Why don’t American cigarettes have graphic images?
Posted by canadian_lenlen@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 195 comments
As my title says why don’t you guys have graphic images? In Canada (I’m sure other parts of the world do the same) have graphic images on both sides displaying diseases and cancers, making all packs of cigarettes look the same with no uniqueness. The only way to distinguish brands is reading the name on the small rectangular strip at the bottom of the pack. The only packs that don’t have them are from native reservations but those aren’t legal and risky if you get caught!
EpsilonAmber@reddit
I assume it's because smoking is already pretty stigmatized in the US. and also because graphic imagery in general is a weird thing to just depict on stuff. like the only place you'd really see graphic stuff are in workplace safety videos or on liveleak
Gloomy_Junket9364@reddit
Our government is highly entangled with our commerce--it doesn't benefit the politicians in charge for people to stop smoking. That would lose them money.
Milehighjoe12@reddit
Because it does very little to persuade someone from not smoking. The US has a much lower rate of smokers than Europe does.
itsjustmefortoday@reddit
I looked it up and the US and UK are very similar, but smoking rates are higher in mainland Europe.
Meowmeowmeow31@reddit
How did the UK get the smoking rate down? Here, it was public indoor smoking bans, taxation, and PSA campaigns targeting tobacco companies.
BoopleBun@reddit
It’s about to go down more. They just passed a ban on anyone born after January 1, 2009 from buying cigarettes and nicotine products. (I think vapes too?) So the effective age you can legally sell them to someone is going to go up every year.
(It’s pretty clever, actually. They’re basically waiting for all the current smokers to slowly die off, and the hope is that there won’t be any new ones. Of course I’m sure there will still be a few young people who pick it up and have others buy for them, but still.)
myfourmoons@reddit
I don’t actually believe in this. If someone can fight in a war they should be able to smoke if they want to.
itsjustmefortoday@reddit
I'm guessing the indoor smoking ban, advertising ban, high taxes and vapes being a lot cheaper (although they're planning to raises prices to combat vaping too).
Red_Beard_Rising@reddit
Vapes getting better sure helped.
The advertising ban kinda helped but not in the way you think. Not so much in preventing people from being sold cigarettes, but more that the lack of advertising changed society's perception. If you see it everywhere, it must be popular even if you aren't interested. If you don't see it everywhere, it's a fringe thing.
Taxes helped with those on the fence. They had to be willing to quit for this to work. For those who were budget conscious and have no interest in quitting, we started rolling our own or packing tubes.
The indoor smoking ban did nothing to reduce smoking. The sidewalk outside the bar got more crowded. That's it. But it saved the lungs of the bartenders smoking on the sidewalk with us on their smoke break.
Milehighjoe12@reddit
Charging £13 for one pack I'm sure helps lower the rate there lol people moved on to Zyns
itsjustmefortoday@reddit
And that's the cheap ones.
Berserker717@reddit
I paid 22 pounds for a pack at the Belfast airport 3 years ago
soulsista04us@reddit
Dayum! That's about $30 USD.
Red_Beard_Rising@reddit
I would not be surprised if a pack of cigarettes at an American airport was $30.
Berserker717@reddit
Yeah if it wasn’t for delays I would have made it back to the states without paying UK prices
Alarmed_Pepper_6868@reddit
I quit smoking in 1997 when pigs hit $2.10 a pack. I don't understand how folks afford it now days.
Ok_Two_2604@reddit
Banning flavors brought it down a lot here, though it was just replaced with vaping it seems.
WVildandWVonderful@reddit
UK just made it illegal for people born after 2008 to EVER buy cigarettes in the UK. They’re probably trying harder than you think to reduce smoking.
Fantastic-Pear6241@reddit
Heavy taxation, banning smoking indoors, campaigns in schools, no advertising.
Most young 20s don't even know the name of many cigarette brands even
CupBeEmpty@reddit
Also we had a highly coordinated legal effort to just bring the hammer down on cigarette companies.
I think the MSA (master settlement agreement) against the big tobacco companies is still the largest settlement ever in US court history.
The MSA put them on the hook for billions in payouts and required them to use their own money to pay to advertise against their products.
Tizzy8@reddit
Eh, a lot British smoke but will tell you they aren’t smokers. I’d take any self reported data with a grain of salt.
Livvylove@reddit
How is that true, I went a few years ago and you guys had smokers everywhere. I couldn't even enjoy a meal without them ruining it. I never even notice smokers here in the US that I forget it's even a thing.
