering with trade, which is against the constitution.
Yes, I’m thinking we should come up with a thin covering case like those paper-like wallets and make some money off of it.
See my 32
can we put pictures of dead fetus’s on the doors of planned parenthood abortion mills?
LOL!
After further thought, these pictures might even increase smoking among rebellious teens. They’d think it was cool and you know teenagers think they are immortal and it could never happen to them.
Just what I thought too...
But they won’t let pro-life organizations run paid ads that feature aborted fetuses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.