Canada launches warning labels on each cigarette
Canada will be the first nation to start printing warnings directly onto individual cigarettes in a bid to deter young people from starting smoking and encourage others to quit.
The warnings, which will be in English and French, will include phrases like "Cigarettes cause cancer" and "Poison in every puff".
The new regulations go into effect on Tuesday.
Starting next year, Canadians will begin to see the new warning labels.
By July 2024 manufacturers will have to ensure the warnings are on all king-size cigarettes sold, and by April 2025 all regular-size cigarettes and little cigars with tipping paper and tubes must include the warnings.
The phrases will appear by the filter, including warnings about harming children, damaging organs and causing impotence and leukaemia.
In May, Health Canada said the new regulations "will make it virtually impossible to avoid health warnings" on tobacco products.
A second set of six phrases is expected to be printed on cigarettes in 2026.
The move is part of Canada's effort to reduce tobacco use to less than 5% by 2035 and follows a 75-day public consultation period that was launched last year.
Canada has required the printing of warning labels on cigarette packages since 1989 and in 2000 the country adopted pictorial warning requirements for tobacco product packages.
Health Canada said it plans to expand on warnings by printing additional warning labels inside the packages themselves, and introducing a new external warning messages.
Dr Robert Schwartz, of the University of Toronto, told BBC News it was good news that Canada was "moving forward with this innovation".
"Health warnings on individual cigarettes will likely push some people who smoke to make a quit attempt and may prevent some young people from starting to smoke," he said.
He also pointed to New Zealand, which has introduced very low nicotine cigarettes, as a leader in limiting the use of tobacco.
Mr Schwartz added: "These are the kinds of measures needed if we are serious about decreasing tobacco use."
Tobacco use continues to kill 48,000 Canadians each year.
"Tobacco use continues to be one of Canada's most significant public health problems, and is the country's leading preventable cause of disease and premature death in Canada," Public Services Minister Jean-Yves Duclos has previously said.
The Canadian Cancer Society, Canada's Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Lung Association have all praised the warning labels, saying they hope the measures will deter people, especially young people, from taking up smoking in the first place.
Cigarette smoking is widely regarded as a risk factor for lung cancer, heart disease and stroke.
In Canada, the rate of smokers aged 15 years or older is around 10%, according to a national 2021 Tobacco and Nicotine survey but electronic cigarette use has been on the rise.
Is this really necessary? Aren't most smokers, y'know, aware of the dangers of smoking by now? At some point I wonder if the warnings will get annoying enough that people will start to actively defy them out of spite instead of just passively ignoring them.
The constant barrage of negativity and warnings may help keep kids from picking it up.
Kids aren’t picking it up though. They’re going to vapes. Which are probably just as bad.
As I understand it, vapes are in theory not as bad, however the significant increase nicotine consumption far offsets any of that.
Kind of depends on the vape, the chemicals in the cartridges and how hot they get.
Generally speaking though, inhaling chemical aerosols into your lungs is bad. Most of the “it’s better” research is brought to you by the vaping industry itself . “No, no, it’s totally harmless. Honest!”
I think a lot of it comes down to the subjective experience of ex smokers. It feels better. Not coughing black, no struggling to breathe jogging, etc.
Could we find out later that they're just as likely to cause an early death? Who knows, but it still feels better than the alternative.
Exactly. Inhaling anything other than oxygen is bad for your lungs. Vapes are definitely bad. They might not be bad in the same exact way cigarettes are, but that doesn't make them any better.
Even pure oxygen is generally not recommended- it’s you know… oxidizing….
But like yeah. Sorry for being a pedant
Just don't. Seriously, what's the purpose of being like that?
I personally think it's a neat little tid-bit. It adds to the conversation, and it's information that a lot of people probably don't know. They weren't being rude, harsh, or condescending. They were just sharing something they know about the topic.
I could ask you your own question lol.
The lack of any real controls on what goes into vape fluid is a concern. Also, breathing glycol into your lungs can’t be great for them. Studies seem to vary on that, but breathing anything but air isn’t good, just like drinking anything but water isn’t great (I’m big hypocrite on that one though) On the whole probably still not as bad as cigarettes.
Oh I'm a big hypocrite in the smoking regard. I smoke weed fairly regularly, and will occasionally vape for the first bit of a T break.
It's all at best not great for you
If I remember correctly propylene glycol is used in inhalers. So it really shouldn't be that bad.