La_noche_azul@reddit
Interesting that it’s significantly lower in the uk and the us. I lived in the uk(from California) and yea you don’t see that many smokers
ComprehensiveFun6875@reddit
Because nobody cares & if there were those images implemented on cig cartons, it would become a huge joke.
reddock4490@reddit
It’s already a huge joke in Europe. Everyone talks about their “favorite” box either being the rotten foot or the blue man or the toddler taking a big drag
Rough-Trainer-8833@reddit
collect them all!! Like Nouveau Garbage Pail Kids cards
Perdendosi@reddit
1) Because our regulators have chosen not to do that, because they don't want to hurt the tobacco industry too much (that's still a VERY American industry).
2) Because dominating a pack's packaging with disturbing images may actually trigger free speech / compelled speech concerns that are protected by the First Amendment. So far, labeling and packaging regulations have largely satisfied the First Amendment as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court. But something that extreme may be challenged, and this very conservative supreme court may agree that the government doesn't have the right to compel that amount of highly negative speech on a product's packaging, so I'm guessing anti-smoking advocates have not pushed for such regulations.
3) We just don't smoke as much as other industrialized countries. Our P.R. campaign against smoking largely worked in the 90s and 2000s, along with our indoor smoking bans in many public places. Plus, there are lots of alternatives now (vaping, non-leaf THC), which, while not "healthy," avoid many of the risks of cigarette smoking. So there's not as much of a public health push to make people quit as there might be in other countries.
-Boston-Terrier-@reddit
Anything could happy in this hyper polarized era in politics but any Court should agree that the government doesn't have the right to compel that amount of highly negative speech on product's packaging.
Kevin7650@reddit
An appeals court actually ruled that the warnings themselves are constitutional and the Supreme Court declined to review so they’re allowed to. It’s now in legal limbo because of a technicality because the law only authorizes X number of different warnings and the FDA tried to implement Y number instead.
Perdendosi@reddit
>warnings themselves are constitutional
This led me down a mini-rabbit hole. Interesting to learn about.
I will note that that was almost 15 years ago. I think SCOTUS has taken a much harder line on free speech rights and taken a much less deferential view of commercial regulation e.g., Reed v. Town of Gilbert; Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman) than in the past. I would be surprised if the cases would come out the same way today. (Not to mention the decimation the Court has done to the administrative state.)
Classic_Cash_2156@reddit
Yeah, I would not be terribly surprised if the Supreme Court pulled another "Free Speech Lochnerism" move with this.
For those who don't know what on earth that means: the Lochner era of the Supreme Court occurred in the early 1900s and the court of that era was infamous for basically making shit up in order to try and shut down as much attempted government regulation of corporations as possible. It's name comes from the case Lochner v New York, a decision where the Supreme Court ruled that a New York State law prohibiting bakeries from having their bakers work for more than 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week was Unconstitutional because it violated the baker's rights to freedom of Contract. (Lochner v New York has been overturned and is considered one of the more notorious decisions in Supreme Court history)
"Free Speech Lochnerism" in reference to the hijinks of the modern Supreme Court basically just refers to the way that they tend to wield Freedom of Speech to accomplish similar goals, an example of this is the case Sorrell v IMS Health Inc. from 2022, in which the Supreme Court decided that a Vermont Law prohibiting Pharmacies from taking the data on what medications physicians prescribed and using it or selling it for advertising purposes without the consent of the physician in question consented to the data being used that way violated the pharmacy's right to Freedom of Speech.
Kevin7650@reddit
I mean they declined the appeal of the 5th circuit’s ruling that the warnings were constitutional in November 2024 so if they were going to take it up I believe they would have then. It apparently has been tried in 4 different instances, 2 in the early 2010s and 2 in the early 2020s, so it can be a bit confusing to keep track of. I’m referring to the case that began in a Texas district court ruling the warnings unconstitutional back in 2022, the 5th circuit reversing that in 2024, and the Supreme Court declining to review later that year.
MyUsername2459@reddit
A plain text factual warning is one thing.
Making the majority of the product packaging into an explicit and graphic image is another.
I could see the court approving of a text disclaimer of the negative health effects of using the product.
Them approving making almost the entire packaging have to be government mandated pictures of the worst case scenarios of use of the product could be something rather different.
Kevin7650@reddit
I am talking about the image warnings, the court has approved them. The law in question is the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009. It explicitly says that there must be graphic images that take up at least half of the front and back of the packaging.
The trial court said it was unconstitutional, the appeals court reversed and said it was constitutional, and the Supreme Court declined to review. So the image warnings in and of themselves are constitutional. It’s only being held up now because of technicalities.
Perdendosi@reddit
Looks like there's a circuit split with D.C. Cir. saying the law is unconstitutional.
