Anyway, his most recent letter concerns these new warnings it is well worth the read. I will post the entirety of his letter under the fold.
Regarding the graphic pictures that, by government decree, will adorn all cigarette packs sold in America, Christopher Buckley writes: “I’m not against the new cigarette labels, but I’m not sure I’m for them. Cigarettes kill – no argument there. So does alcohol. If that pack of Marlboros is going to look like a page from a medical textbook, shouldn’t bottles of Bud carry pictures of car crashes, or cirrhotic livers, or beaten wives? Shouldn’t Big Macs come with photos of early contestants from ‘The Biggest Loser’?” (“Thank you for not warning me about smoking,” June 24).Author's note: I'm too ****ing stupid to figure out how to put something under the goddamn fold so if any of you people can figure it out feel free to do so. I'm leaving it in all its glory.
True dat. But why not also require that graphic warning pictures be draped over government buildings? The Federal Reserve building, for example, might be covered with a huge picture of a graph showing that, since the Fed’s creation, the dollar has lost 96 percent of its value. Truth in advertising would be further promoted if the U.S. Capitol’s exterior featured a supersized photo of Rep. Barney Frank who, after applauding Fannie and Freddie for promoting more home-ownership than would be promoted by the market, proclaimed in 2003 “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”
And from the roof of the White House to its lawn, let hang ginormous photographs of American troops returning home in body bags from Vietnam, Iraq, and other theaters of war in which Uncle Sam had no business acting.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
I feel like the warning labels aren't really a big deal. If you already smoke, then they will probably have little effect, but if you are young and thinking about taking up the habit, they might make you think twice. Studies in countries that use similar labels show that they work to reduce smoking. Fat people are becoming more of a drag on healthcare resources, so maybe pictures of people with missing limbs due to Type II diabetes on Big Macs wouldn't be such a bad idea. I have more of a problem with the fact that local governments have made it basicaly illegal to smoke.
ReplyDeleteHe stole my big mac line!!! I just think this thing is a slippery slope and you can't just start forcing companies to put warning labels and pictures all over their products.
ReplyDeleteI'm turned off by the paternalism. It isn't the government's job to teach us about these things. I know the risks and I resent the fact that they think I don't. Furthermore, I don't like the idea of private companies being forced to put these things on their products. Warning labels are enough. It is impossible to go anywhere without hearing how bad cigarettes are for you. If you still choose to do it, that is your problem.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the supreme court ruled today on the video game law regarding restricting the sale of violent video games to underage (17 and under) people.
ReplyDelete"The Court declared forcefully that content-based restrictions on games are unconstitutional; and that parents, not government bureaucrats, have the right to decide what is appropriate for their children."
I'm sure the constitutionality of these warning labels will be challenged. Perhaps they will cite U.S. v. Medal of Honor?
ReplyDelete