Nicotine by itself isn't really that bad, as it isn't much of a carcinogen. The sharp increase of nicotine in vapes is troubling though, as although it isn't much of a carcinogen, it does increase risk of heart disease and can lead to hardening of the heart in the long run.
Not as bad is still bad.
Like saying "instead of drinking a glass of poison, I just drink half of a glass. Its better for my health."
Where did I claim otherwise
You didn't. I didn't say you did.
I just built on your comment.
I apologise for the misunderstanding.
This is a stupid way to view the world. Its not a binary of "good" and "bad" like Drinking the poison is bad for you, but so is drinking a diet coke. To not acknowledge the difference in how bad they are is idiotic.
Alright. I get your point. It is hard to consider it, sadly, because you offend me presenting it. Let me explain:
Calling someone's opinion stupid is disrespectful and dismissive. It never leads to a productive discussion. Calling someone's opinion stupid may shut down any further discussion or exchange of ideas, as it implies that the other person's thoughts and opinions aren't worth a penny.
Instead of calling someone's opinion stupid, it is much more productive to engage in a respectful conversation. A conversation that tries to understand each other's perspective - even and especially if we don't agree. This is how truth and wisdom are often born. At the very least such a discussion leads to a more productive exchange of ideas and a better understanding of each other's viewpoints.
Agree with someone or not, but respect others. Surely we all deserve at least that.
Edit: spelling & some clarity
You're working under the assumption I'm trying to get you to consider my point in an attempt to change your opinion or at least argue with you.
But I'm not.
Fair enough. Sad that you don't worry if you offend.
Shame, too. You made a good point, although I don't fully agree. Sadly it is shouted into a void of your own making.
Mixing drinks with half shots is technically better for your health than full shots.
Many Kids are still picking up smoking cigarettes though.
usually by way of vaping. teens only really start with cigarettes or other tobacco if their parents smoke, these days. And for the record, you can get addicted to nicotine off 2nd hand smoke if your around it enough.
Vaping is the "cool" thing to do now.
Citation needed. The health departments aren’t throwing money at this for no reason.
mayo clinic
American council on science and health
Vaping was seen as a way to harm reduction and break nicotine addiction, because it was thought to lack the harmful chemicals found in tobacco (all tobacco is insanely toxic.)
Most of that thought came from industry-funded “studies”, similar to how tobacco funded big studies showing it was perfectly safe.
To be clear, there are no studies linking vaping to lung cancer because it’s too new a product to actually collect that data. So anyone telling you it doesn’t is full of shit.
That said, the risk profile on such a timescale is probably just as bad. Particularly if you include the kids that died from embolism hitting up dank thc cartridges.
They have ONE idea to stop people smoking and by god they're gonna use it
Lots of smokers ive known usually wear the dangers as a badge of pride in their knowing
Most smokers are not thrilled about being alive in the first place.
Or is that just me?
nailed it
It's similar to commercials and ads. Everyone thinks they are not affected by such things, but pretty much everyone is affected by them on a subconscious level. Why would companies such as coca cola spend millions of dollars on advertisements? After all, virtually everyone already knows what coca cola is.
I bet it would be a lot more effective if they just printed a penis down the length of every cigarette.
Wouldn't it make smoking more cool?
Could someone smart enlighten me on why cigarettes continue to be allowed to be sold if we know that it causes cancer and costs the healthcare system millions (billions?) each year? I know we can't suddenly stop production overnight but can't they gradually putting a stricter ban on it until it's almost impossible to get? Is it smokers being too addicted? Is it tobacco lobby being too strong?
Because people will still smoke even if you ban cigarettes. Legalizing cigarettes actually provides a way for governments to regulate production and enforce safety standards, while getting a cut of the profits by sales tax.
Exactly, if you made them illegal you would open up a huge black market while making the products likely more dangerous. This would put further strain on our healthcare system, while decrease funding as the government would no longer be getting taxes on the sale of cigarettes.
Remember prohibition?
The lessons of the 20th century have mostly been forgotten. Re-learning them is going to be very expensive - not just in money, but in lives.
How so?
gestures vaguely at the United States
Optionally we can do (worldwide) what Australia does: an additional 65% tax.
This tax is increased year on year too
Yeah because fuck poor people with addictions, am I right fellas? /s
2 things (one of which you mentioned)
Lobbying in the tabacco industry is crazy strong, they have so much money that, much alike to the oil industry, they will keep selling their products no matter the risks.
There's also the fact that the government makes money off the sales and imports of tobacco products. The revenue is strong enough to counter the money spent on healthcare, etc.