>The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the District Court's opinion that the labels were unconstitutional, analyzing the labels under the Central Hudson standard.^([32]) Before the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling, a divided panel for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Act in the case of Discount Tobacco City & Lottery v. FDA.^([33]) On April 22, 2013, the Supreme Court declined review of the 6th Circuit's decision.^([34])
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act#Lawsuits_and_constitutionality
But because there's not been enforcement, there's not been a need to push the issue?
Kevin7650@reddit
I believe the distinction was that the law itself was not unconstitutional but the way in that the FDA tried to implement them was.
But the FDA did recently try to enforce it again in 2020, which is the current case caught up in the 5th district. They wouldn’t have done that if the law itself was deemed unconstitutional.
-Boston-Terrier-@reddit
Yes but any court should be ruling against it.
I mean I was responding to a guy who implied this current court would partisanly ruling that businesses have free speech but businesses do have free speech - even the speech this sub disagrees with. That's not a political opinion. It's a core fact of our democracy.
cappotto-marrone@reddit
There was just a 9-0 free speech case that came down. I believe another was 8-1. So, it would likely not stand before any of the justices.
CharlesAvlnchGreen@reddit
I remember when we started banning smoking in restaurants, and foreign media went crazy with disbelief. France especially.
We had anti-smoking campaigns focused on health, with people singing through artificial larynxes etc. But research show health scare angles failed to move the needle.
The 90s saw the beginning of a new angle: "The Truth" campaign, which focused on the tobacco industry lying to us about cancer, adding chemicals to make cigs burn faster etc. Appealing to the Gen X and then Millennial sense of rage against corporations.
That one worked and started smoking bans, and eventually the popularity of cigarettes. Vapes came on the scene and reversed this quite a bit, but they do not have quite the health risks -- especially to others -- of regular smoking.
__pm_me_your_nipples@reddit
One of the triggers for the big push in the 90s was that the government noticed they were paying huge Medicare claims for lung cancer. They began investigating if tobacco companies had been misrepresenting the health effects of smoking and it ended up in massive judgements against the companies, decreased advertising, increased health notices, etc.
I say "investigating", AFAIK the effects and links were already well known, but the government was looking into if they had broken laws, caused excessive damages to consumers, and so on. But Medicare was a major reason they even started.
Obligatory-Reference@reddit
These were the commercials that always got me - the old people telling their stories in a buzz through the artificial larynx.
Waisted-Desert@reddit
But what kid wouldn't want to sound like a robot?
pinniped90@reddit
Yeah, 90s/00s PR, bans on advertising, and near-bans on doing it in public were huge.
I think eventually gambling addiction will get bad enough at a societal level that a similar campaign will be needed. Ban the ads, ban the online versions, and re-confine it to licensed casinos. The only question is whether modern politicians are willing to fight against industry money the way the prior generation fought against Big Tobacco.
President-Lonestar@reddit
It’ll happen soon. After all, Big Tobacco had as much of a hold on the American market as gambling does now.
Kevin7650@reddit
Yeah, it’s especially bad with things like Polymarket and Kalshi letting you place bets on pretty much anything now and the proliferation of sports betting in recent years.
ophaus@reddit
Just to point out... Vaping is MUCH worse than smoking. It's truly horrendous.
CosyBeluga@reddit
the fact that so many of them are disposable and just dumped anywhere...
Perdendosi@reddit
Eeeh... the jury's out on that kinda, right? Particularly if we're talking about tobacco vaping by adults?
Sure, it can be much more addictive, and there are concerns about massive nicotine dosing. And it's certainly worse because it's so easily manipulated for flavors and strengths to attract children to smoking early.
But there's no serious secondhand smoke issue
There's no tar or arsenic, and no? fewer? other carcinogenic chemicals in vapes. So much so that even Johns Hopkins calls vaping "less harmful than smoking." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/5-truths-you-need-to-know-about-vaping
ophaus@reddit
The chemicals that ride along in the juice are entirely unregulated and causing massive problems. The nicotine levels are similarly insane.
LtPowers@reddit
MillieBirdie@reddit
Last one is big. Americans smoke much less than Europeans.
machagogo@reddit
That's the better question for OP. Why was our anti-smoking efforts so much more successful without those images if those images are so important/effective?
Odd-Local9893@reddit
2 is a really good point. What if next a state or the federal government decided to force liquor/beer producers to put pictures of diseased livers on the bottle? Or warnings on junk food about obesity or type 2 diabetes?
What’s the legal limit a company can be compelled to act against its own brand interests?
Kevin7650@reddit
We do. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was signed into law back in 2009 and explicitly mandates such warnings. The FDA has tried twice now to implement them. The first time was struck down. The second time is still in legal limbo.
Technical-Bath9108@reddit
Comprehensive and correct!
