[CONCEPT] Tobacco Awareness and Reduction

[Glen-Rhodes]

Right. We should be compelled to disclose every potential source of hazard in blazing lights to each and every person by the one-universe government.

Because this proposal is suggesting nations use blazing lights. Your hyperbole only serves to show that you do not have an actual argument against this proposal. What you fail to see is that 'civil liberties' are not in play, here, because people are and will forever be manipulated by advertising. When a carcinogenic product is advertised as something cool and enjoyable, and even marketed towards children, protecting the 'civil liberties' of people to slowly kill themselves is not an acceptable argument, and it is frankly distasteful. As for your alternative 'educate the public' solution (though, I don't understand how labeling isn't public education): are you proposing we force every nation to spend as much money on educating about the dangers of these products, as Big Tobacco spends on advertising? That's the only way such a project would be effective. And I'm all for that, but I would assume it would fall foul of some kind creed you adhere to.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Krioval]

Because this proposal is suggesting nations use blazing lights. Your hyperbole only serves to show that you do not have an actual argument against this proposal. What you fail to see is that 'civil liberties' are not in play, here, because people are and will forever be manipulated by advertising. When a carcinogenic product is advertised as something cool and enjoyable, and even marketed towards children, protecting the 'civil liberties' of people to slowly kill themselves is not an acceptable argument, and it is frankly distasteful. As for your alternative 'educate the public' solution (though, I don't understand how labeling isn't public education): are you proposing we force every nation to spend as much money on educating about the dangers of these products, as Big Tobacco spends on advertising? That's the only way such a project would be effective. And I'm all for that, but I would assume it would fall foul of some kind creed you adhere to.

- Dr. B. Castro

What is this "Big Tobacco" of which you speak? Tobacco companies in Krioval are circumscribed in power by the people of Krioval, as it should be, and not by some overbearing legislation proposed by a WA dominionist. The impetus to reduce tobacco consumption was a combination of cultural forces, a strong governmental health initiative, and technologies that allowed nicotine consumption to be separated from more toxic processing agents. Somehow we did it all without Big WA breathing down our necks the entire time.

Krioval does not see the need for a WA nanny state to control every aspect of people's lives, and Kriovallers tend to be suspicious of arguments that people need to be protected from their own bad choices. I am advocating letting national governments serve their constituents, and for the role of the WA to be limited to promoting freedom and education. This proposal does neither, instead relying on brute force and the suppression of liberty to achieve a "noble" goal.

Aleksei-kan Volkov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Glen-Rhodes]

Krioval does not see the need for a WA nanny state to control every aspect of people's lives, and Kriovallers tend to be suspicious of arguments that people need to be protected from their own bad choices. I am advocating letting national governments serve their constituents, and for the role of the WA to be limited to promoting freedom and education. This proposal does neither, instead relying on brute force and the suppression of liberty to achieve a "noble" goal.

Well, it's great that Krioval has taken such measures against carcinogenic products, and I can only hope other nations follow the same model. But the World Assembly does not judge the usefulness of a resolution on how effective it would be in Krioval. There are plenty of nations that are powerless against the tobacco industry, whether it be because of a weak government or because of a strong government with ties to the industry. This proposal is for those nations, so that their people can actually be told how dangerous these products are. Public education outside of labeling is an excellent idea, but it's not effective in most cases. Seeing a commercial does not have the same influence as reading a label on a cigarette carton as you're about to light up, "Smoking can lead to a slow and painful death."

- Dr. B. Castro

[Krioval]

Well, it's great that Krioval has taken such measures against carcinogenic products, and I can only hope other nations follow the same model.

Well, what can I say? We are a wealthy nation and we have spent a good deal of time working to educate people on their choices. I recommend that any such nation with sufficient resources do the same, and to assist their less-wealthy neighbors as well.

But the World Assembly does not judge the usefulness of a resolution on how effective it would be in Krioval.

It should. It should also consider the other several thousand member states as well. When a string of proposals suddenly arise, none of which would have any redeemable value in the Imperial Chiefdom, it raises eyebrows. One wonders what agenda is being pushed, and by whom, considering the strong unlikelihood of such a string of proposals appearing by chance.