Think history here. Think about the crazy, depraved shit western leaders would do over tobacco in the past. Like American colonization was propped up quite hard by tobacco addiction. Tobacco is pretty much soft cocaine, many of the same irritable and addicted side effects. Personally most people I know say cigs are harder to quit than coke.
Banning tobacco would pretty much create a new problem drug out of nowhere. It would be like if we banned coffee. Historically speaking, humans have been very okay with killing each other over coffee. Numerous countries have had their entire histories change around coffee. Sure coffee does have some health issues, especially with American excess and people drinking full drip pots at home. But coffee isn't truly an issue until people don't have it, yk?
My friend from Canada comes to visit and is a smoker. She brings packs with her and the entire pack is covered in warnings and pictures. I asked her if it bothers her and and she said, "I don't even notice them anymore." I highly doubt putting a warning on each cigarette is going to do anything.
People who have lung cancer continue to smoke in the hospital. Alcoholics continue to drink, even after massive accidents.
People addicted to things don't care.
It's not that they don't care, it's that they can't stop.
"Poison in every Puff"
Don't threaten me with a good time!
Joking aside, I'm fairly ambivalent about this as a smoker. I hope it helps people avoid smoking but not sure how effective these warnings are.
Former smoker. The specific medical warnings are good imo. "Poison in every puff" is a little too goofy and my inner teenager reaction is just "hell yeah" hahaha. Which is funny, but also counterproductive.
Long time ago my brand was Death cigarettes. The pack had a skull on it and a portion of the price of packet went to cancer research. I knew that smoking was bad idea but it was an excellent drug delivery system.
Though if it just means it costs the cigarette companies a bit more to produce each cigarette and makes it harder for them to divert inventory for one market to another if their predictions turn out not so good, that's still a win.
Though, now I'm suddenly wondering why cigarette company profits aren't taxed at like 90%.
Damn now that's actually a great reason, at first I thought it would be a complete waste to stop people and yeah it probably is but at least it puts more cost on those companies participating in production and distribution so that's a win in my books.
I quit smoking almost a decade ago. But I feel like if I was still smoking this would only make me want to smoke more. Watching the warnings slowly burn away would be relaxing.
They fked up
They should've printed anatomical lungs on the cigarette that showed them getting darker with soot as the cig burns
More ominous and a picture is worth a 1000 words. And some ppl dont/cant read tbf
Is the paint cancerous?
Yes that's the point, if you get paint cancer first, you won't ever get cancer from the sigarets themselves.
Completely and utterly pointless.
This will not change anything. It won't convince any more people to quit.
Smoking trends have been on the correct trajectory for decades now. I recall seeing a scientific study on Reddit a few years ago that stated in cases like this where people are faced with overwhelming evidence contrary to their current opinions or lifestyles, people tended to double and triple-down on their opinions and habits. The more push there was, the bigger the blow-back. People are stubborn even when it comes to their health.
I have little doubt that the smoking trend will continue to drop, but wasting ever more resources with gimmicks like this might actually slow that downward trend some. Smokers know cigarettes are dangerous and cause cancer. Everyone does. It is beyond common knowledge at this point. Just let it all play out.
oof you need to keep more up to date on that kind of data, the trend has reversed in recent years with teenage and childhood vaping creating a new pathway to smoking.
Smoking is still going down. The disposable vapes right now are so strong that they make cigarettes pointless. Can't even feel a smoke after I've had one of those cheap 50mg vapes for a few days.
In marketing, this would be considered an awareness campaign. The problem is, that everyone knows.
IMO, this is akin to Google advertising that their search engine exists, it's pretty good, and you should try it. Alternatively, it would be apple informing people that they make electronics like computers and cellphones.... (Not a specific one, just.... In general). Or Nike running ads to say that they make shoes.
Thanks, everyone knows that (household name) does (the thing it does), this is not helpful.
If they ignored the warning on the pack, they're gonna ignore these too.
Maybe "they" will. Worked on me though. Took sometime but after years of the warnings it finally sunk into me how dumb smoking was and I quit. Some people are not reachable but the anti smoking campaign is working because we've seen huge reduction in smokers since its started
Education and awareness isn't the only reason we see less smokers.
Less harmful alternatives with the ability to allow users to taper off have now become common place.
Agreed, it's a very stupid idea. They should print 'Known by the state of California to cause cancer' just to drive home how incredibly stupid this idea is.
If the ink causes cancer...
Double cancer?
Literally.