Vegetable_Trash9074@reddit
The US is very much ‘caveat emptor’ - buyer beware. We, as a country, do not actually care about what our citizens choose to do to themselves, even if it injures or kills them, even if it causes others to suffer as well. Its part of our unique pathology, and our ‘American exceptionalism’ attitude. We genuinely think that 1. The Bad Thing Wont Happen To Me 2. I Am Smarter And More Resilient Than Everyone 3. Anyone who says otherwise is just jealous or lying, especially doctors, lawyers or anyone with an education because those elites are just jealous of salt of the earth people like me.
This is close enough to true to be actually a fair assessment.
bryku@reddit
We know Canada isn't in Europe, but Canada often gets these ideas from Europe.
mustang6172@reddit
Yes. Source.
There's no feeling quite like citing Reddit as a source.
JasminJaded@reddit
When I was smoking, I remember the anti-smoking PSAs made me want a cigarette more than a cup of coffee or a nice drive did.
It’s the law of diminishing returns. Show a person enough “scary things” that are going to happen (as if with certainty,) they’re going to become numb to it.
Start making places smoke-free like a lot of places in the US, not a lot of people will pick it up in the first place.
NixMaritimus@reddit
Tobacco lobbyists still hold a lot of power in government
AcanthaceaeOk3738@reddit
We’re actually trying to.
In 2009, Congress passed a law requiring them. FDA wrote a regulation implementing the requirements. But FDA’s lost a few times in court. Litigation’s ongoing though. More here: https://www.tobaccolawblog.com/2025/11/fda-takes-cigarette-graphic-health-warnings-fight-to-eleventh-circuit/
And here’s what they would look like: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-statements-tobacco-products/cigarette-labeling-and-health-warning-requirements
The main issue is the First Amendment. Courts have ruled before that compelled speech can be just as bad as limiting free speech. So making a company print these labels is difficult and has to be carefully weighed against various interests.
canadian_lenlen@reddit (OP)
I see! The images are way less graphic than here in Canada if they were to pass
Littleboypurple@reddit
There isn't a desire or need for them. Smoking has gone down significantly due to Anti-Smoking campaign during the 90s and early 2000s. People are already discouraged and being a smoker is much more difficult since you can't openly smoke in many places and tobacco products are a rather expensive vice at times. I work at a place that sells cigarettes and I always hear from older customers about how ridiculous prices are. How they remember when packs cost less than $8.
You don't really need to have graphic and gross imagery to scare away/discourage people. Smokers are gonna not care to begin with or get used to it.
AwarenessGreat282@reddit
Why play the game? if they are truly that dangerous, which I believe they are, just make them illegal. Or let's go the other way and legalize crack, meth and heroin.
thomsenite256@reddit
I think the US has lower smoking rates already. Its really not that common. Although vaping is getting bad with the youth.
canadian_lenlen@reddit (OP)
Imo I think that’s why smoking rates are lower (I could be mistaken), it’s not that they don’t smoke, it just switched to vapes
thomsenite256@reddit
It was already lower than a lot of European countries, I think its actually gone up. We had very effective anti smoking campaigns for decades. From about 45% in 1965 to less than 10% now.
tarebear577557@reddit
Because we don't wanna
Necessary_Carrot_248@reddit
It’s kind of a tasteless campaign, honestly. I understand it’s supposed to be jarring but I’m not sure how much it contributes.
Personal-Presence-10@reddit
The photos on their cigarette packs remind me of the photos of fetuses the extreme prolife people would bring to college campus to try and stir shit up.
AStarkWinterfell@reddit
It’s not necessary and our rates of adults not smoking are actually pretty good compared to most of the world.
Of all the things to critique America for this seems pretty weak honestly.
canadian_lenlen@reddit (OP)
idk why ppl think i’m critiquing i’m just curious lol
thirdeyefish@reddit
The tobacco lobby is very powerful here. After the World Trade Center fell and the FAA put tons of restrictions on passenger air travel and carry ons, cigarette lighters were part of what they were trying to restrict. That didn't last very long at all. Millions of American voters were told that the government was coming after 'muh smokes' because god forbid you can't light up the second you are off the plane.
q0vneob@reddit
I got outed as an American like 10 years ago when I was in Canada because of this. Couple people saw my normal pack of Camels and asked where I was from and seemed genuinely surprised to meet someone from Delaware, which is about the only notable thing I can say about being from DE.
canadian_lenlen@reddit (OP)
yup, if there’s no image of someone’s black lung it’s gotta be either from a reservation or american 🤣
Traditional_Trust418@reddit
Because everyone who smokes already knows they can die from it
heybud_letsparty@reddit
There's a graphic of a cowboy on the pack or reds I got last week.