There are plenty of nations that are powerless against the tobacco industry, whether it be because of a weak government or because of a strong government with ties to the industry.

Then empower those governments, or realize that many of those governments are elected by the people and serve their will. If the people are uneducated on the described dangers of tobacco use, then by all means educate them. But if they persist in that use, it is no business of the WA to tell them otherwise.

This proposal is for those nations, so that their people can actually be told how dangerous these products are. Public education outside of labeling is an excellent idea, but it's not effective in most cases. Seeing a commercial does not have the same influence as reading a label on a cigarette carton as you're about to light up, "Smoking can lead to a slow and painful death."

No, this proposal is to assuage the guilt of wealthy pseudosocialists who want to claim to work "for the people" when it requires no change of lifestyle for themselves. You want to ban the more egregious offenses, like sales of drugs to minors? Fine. But putting warnings on every box of cigarettes is like putting giant warning labels on every motor vehicle and aircraft. Or putting up signs everywhere warning people that if they partake in anything remotely pleasurable, they could, *gasp*, die!

- Dr. B. Castro[/quote]

Aleksei-kan Volkov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Glen-Rhodes]

It should. It should also consider the other several thousand member states as well. When a string of proposals suddenly arise, none of which would have any redeemable value in the Imperial Chiefdom, it raises eyebrows. One wonders what agenda is being pushed, and by whom, considering the strong unlikelihood of such a string of proposals appearing by chance.

It's understandable that Krioval only concerns itself with how a resolution will affect its own people. However, when a nation comes along and opposes a proposal because it's already advanced and has managed to deal with the problem the proposal is trying to address, that nation shouldn't really have much of an influence in the drafting of that proposal. Why? Because the proposal isn't directed at nations who have dealt with the problem, but at nations who cannot or will not deal with it.

Then empower those governments, or realize that many of those governments are elected by the people and serve their will. If the people are uneducated on the described dangers of tobacco use, then by all means educate them. But if they persist in that use, it is no business of the WA to tell them otherwise.

Does this apply only to tobacco use, or should this be considered an axiom of any consumer product? What this fails to address is that tobacco products are dangerous. Maybe Krioval has been able to make 100% safe products; if so, refer to what I said above. The fact is, most of the products are lethal. They cause health problems not only for those who use them, but for the people around those who use them. We're not talking about regulating toilet paper. We're talking about regulating a known carcinogenic. There's about a hundred compelling governmental interests in regulating these products.

No, this proposal is to assuage the guilt of wealthy pseudosocialists who want to claim to work "for the people" when it requires no change of lifestyle for themselves. You want to ban the more egregious offenses, like sales of drugs to minors? Fine. But putting warnings on every box of cigarettes is like putting giant warning labels on every motor vehicle and aircraft. Or putting up signs everywhere warning people that if they partake in anything remotely pleasurable, they could, *gasp*, die!

Except fatalities in motor vehicles and aircraft are accidents. They are not, by design, supposed to happen. Fatalities from carcinogenic products, like tobacco products, are, by design... well, carcinogenic. They cause cancer. It's not an unintended consequence. It's not like if you use these products the right way -- as with motor vehicles and aircraft -- you won't be hurt. The argument you put forth -- if we put warning labels on cigarettes, we might as well put them on sidewalks -- is ridiculous and undeserving of attention in the World Assembly. It serves as nothing but a distraction, as it was designed to do.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Krioval]

It's understandable that Krioval only concerns itself with how a resolution will affect its own people. However, when a nation comes along and opposes a proposal because it's already advanced and has managed to deal with the problem the proposal is trying to address, that nation shouldn't really have much of an influence in the drafting of that proposal. Why? Because the proposal isn't directed at nations who have dealt with the problem, but at nations who cannot or will not deal with it.

This argument is a false one for the same reason that my proposing a free trade in space bill would cause problems. "But it's for people who use space travel, not those who don't" isn't going to work. Similarly, "we need to tell people what's good for them because they don't know better" is a colonialist and dominionist argument that I reject without extremely strong evidence to sustain that argument, in which case that argument becomes a mere appendage to the greater issue. I do not feel that recreational tobacco use rises to that level.

