In the dramatic opening scene of the 2005 movie "Lord of War," actor Nicolas Cage is standing in a sea of military shell casings.
The movie is loosely based upon the life of Viktor Bout, an arms smuggler known as the "Merchant of Death."
"There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation," says Cage. "That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?"
Now, picture the executives of global tobacco companies standing in a river of cigarettes.
There are 9 billion people on this planet, and an estimated 1.3 billion of them smoke cigarettes. Their goal: To make smokers out of the other 7.7 billion.
Last week, Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen suggested we should require tobacco companies to put a photo of their CEO on each pack of cigarettes.
Perhaps with the title, "Merchant of death."
While the photo idea isn't going to fly, federal health officials last week unveiled plans to replace the warnings on packages of cigarettes with graphic images of cancer patients and cancerous organs.
Disgusting? Absolutely. But also effective.
The photo warnings have been used in several other countries and have resulted in declines in youth smoking.
A variety of photos would be used, ranging from a toe tag on a corpse to a man smoking through a hole in his throat. There are 36 images and they will be rotated on each brand.
Researchers have found that the graphic images leave a lasting impression on young people, while the word warnings are easily disregarded.
This may be particularly true in a world where televised ads for pharmaceutical drugs are all accompanied by a litany of possible side effects.
Death and disability are not possible side-effects of smoking, they are nearly assured outcomes. The current warnings have simply lost their punch.
The photo images are intended to say one thing: The slender white object you are putting between your lips is a death stick.
Smoking is responsible for 443,000 deaths annually in the U.S., and about one-third of all cancer deaths.
Since 1964, the U.S. has made steady progress against youth smoking. In recent years, however, that progress has leveled off with one in five adults and older teens smoking.
Meanwhile, tobacco companies have globalized their efforts. Worldwide, cigarette sales are increasing by 2 percent per year.
Billboards for Marlboros are now banned in the U.S., but they dot the landscape and appear on television in many developing countries. The Indonesian government collects $2.5 billion annually in excise taxes from Phillip Morris alone, according to the New York Times.
Third world countries find it hard to kick the tobacco-revenue habit.
The U.S. could do the rest of the world a favor by also requiring that any pack of cigarettes leaving this country contain the same graphic warning we see in the U.S.
editorialboard@sunjournal.com


I agree with most of the
I agree with most of the comments and disagree with a couple, but the situation with tobacco is hypocrisy at its worst.
First of all, tobacco is a legal and highly taxed product.
Smokers engage in a pefectly legal activity.
Government, states and municipalities can't wait to get their share every year of tobacco tax settlement money.
Everybody wants the money that tobacco generates, but no one wants to let the smokers smoke.
Question: Where is the money going to come from to replace the free tobacco tax money that everyone has their hands out for, if all the smokers in America all at once decide to quit?
Ever think of that? They're plucking the golden goose (tobacco), one feather at a time.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I think
you just made the Parrot cringe....but great points!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."Plucking the golden
"Plucking the golden goose"..LOL I never even thought of the parrot when I typed that in. That explains why he started signing Amazing Grace.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You really want to cut down
You really want to cut down on smoking? Refuse any State/Federal assitance (welfare, medicare/MaineCare) to smokers.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.How about spending some of that Settlement Money to help people
How about spending some of the Tobacco settlement money to help those who have been smoking and addicted to nicotine for years get some EFFECTIVE help to stop. Increasing the cost of cigarettes will not help people quit. Yes, it will cause some people to quit, but not those who are truly addicted. Nicotine is MORE addictive than Heroin, we have programs to help the heroin addict, but for smokers all that is available is the Tobacco help line and a crap load of money spent in advertising to cause people to feel guilty about their addiction. For SOME people, neither of these efforts are effective. When you have a person who takes off their oxygen to light up, or someone who smokes through the hole in his throat - this is addiction, not habit, not lack of will-power, not someone who simple "chooses" to continue to smoke - this is a person with a true addiction. If your addicted to alcohol or other drugs, there are rehabilitation programs which assist 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to help you stop - but for a smoker, there is a phone number you can call, when they tell you "we know it is hard, but just don't light up." I don't mean to demean that program - it is a step in the right direction and may be helpful to some. But use the money spent on advertising to construct a program that truly deals with smoking like the programs that deal with heroin and other drug abuse.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I agree there should be more
I agree there should be more programs to help with cigarette addiction. The problem with it is that other addictions are completely debilitating. Being drunk or high all the time will prevent you from holding down a job or even operating in society. Smoking too much will not, or not in the same way. And so people don't attach the same amount of compassion, because being addicted to smoking won't destroy your life the same way other addiction do, or at least to the same extent.
I agree though, that settlement money has been poorly spent. The "Truth" ads were just stupid.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Because the anti-smoking
Because the anti-smoking groups want people to smoke as long as they are "undesirables". They make more money off each pack of cigarettes than do the tobacco companies. That's why they advertise to risk takers and rebels. This graphic campaign is a perfect example.
The best reason I've ever heard not to smoke, I heard from a state rep 10 years ago when he was addressing my daughter's organization, "Don't smoke, you shouldn't give the government any more of your money."
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Wow. The reason they
Wow.
The reason they advertise to “risk takers and rebels” is because everyone knows tobacco use is harmful to your health. The logical thing is to not use tobacco, so if you do use it, by definition you are taking a risk and rebelling against the norm.
And if the best reason you heard not to smoke is that the government already gets enough of your money, I just don’t know about you. I mean, lung cancer is ok, but taxes are not?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.This is dumb
Sun Journal, come on now.
You know that this is just dumb
You are better than this
There, haiku out of the way, The best way to get people to quit is make it expensive. I started smoking when I was 14ish(I'm 33). I quit when I was in college.
Why?
Cause my parents bribed me, and it was too expensive.
Everyone I ever smoked with knew it was very bad for us, but it didn't matter cause we were invincible. Hell, you put images of people with cancer or coffins or whatnot on a brand, and we would have been impressed and smoked those.
But, make em like $10 a pack, and people stop smoking.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Graphic images have become
Graphic images have become collectors items where this has been tried before. What a misguided programme.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.who cares...
add 25 cents a pack tax every 6 months
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4)
Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."There are 9 billion people on this planet"
Source?
The current US Census estimate is just under 6.9 billion. The point is only tangential to the editorial, but so easily fact-checked.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."Cool...!"
"Cool...!" That is what my nephew and a friend said of some of the new package graphics. They thought that the "Toe Tag" one was especially funny. Both of these kids are 17 and neither smokes. Their opinion of the gruesome graphics was that it would do little to deter their peers from smoking. The package is not the thing that attracts them to smoking. The act of smoking is seen as a sign of maturity, something that older people do. And we all know that what a 15 year-old wants more than almost anything is to be seen as adult and mature.
This is not a scientific study. It was a conversation with two young but mature kids and some speculation on my part. Maybe the studies done in other countries (there have been studies, haven't there?) are correct and these graphics will reduce smoking among young people. I hope it works, but I have my doubts.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Have you seen video game
Have you seen video game packaging? Have you seen a Mountain Dew commercial? Or any energy drink?
These graphic pictures will only attract more teens to the habit.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Comparing tobacco to firearms?
A legally armed citizen can actually SAVE a life!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Agree (8)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.