Aquarius_K@reddit
I don't know but the people saying smoking is declining and there's no need for that haven't been to the rural south. I work at a hospital and half the nurses smoke and the rest vape. It's pitiful. I feel like a weirdo for not smoking.
DrMindbendersMonocle@reddit
There are people that still smoke but it HAS decreased significantly. You don't realize just hiw common it was even 20 years ago. Like restaurants still had smoking sections
Aquarius_K@reddit
Maybe not I'm only 30 but it seems like everyone just goes outside to smoke now
Background_Humor5838@reddit
It's still less than it used to be and there is also no evidence that those pictures significantly reduce cigarette sales. The canti smoking commercials we have and laws around where you can smoke in public and in apartments already discourage smoking more effectively. Cigarettes have written warnings on them already. If that doesn't discourage someone, a picture isn't gonna make a difference. People know smoking is bad. They just do it anyway.
Aquarius_K@reddit
Right but there's still a need for solutions and a lot of people smoking
CosyBeluga@reddit
People that still smoke know it's bad and killing them. It's actually weird for me to even see people smoke that aren't foreigners.
sjedinjenoStanje@reddit
I think this is the 37th "why don't you do the same thing that we do, what's wrong with you?" type of question from a European or Commonwealth citizen today.
canadian_lenlen@reddit (OP)
never said anything was wrong, imo I don’t think the images are effective. regular smokers don’t care and if a teen or young adult isn’t smoking a cig they’re vaping instead lol
CelebrationFar1351@reddit
Because it is not an effective deterrent.
Sylent09@reddit
We have prohibitively expensive healthcare (even with insurance, copays are astronomical), we have done nothing about the ridiculous amounts of school shootings or how to prevent future ones, their way of dealing with drug use is imprisonment rather than social programs to help or creating an environment where people don't turn to drugs in the first place, they are trying to cut out active programs like free lunch at schools (and in this state actively pushing to do away with public schools altogether). All this is to say that the only time our current government even pretends to care about our health and our lives is when we are still in the womb. Plus tobacco companies are still paying our politicians so yeah, I don't see us doing that any time soon.
More to it many of us are so desensitized to that type of imagery or/and used to being constantly bombarded with ads that we rarely think twice about the packaging so I'm not even sure that would do much here. I went to Scotland last summer and when I ran out of my home bought ones, I had to buy a pack there. The packaging did nothing to deter me, it just made it harder to tell what brand it was. However, the PRICE did make me think twice about buying them.
It's far more expensive to try to be healthy here than it is to not be. And it's designed like that for a reason.
ExcitementMurky2156@reddit
I’m not sure how well the warnings work. I was having a drink outdoors at a cafe in Paris, and the woman next to me lit up. I saw her pack. It said “fumer tue,” and it didn’t seem to bother her at all.
FreeStateOfPortland@reddit
Showing graphic images doesn’t usually work as well as one might think. People desensitize to it.
The way the United States reduced smoking was taxing it and making it illegal to do in most public settings.
Come to think of it, that’s what we should do with billionaires too.
Low_Attention9891@reddit
Honestly, I think most people are well informed about the dangers of smoking. I’ve seen countless popular TV shows wherein someone gets lung cancer and the first thing their doctor asks them is whether they smoke.
I It’s also banned in a lot of public places. And not really acceptable (as I’m sure is the case in Canada).
LastCookie3448@reddit
B/c they used cartoons and such to target kids.
Roadshell@reddit
The anti-smoking messages that we do have (like a lot of tobacco regulation here) was the result of a negotiated settlement with the tobacco companies after a lawsuit sparked by leaked documents that showed they lied about the dangers of smoking and that they'd been advertising to children. There was a push and a pull to the negotiations.
Common-Independent-9@reddit
Because we get them drilled into our heads for 12 years in school and see ads talking about the dangers constantly. Anybody smoking in the U.S. in 2026 definitely already knows all the risks
DOMSdeluise@reddit
because we don't have laws mandating that cigarettes be packaged in that way
Kevin7650@reddit
We do. It’s called Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and it specifically mandates graphic warnings. There has just been years if legal battles by the tobacco companies fighting it which has put it on hold.
akm1111@reddit
Op is talking about PICTURES, not WORDS.
AskAnAmerican-ModTeam@reddit
Your submission was removed as spam.
If you have questions regarding your submission removal - please contact the moderator team via modmail.
Kevin7650@reddit
So am I. The graphic warnings in question are pictures.
SlothFoc@reddit
They require "warning statements", not images.
Kevin7650@reddit
That’s for smokeless tobacco, not cigarettes.
SlothFoc@reddit
Oh shit, you're right, my bad.
It does look like the rule requiring images to be displayed was struck down, though. But you are correct, that is what they were trying to do.