Does this apply only to tobacco use, or should this be considered an axiom of any consumer product? What this fails to address is that tobacco products are dangerous. Maybe Krioval has been able to make 100% safe products; if so, refer to what I said above. The fact is, most of the products are lethal. They cause health problems not only for those who use them, but for the people around those who use them. We're not talking about regulating toilet paper. We're talking about regulating a known carcinogenic. There's about a hundred compelling governmental interests in regulating these products.

Yes, tobacco products are dangerous...sometimes. So is alcohol, marijuana, Kriovaller Happiness Formula 3A^TM, and Knootian Gay Spray^TM, when used inappropriately or to excess. Carcinogens are found in all manner of industrial products, including many construction materials, plastics, and motor vehicle fuels. Is it appropriate to regulate each of these with some universal mandate from the WA, or can we actually let individual national governments do their jobs, and determine what is and is not most dangerous, and therefore of the highest priority for them?

Except fatalities in motor vehicles and aircraft are accidents. They are not, by design, supposed to happen. Fatalities from carcinogenic products, like tobacco products, are, by design... well, carcinogenic. They cause cancer. It's not an unintended consequence. It's not like if you use these products the right way -- as with motor vehicles and aircraft -- you won't be hurt. The argument you put forth -- if we put warning labels on cigarettes, we might as well put them on sidewalks -- is ridiculous and undeserving of attention in the World Assembly. It serves as nothing but a distraction, as it was designed to do.

They are hardly *designed* to kill. It happens to be an unfortunate byproduct, and one that is readily corrected through the application of education and technology. If a nation does not have the resources to educate its population about the danger of carcinogenic items, and it lacks the technology to mitigate their presence, I hazard to guess that cigarette smoking is the least of that nation's problems. Help them instead of passing another unfunded feel-good mandate that pushes your agenda onto a population that may be worse off for your cultural dominionism.

Aleksei-kan Volkov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Glen-Rhodes]

Similarly, "we need to tell people what's good for them because they don't know better" is a colonialist and dominionist argument that I reject without extremely strong evidence to sustain that argument, in which case that argument becomes a mere appendage to the greater issue. I do not feel that recreational tobacco use rises to that level.

It's not "we need to tell people what's good for them because they don't know better". It's "we need to tell people what's bad for them, because companies have been hiding the truth". I believe that people can make choices themselves, but I also believe that advertising manipulates people beyond their own control. Any effective education includes product warning labels.

Is it appropriate to regulate each of these with some universal mandate from the WA, or can we actually let individual national governments do their jobs, and determine what is and is not most dangerous, and therefore of the highest priority for them?

This proposal is only seeking to regulate tobacco products, not all unsafe products under the sun. This is probably because smoking is more common than drinking motor vehicle fuel. As for letting national governments 'do their jobs', that would be great, if all governments in the World Assembly would follow Krioval and do the right thing. However, if that were ever the case, the World Assembly would be completely unnecessary and would be due to be disbanded.

They are hardly *designed* to kill.

You are right: dead customers are useless. I misspoke there, but that was hardly the crux of my point. You cannot equate tobacco warning labels with the dangers of inappropriately operating a motor vehicle. When you smoke a cigarette correctly, it is harmful to your health. (Not including Krioval's incredulous health-neutral tobacco products.) It's also helpful to point out that you are taught the dangers of motor vehicles, and there are 'warning labels' all over the road to guide you.

... I hazard to guess that cigarette smoking is the least of that nation's problems.

So that means it's not worth addressing? Because it's not the worst issue that needs to be dealt with?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Krioval]

Let me distill my problem with this into a brief statement, then. Unless this proposal will address drugs "harder" than tobacco alongside it - I will never endorse an antismoking proposal that says, by omission, that snorting cocaine and injecting heroin are just fine - *and* it does so in a way that doesn't micromanage people's lives and deny them the right to do with their body as they will, I, and by extension Krioval, will not support this proposal. To do otherwise would be to betray centuries of our culture and to allow paternalism to trump civil freedom.

