Government Gets Graphic

This column was first published here on November 17, 2010.
Edited versions were subsequently published,with permission of the author,

in print and online editions of community newspapers across Chicago.

Last week, federal health authorities announced that as part of a larger “tobacco control” strategy, they will require cigarette packages to carry graphic warnings about the dangers of smoking.


Starting in October of 2012 (the federal government doesn’t move that fast, does it?), cigarette packages will carry images of things like diseased lungs, human corpses and more.


If you want to see the types of images proposed, check out citymomchicago.blogspot.com. To see all the proposed images, click here.

While I certainly agree that a smoke-free America is healthier for everyone, I have three reactions to their most recent action.




First, if federal health authorities are so concerned about the negative health effects of cigarettes, why don’t they just move to outlaw them? I mean really: if the feds suddenly discovered that Fritos corn chips or Oreo cookies cause cancer---and not only that, but Frito-Lay and Nabisco were adding a chemical substance to Fritos and Oreos to make them addictive, those products would be yanked off store shelves immediately. So why are cigarettes different?


Second, do the feds not see how easily Big Tobacco will get around the new regs? I can easily see cigarette manufacturers complying with the law by putting the required graphic images on a “package” that is nothing more than a wrap-around that is easily torn away---revealing a cool inner package. I can also see the comeback of something that has almost disappeared from the American scene: the cigarette case. Look for cigarette manufacturers to get busy designing and distributing, for free, lightweight plastic cigarette cases that look really cool and appeal to younger smokers. I'll bet they even become collectible.

Third, if the feds want to require graphic warnings on products that can lead to ill health, why stop at cigarettes? As long as they’re going to play Health Police, perhaps they should mandate graphic-image warnings on:

** six packs of Budweiser and fifths of Jack Daniels. (Photos of diseased livers and graveyards.)


** packages of Oreo cookies and bottles of Coke. (Images of people with type 2 diabetes undergoing kidney dialysis and/or losing limbs to amputation.)


** bags of Cheetos and canisters of Morton Salt. (Images of women crippled by osteoporosis, in part due to high-salt diets.)



** Chicago-style hot dogs and Polish sausages. (Images of people having heart attacks, in part due to high-cholesterol diets.)

** La-Z-Boy recliners and sofas. (Images of atrophied muscles and chubby couch potatoes.)

** TVs and computers. (Images of weak, pasty-faced kids who’ve clearly had too much “screen time.”)

** the air we breathe. (Federally mandated signs on every street corner, showing lungs discolored and weakened by polluted air.)

Or perhaps we should just require that federal health officials themselves wear graphic-image warning signs around their necks. (Images of taxpayers shaking their heads in exasperation, closing their eyes or covering their ears.)

What do you think?

Finally, a tip of the cap to award-winning editorial cartoonist Steve Breen at the San Diego Union-Tribune for getting it right. Click here to see his graphic-image cigarette package. The feds could have saved a lot of time and money if they had just consulted him.

Have a great week---and may your Thanksgiving dinner be joyful, bountiful, delicious and free of any federally-mandated, graphic-image warning signs….

Joan Hadac is a Chicago news/feature reporter, editor and columnist.
Read her online at www.citymomchicago.blogspot.com