Kevin7650@reddit
Yeah it’s just in legal limbo right now since the FDA is appealing those rulings. So not implemented but also not dead yet.
bearsnchairs@reddit
That guidance is not for cigarettes. It is for smokeless products.
bearsnchairs@reddit
https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-statements-tobacco-products/cigarette-labeling-and-health-warning-requirements
SweetandSourCaroline@reddit
Ole JOE CAMEL! 😂
AskAnAmerican-ModTeam@reddit
Your submission was removed as spam.
If you have questions regarding your submission removal - please contact the moderator team via modmail.
LtPowers@reddit
Bit of a tautology there, innit?
sfdsquid@reddit
Canada started in 2001.
The US was supposed to start a couple years ago but last year a court vacated the order after Philip Morris sued the FDA.
Aggravating_Fishy_98@reddit
Because tobacco companies want to make money and they have a big enough influence that they’re allowed to package their products like the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang would to lure in consumers. They just have tiny print from the surgeon general about risks to your health
Apprehensive-Ad4063@reddit
FREEDOM!!! sorta sarcastic but also like you know it’s bad… it’s like asking why pictures of dead people aren’t on bottles of liquor.
canadian_lenlen@reddit (OP)
to be fair i don’t anywhere on the planet that has dead people on bottles of liquor, cigarettes yes but not for alcohol lol
Apprehensive-Ad4063@reddit
Yeah to me it’s the same question
december151791@reddit
Because they're not legally required to.
Which-Service-5146@reddit
I don’t even remember the last time I saw someone smoking a tobacco cig in the USA.
Which-Service-5146@reddit
Because free speech or something
StOnEy333@reddit
Answer: Because big tobacco knows how to grease the pockets of politicians that shut that down.
kmoonster@reddit
There used to be images, but most imagery was banned in an effort to curb youth smoking. Make the packages look like medication and that's one less way for kids to be attracted.
wvc6969@reddit
Because it’s unpleasant and our smoking rates are fine anyway
ajwest927@reddit
Dose it discourage smoking in Canada?
voltairesalias@reddit
No. $20 packs of cigarettes do.
DrScarecrow@reddit
I can't imagine paying $20 a pack. I quit when they hit $4.50 locally. A smoke doesn't feel that good.
voltairesalias@reddit
I think that's kind of the whole point of the taxes on them that raise the prices to that level.
canadian_lenlen@reddit (OP)
That I don’t know, you’d have to look at the data. for people who already do i’d say no but for young people it’s vapes anyways, that’s all I saw during high school before I graduated last year
Practical-Ordinary-6@reddit
That's the real question. Is there any evidence that it makes a difference?
I'm also not sure about the legality of forcing a company to advertise in a way that doesn't distinguish them from the competition. It seems like you would have the inherent right to free speech to make your product known recognizable by its brand name.
CompletelyPaperless@reddit
Because, since obesity is out number 1 killer, we should also be putting pictures of morbidly obese people on unhealthy food items. Our economy would implode.
La_noche_azul@reddit
I don’t know a single person who smokes cigarettes, to be fair I’m from California
GrandTheftBae@reddit
I knew one person who smoked cigarettes, then he switched to vaping. Which feels way more obnoxious.
OK_Stop_Already@reddit
Its already been explained by others, but its interesting that despite not having the graphic imagery, we smoke far less than other countries.
LifeConsideration981@reddit
I think the more interesting question is why do yours? The packages did not start out with them.
Wunktacular@reddit
Because that's fucking gross, smoking is already on the decline, and people who don't smoke shouldn't have to see that shit.
You've said it yourself, the images are graphic. Our society generally has a very low tolerance for that kind of thing in public, especially places where children can see.
Also, if we did something like that, there would immediately be a culture around cigarette cases and it would become fashionable.
Ok_Orchid1004@reddit
Because American politicians are gutless, they take contributions from the tobacco lobby and they don’t really give a crap about the people they represent.
Live_Barracuda1113@reddit
Smoking just isnt really a thing here as much. Especially our younger people. I teach 17/18 year olds. Maybe one of them smokes cigarettes They will tell you it reeks and it is is too expensive. But mostly they will tell you that it makes you unattractive- yellow teeth etc. They just don't like it.
And I teach the kids who would 100% have been the smokers back when I was young.
We made it a turn off. It worked better than any health warning.
The_Lat_Czar@reddit
Looks ugly as shit, and it isn't telling anyone anything they don't already know. We've had years of anti smoking campaigns, warnings are printed on every pack, and smokers are regulated to their own separate section at businesses.
jrhawk42@reddit
It was hard enough just getting the warning text on packages. Tobacco companies would fight tooth and nail against warning images, and tie up a lot of public funds and court resources with lawsuits.