Aleksei-kan Volkov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Quadrimmina]

Let me distill my problem with this into a brief statement, then. Unless this proposal will address drugs "harder" than tobacco alongside it - I will never endorse an antismoking proposal that says, by omission, that snorting cocaine and injecting heroin are just fine - *and* it does so in a way that doesn't micromanage people's lives and deny them the right to do with their body as they will, I, and by extension Krioval, will not support this proposal. To do otherwise would be to betray centuries of our culture and to allow paternalism to trump civil freedom.

Aleksei-kan Volkov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

We are confused as to how paternalism would be mitigated by adding MORE regulation into this measure. While we do support adding warnings to more hard drugs, as well as to alcohol as we've repeatedly reiterated, and some prescription drugs, we must note that such an argument is rather puzzling.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Let me distill my problem with this into a brief statement, then. Unless this proposal will address drugs "harder" than tobacco alongside it - I will never endorse an antismoking proposal that says, by omission, that snorting cocaine and injecting heroin are just fine - *and* it does so in a way that doesn't micromanage people's lives and deny them the right to do with their body as they will, I, and by extension Krioval, will not support this proposal. To do otherwise would be to betray centuries of our culture and to allow paternalism to trump civil freedom.

I would not be against placing labels on bags on cocaine and other hard drugs, even though I would prefer to outlaw those things completely. Education on drug use is a given; all nations should be doing that, with or without the World Assembly forcing them to do so. But I'm not sure what doesn't constitute 'micromanaging'.

Right now, the proposal bans smoking in areas filled with other people; this is not micromanaging personal choices, but rather protecting others from the dangers of second-hand smoke. It bans the sale to minors, which you support. It encourages a sin tax, which I think may be the micromanaging you're talking about. I personally support those kinds of sin taxes, since they tend to push out at least a portion of users. It mandates that nations regulate the content and emissions of tobacco products, which isn't micromanagement as I understand it. It forces the disclosure of ingredients, which is transparency that goes along with placing health warning labels on packaging. It forbids companies from covering up the negative health effects of their products. And then it encourages public awareness campaigns.

I can't figure out where the proposal is "[denying] them the right to do with their body as they will". It seems to me that most of this proposal is about bringing transparency to a traditionally opaque industry.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We support the concept, Your Honour.

Moral Decency or Social Justice, Significant, and inspired by the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Social Justice. Your Excellency will never get anything passed under Moral decency.

Social Justice adopted.

OBSERVING the numerous health problems caused by smoking tobacco cigarettes or similar products, ranging form cancers to depression;

OOC: Tobacco withdrawal is far more likely to cause depression than its use.

Proof: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22tobacco+withdrawal%22+depression&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Wording revised to cite "cancer, infant mortality, organ disease and stress".

ENCOURAGES governments of member states to reduce interaction with the tobacco industry in regards to lawmaking;

Meaning a government cannot tax the Big Tobacco? Taxes are governmental interaction.

Revised to read:

CALLS FOR member states to protect their public health policies from interference by the commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry;

OOC2: Strange as it may sound, smoking tobacco is actually good for your health if you happen to have ulcerative colitis. An exception should be made for tobacco smoking as treatment.

Proof: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=smoking+%22ulcerative+colitis%22&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

I've seen it before, although it should be clear that I have no intention of banning its use at all: should the suggestion of taxes be waived or a modification to the public awareness clause be applied in this case?

I have a lot of problems with this resolution especially this clause:

MANDATES that the contents and emissions of tobacco products are to be regulated by the national health agency(s) in which they are sold, and its ingredients disclosed in the interests of public awareness;

I believe that this could lead to more regulation on a number of every day product like like paper, and several different kind of leaves.

Addressed. It should say "MANDATES that the contents and emissions of nicotine and tar in tobacco products are to be regulated by the national health agency(s) in which they are sold, and such ingredients shall be disclosed on tobacco packaging in interests of public awareness;".

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Had to run out and get another pack before diving into this. Mmm... they come in an all black pack with a skull and crossbones and they're called Tumors. Yum yum yum.

Social Justice, Significant

I just want to keep this in mind...

DISSATISFIED, SHOCKED, ACCEPTING, BUT CONVINCED, SEEKING

This is a long preamble. Where's the meat and potatoes, or did you ban those too? Oh. Next line. Right.