Overall I don't think it works either. People think they can stop if they ever get to the point of what they see on the package. My school tried doing this w/ STD education, and it backfired because most students thought that if their partner didn't look like the gross photos then they weren't at risk of getting an STD.
Thereelgerg@reddit
Because the law doesn't require that.
twxf@reddit
I don't even know anyone who smokes cigarettes. Clearly whatever we're doing works.
corona_kid@reddit
Alcohol bottles don’t show car wrecks lol
Wolfie_Ecstasy@reddit
I agree with making it 21+ and taxing it to Hell but I don't see the point of doing the graphic image thing in the first place? Everyone who smokes is fully aware it is bad for you.
I smoke maybe 2-3 Geek Bars worth of nicotine a year and I'm not like blissfully unaware it's bad for me even if it comes in cotton candy or strawberry vanilla flavor.
rawbface@reddit
Why do yours? It seems like a really stupid idea to me.
StatisticianBoth3480@reddit
Americans are terribly affraid of things that would benefit them.
DrMindbendersMonocle@reddit
We don't have those pictures, but the US smokes less than most of europe. It doesn't look like those pictures actually do anything to curb the habit
JimDemintRecession@reddit
Graphic warnings are coming but the FDA implementation is tied up in lawsuits.
Street-Length9871@reddit
We have tobacco lobbiests.
SweetandSourCaroline@reddit
that are now vaping lobbyists!
Arleare13@reddit
We have laws requiring large-print written warnings on the packaging about the dangers of smoking. That seems to accomplish the same goal.
SweetandSourCaroline@reddit
The ones in the UK seem even worse than ours.
JoeMorgue@reddit
Because in American smoking tobacco makes you worse than Hitler but smoking pot cures cancer and lets you see God.
SweetandSourCaroline@reddit
Actually the Kentucky Bioprocessing Lab used tobacco to develop a covid vaccine among other pharmaceuticals!
Tobaccy can be healing - it’s always the dosage not the poison!
TsundereLoliDragon@reddit
Because our anti-smoking campaigns have already been working fine here for decades.
Meowmeowmeow31@reddit
Yeah, taxation and public indoor smoking bans have worked really well. We’re lucky we got it done before tons of people started losing their minds over basic public health measures.
Due_Satisfaction2167@reddit
Lobbying the cigarette industry.
Nit sure further work is required on that front. Cigarette smoking is pretty rapidly ending in the US, and will be an incredibly niche thing within another generation or so.
Now, capes? That’s another story.
Unusual_Memory3133@reddit
Because big tobacco = big money
ParadoxicalFrog@reddit
The tobacco industry still has a stranglehold on politics. Just forcing them to print the Surgeon General's warning label in plain block letters and stop advertising was a huge win. If there were a push to add photos, they would fight it hard, probably with cries of "But what if children see it?!"
Background_Humor5838@reddit
Americans don't really smoke that much anymore compared to other countries. The government also can't dictate packaging like that because of free speech laws. They are only allowed to regulate safety information on the packaging like a statement that says pregnant women shouldn't smoke and that nicotine as an addictive substance. Having graphic images goes way beyond what is legally necessary for a person to make an informed decision about their health. People who smoke full well know what the consequences are and seeing pictures doesn't actually do much to prevent them from buying cigarettes. We have commercials on TV that show in graphic detail the consequences of smoking with real testimonials which I think is more effective.
notthegoatseguy@reddit
The US has a very low smoking rate.
Most of Europe has those scary images and a higher smoking rate.
So to me, the question is do we want a performative action that makes us feel good, or do we want to actually do something?
PurpleToe6241@reddit
the big tobacco lobbying im sure
iPoopandiDab@reddit
The tobacco industry in America lied for decades about cigarettes having negative health effects.
They testified under oath in front of congress and lied about how nicotine wasn’t addictive.
I think with that info alone you can understand why lol.
professor-3@reddit
I would like to say that it's because our government doesn't treat us like children, but that would be a lie.
voltairesalias@reddit
Do think those images really detract people? When I was a smoker way back when I would collect the packages for the images because some of them were hilarious (like the impotence one).
It isn't graphic images on packages that dissuade Canadians from smoking, it's $20 + packs of cigarettes that do combined with banning smoking basically everywhere.
MetroBS@reddit
Look at our smoking rates compared to other countries, we don’t really need them
musaXmachina@reddit
The took out the ads you used to see smoking in film, then there’s constant truth ads. I think at this point everyone is aware of the risk. I don’t need to see mangled bodies to remind me to not drive drunk.
DGlen@reddit
It would reduce sales. CEOs and investors might make less money.
manicpixidreamgirl04@reddit
We have other ways to discourage smoking, and they seem to be working for us.
canadian_lenlen@reddit (OP)
whoa you guys are fast at replying! I’m getting a new reply by the second 💀
Particular-Move-3860@reddit
Because the proposal has already been debated here and these are the arguments that held sway.