REQUIRES member states to protect all people from exposure to passive tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport and indoor public places, either by banning smoking entirely in such places or restricting smoking to particular areas of such places;

So far, so fair. Rather banal and inoffensive.

CALLS FOR member states to protect their public health policies from interference by the commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry;

Fear mongering weasel words.

REQUIRES member states to ban the sale of tobacco products to minors;

Well, isn't this redundant? Isn't part of being a minor the inability to purchase tobacco? Still, fine. Whatever.

RECOMMENDS member states to reduce demand for tobacco by means of taxing tobacco products or banning retail displays of tobacco products;

This does nothing. I like "RECOMMEND"ing clauses!

MANDATES that the contents and emissions of nicotine and tar in tobacco products are to be regulated by the national health agency(s) in which they are sold, and such ingredients shall be disclosed on tobacco packaging in interests of public awareness;

Huh? Well... um... okay. I guess that leaves the regulation up to individual nations, so it could be as minimal as regulating the length and diameter of the physical cigarette. And... you want an ingredient list? Oh, a list of how much nicotine and tar you have. I can see this backfiring spectacularly, but whatever. It's a pretty minuscule mandate. Hell, requiring the later would suffice for the former, even.

No, wait, that's not what you're requiring. "[S]uch ingredients shall be disclosed on tobacco packaging," only requires that the package say "Contains nicotine and tar." Hell, even I'm cool with that.

STRICTLY MANDATES that all tobacco advertising and packaging shall carry large health warnings which shall be clear and visible;

Ooo... now we're strictly mandating. "Large" isn't defined, though. Now, I'm not a wanker that would say large could be redefined to a pixel by pixel image, but you've left it pretty vague for something strictly mandated. Would the entire bottom of the package count as "large"?

And, again, I point you to my package of Tumors. Warnings are far less effective than you might think.

PROHIBITS the tobacco industry from using labels in advertising or packaging with the intention to cover up the negative health effects of smoking;

Er, okay. Basic truth in advertising stuff here.

CALLS FOR member states to raise public awareness for the negative consequences of smoking and methods of quitting smoking;

"Raise awareness" is one of those terminally vague WA-isms. I bet ole' Joe could poke his head out of his lab and holler "Smoking's bad!" and it would suffice for this clause.

FINALLY, SUGGESTS that member states may wish to restrict or ban the advertising of tobacco.

Gee, thanks for your permission, World Assembly.

Now, there was something I was trying to remember... something I wanted to keep in mind while reading this... oh, right!

Social Justice, Significant

Not seeing it. WA categories aren't some kind of grab bag of options. The proposal actually needs to fit the category. Write to the category, not t'other way 'round.



Doctor Denis Leary
WA Representative
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

[Grays Harbor]

Fear mongering weasel words.

best .... quote .... ever

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Social Justice, Significant

Not seeing it. WA categories aren't some kind of grab bag of options. The proposal actually needs to fit the category. Write to the category, not t'other way 'round.

The choice of category has been quite hard because it is a drug control, but not a ban, and also a promotion of health awareness in smoking. I could drop a strength category, if you wish, or am I being too broad on the subject?

[Quadrimmina]

Social Justice, Significant

Not seeing it. WA categories aren't some kind of grab bag of options. The proposal actually needs to fit the category. Write to the category, not t'other way 'round.

The choice of category has been quite hard because it is a drug control, but not a ban, and also a promotion of health awareness in smoking. I could drop a strength category, if you wish, or am I being too broad on the subject?

Try Human Rights and reword it to make the proposal one of "the right to be informed and healthy"

[Bears Armed]

Social Justice, Significant

Not seeing it. WA categories aren't some kind of grab bag of options. The proposal actually needs to fit the category. Write to the category, not t'other way 'round.

The choice of category has been quite hard because it is a drug control, but not a ban, and also a promotion of health awareness in smoking. I could drop a strength category, if you wish, or am I being too broad on the subject?

OOC: Say that companies who place such labels on their tobacco products can't subsequently be sued for causing damage to the health of people who only start smoking after such labels are in place, and classify it as 'Tort Reform'?
In fact, why not a proposal of wider scope that allows placing accurate (as far as is currently known) & clear 'Warning' labels on goods of all kinds to free the companies & vendors involved from the risk of such litigation?
Oh, and to make it "an international matter", perhaps only 'require' such labelling (instead of simply 'urging' it) on those goods that are traded across international borders...