TrigDaLibs@reddit
We don’t have single payer healthcare so the person paying for their choices are mostly those that are making those choices. Not every single tax payer in the country.
Where in Canada the government has extra motivation to discourage unhealthy habits since it affects the national system.
ShortRasp@reddit
I don't smoke, but I thought for sure I had seen graphic images on cigarette boxes somewhat recently. I live in FL if that matters.
Primary_Excuse_7183@reddit
We’re trying to get rid of smoking cigarettes all together here. We’ve been pretty successful thus far.
Tasty_Plantain5948@reddit
The best anti smoking campaign in the world is the significant others of American smokers. Typically they emit so much pressure to quit smoking that it actually works. It did for me and my dad both.
lakeswimmmer@reddit
Because the government agencies that should be protecting us are corrupted by politics. And politics is corrupted by the billionaire class which includes the tobacco barons.
Opposite-Program8490@reddit
Regulatory capture
Redbubble89@reddit
There is still the Surgeon General warning. While Canada and Australia do it that way, I don't think it discourages that many people.
MyUsername2459@reddit
We were very successful with vastly reducing smoking in the US through other means.
I mean, anti-tobacco campaigns in the 1990's and 2000's really, REALLY did a lot to reduce smoking in the US. It's definitely not socially normal anymore to smoke. I've definitely watched smoking become far, Far, FAR less socially acceptable over the last 30 years or so.
We didn't need graphic ads on cigarette boxes to do it. We did it through other means, like really pervasive TV advertisements (Like the Truth campaign) going into how bad smoking is.
Seriously, for many years it seemed like every commercial break in the US on TV had at least one anti-smoking ad in it. . .and those ads would at least get somewhat graphic about what smoking can do to people. At least as graphic as they could show on broadcast TV.
stangAce20@reddit
Because we already know they caused cancer
gaymersky@reddit
😂 because 💲💲💲💲
HarveyMushman72@reddit
The Medical Industrial Complex wants you to be sick.
Giant_Devil@reddit
Lobbyists for the tobacco industry.
ALoungerAtTheClubs@reddit
Why should they? Smoking declined drastically without being disgusting.
GreasedUPDoggo@reddit
Smoking rates are down without needing graphic images. But also, why would we selectively put images of the consequences on one product, and not other things that are dangerous? Like pictures of liver disease on alcohol or heart disease on junk food. Why something already phasing itself out?
cantseemeimblackice@reddit
The government doesn’t have a vested interest in keeping healthcare costs down.
JoeMorgue@reddit
Because honestly at that point grow the fuck up and just ban cigarettes if that's what you really want.
Yes it's the government's place to step in and stop unhealthy habits (massive nuance, context, all that dutifully acknowledged) but it gets to the point of "Okay fine I'll let you do it but here's a gross picture you have to look at" that's just passive aggressive and childish.
And if we put pictures of clumps of fat on cheeseburgers people would shit kittens.
The government can ban stuff, but keep it legal but shame people for it.
OO_Ben@reddit
Smoking has been on the decline for decades in the US without those, so there hasn't been a need to add them.
sageamericanidiot@reddit
We have a basic Surgeon General warning advising some health risks. Profits over lives. Maybe if we had universal health care there would be more warning. Do those warnings reduce smoking in Canada? We know the long term effects of smoking, but smokers are gonna smoke regardless.
Sea_Background_8023@reddit
Laws
OldDogWithOldTricks@reddit
Because that's disgusting. No one wants to look at that.
Technical-Prize-4840@reddit
I think that is kinda the point though. Disgusting images either prevent people from buying cigarettes in the first place or instill such a social stigma that smokers feel pressured to quit.
Annjenette@reddit
Because smoking looks cool. Would ruin the aesthetic.
PickleMundane6514@reddit
Probably because we grow tobacco so there’s an economic incentive to keep people smoking.
1235813213455_1@reddit
Why would we? If you want to smoke, then smoke. It's not my business, it's not the governments business.
edman007-work@reddit
That might discourage smoking....
Kevin7650@reddit
They have been planning to for years now. There is currently a years-long legal battle where the tobacco companies have sued saying forcing them to put up those pictures is “government compelled speech.” They won at the trial court, lost at the appeals court, then won again on a technically at the trial court again, and it is now going to the appeals court again.
JoeMorgue@reddit
Because why would we?
Salarian_American@reddit
Because tobacco companies bribe politicians to keep this from becoming a thing
cerealandcorgies@reddit
Money
SaltandLillacs@reddit
Lobbying