[The Most Glorious Hack]

This is why we write to the category and not create and try to shoehorn.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

IMO, if there had been a "Recreational Drug Use, Tighten" option then it would have been easier to write this up. It is definitely a health-related proposal, so in my opinion "Social Justice" is a category of best fit.

[Flibbleites]

IMO, if there had been a "Recreational Drug Use, Tighten" option then it would have been easier to write this up. It is definitely a health-related proposal, so in my opinion "Social Justice" is a category of best fit.

Well if you want to get right down to it, your opinion is irrelevant. Hack's opinion, on the other hand, is relevant and he's said that he doesn't see this as being Social Justice.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

IMO, if there had been a "Recreational Drug Use, Tighten" option then it would have been easier to write this up. It is definitely a health-related proposal, so in my opinion "Social Justice" is a category of best fit.

Well if you want to get right down to it, your opinion is irrelevant. Hack's opinion, on the other hand, is relevant and he's said that he doesn't see this as being Social Justice.

OK, honoured ambassador. I could break up this concept to cover just tobacco packet warnings in exchange for the tobacco industry to be immune from litigation, and put it under Tort Reform, as Bears Armed suggested. It's not quite what I had in mind, but with all resolutions there's a trade off.

[Quadrimmina]

IMO, if there had been a "Recreational Drug Use, Tighten" option then it would have been easier to write this up. It is definitely a health-related proposal, so in my opinion "Social Justice" is a category of best fit.

Well if you want to get right down to it, your opinion is irrelevant. Hack's opinion, on the other hand, is relevant and he's said that he doesn't see this as being Social Justice.

OK, honoured ambassador. I could break up this concept to cover just tobacco packet warnings in exchange for the tobacco industry to be immune from litigation, and put it under Tort Reform, as Bears Armed suggested. It's not quite what I had in mind, but with all resolutions there's a trade off.

The Republic of Quadrimmina is disappointed by this decision, but nonetheless supports it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

IMO, if there had been a "Recreational Drug Use, Tighten" option then it would have been easier to write this up. It is definitely a health-related proposal, so in my opinion "Social Justice" is a category of best fit.

What's wrong with "Recreational Drug Use, Outlaw"? As far as I know, you don't have to be outlawing drug use in its entirety.

OK, honoured ambassador. I could break up this concept to cover just tobacco packet warnings in exchange for the tobacco industry to be immune from litigation, and put it under Tort Reform, as Bears Armed suggested. It's not quite what I had in mind, but with all resolutions there's a trade off.

This is a horrible, horrible idea. Why on earth should the tobacco industry get a free ride?

[Quadrimmina]

IMO, if there had been a "Recreational Drug Use, Tighten" option then it would have been easier to write this up. It is definitely a health-related proposal, so in my opinion "Social Justice" is a category of best fit.

What's wrong with "Recreational Drug Use, Outlaw"? As far as I know, you don't have to be outlawing drug use in its entirety.

OK, honoured ambassador. I could break up this concept to cover just tobacco packet warnings in exchange for the tobacco industry to be immune from litigation, and put it under Tort Reform, as Bears Armed suggested. It's not quite what I had in mind, but with all resolutions there's a trade off.

This is a horrible, horrible idea. Why on earth should the tobacco industry get a free ride?

Well, I think the idea is that since the consumers have warnings, the burden is now on them and not the tobacco industry. We still think it's a bad idea, and prefer Human Rights-->Mild, for the right to be informed about purchase decisions.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Well, I think the idea is that since the consumers have warnings, the burden is now on them and not the tobacco industry. We still think it's a bad idea, and prefer Human Rights-->Mild, for the right to be informed about purchase decisions.

Just because they put warnings on their boxes doesn't mean they're infallible.

[Quadrimmina]

Well, I think the idea is that since the consumers have warnings, the burden is now on them and not the tobacco industry. We still think it's a bad idea, and prefer Human Rights-->Mild, for the right to be informed about purchase decisions.

Just because they put warnings on their boxes doesn't mean they're infallible.

Hence my competing suggestion.