It will cancel out the cancer from smoking. /s
Let's add a warning label to every bottle of alcohol /s
They are actually considering adding warning labels to booze in Canada like they have on cigarette packages. I'm unsure if they'll go full gory photos of damaged organs and dying people but they are thinking of putting a label of some sort on it.
I mean, if the concern is public health, I don't see why not. To be honest, I'm actually kind of suprised that they haven't yet. Cannabis, too.
It might be a bit of a pain for companies to re-fit their labelling machines with the new labels, but after the hypothetical switch there would probably be nearly no difference in terms of manufacturing. Waiting for the labels to arrive would probably take the longest.
Source: I've worked in food manufacturing
I think the next step should be that, while you're smoking the smoke writes "Smoking Cause Cancer" in Morse code.
SMOKING WORDS CAUSES CANCER
I was wondering about that. Is there a sleeve or are they printed right on the cigarette?
"The phrases will appear by the filter, including warnings about harming children, damaging [...]"
Looks like it might be on the filter part though the wording is kinda ambiguous
At the start of the cigarette propaganda machine, asbestos filters were added to cigarettes to make them safer.
I want to say that it isn't being done on purpose, but there is no way I believe that inhaling ink isnt a larger carcinogenic risk than the tobacco alone.
Creating a red herring problem to baselessly add pathos to your power trip.
This is stupid. Every one knows that cigarettes are bad for you. Maybe fix the housing market, and opiate crisis before going after something like smoking, which plenty of productive people do.
There is no cost to the government to mandate that cigarettes have this printed on each one.
Fixing other things will cost the government a lot of money.
It does not cost the government a lot of money to abolish single-family zoning.
Smoking costs all of us shit loads of money every year. I know it feels easy to shit on this initiative, but whatever, smoking needs to be eradicated.
Until people are willing to write waivers that they will fully pay their personal healthcare costs we have to keep disincentivising smoking.
Just pay for it with tobacco taxes.
Safety theatre. They just want to make sure beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you know that you're doing the bad thing and you only have yourself to blame, regardless of any evidence that the public is well aware of the facts, and that the ones still smoking know this and either don't care or simply cannot quit for whatever reason.
Next up, we're going to start tattooing "smoking kills" across the outside of everyone's index finger at birth, so if they ever start smoking, the message is always visible as they puff on their cancer stick.
We do all this to save the children, who, evidently, don't give any shits.
What about e-cigs and vape? They're the new hip and most young people are catering to that now some even rationalizing that they do it because it doesn't have nicotine and is therefore not dangerous.
Denis Leary: It doesn't matter how big the warnings on the cigarettes are; you could have a black pack, with a skull and crossbones on the front, called TUMORS, and smokers would be around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these f***ing things! I bet ya get a tumor as soon as you light up!"
Funny enough tale is he actually quit a while ago, but there are a handful of folks that legitimatly don't give a damn how may warnings of what type you put on there. It seems a lot more practical to just continue to raise the tax on them to fund the health system detriments they pose.
"Never knows best".
When I ran the tobacco lockup in a grocery store old, nearly dead people would specifically request boxes or cartons with the less disturbing images on them.
I actually think this could be a good idea as a deterrent. It’s easy enough to ignore the images and words on the box, but to have to see it every time you pull out and puff on a cigarette might be more effective.
I dunno, lighting the cigarette and watch the words slowly burn away might have the opposite effect on me personally.
Yes, I imagine if you’re (not you specifically) edgy or depressed the words wouldn’t much of a deterrent at all. Might even be “cool.” But in that case I figure you’d likely be smoking already and not making the best life decisions in general.
They are on the filter.
Younger me wouldn't have even thought of this and maybe would have just assumed it was fine if I did, but I'd also wonder about the safety of inhaling burnt ink fumes. If you smoked the message itself, maybe that would be part of the poison in every puff.
Having it on the filter makes a lot more sense. I didn't realize it from the picture since it was not a brown filter.
They got rid of those a couple years back. Other than this new messaging, there can't be anything printed on the smokes other than a serial or batch number.
This is so stupid, they know they are bad for them and they keep puffing away. So why waste the resources?
Reminds me of Bill Burr's take on DV
https://youtu.be/zM38aK5Uhs4?t=101
What resources? The cost to print those messages is so small and shouldered by the manufacturer. The government doesn't care it's going to cost another half cent per cigarette wrapper and the majority of legally purchased cigarette cost is tax at this point.
I more curious if they will have to be printed on the big bags of smokes people get from the resi.
Exactly. The cigarette companies are printing on the individual cancer sticks anyway.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/zM38aK5Uhs4?t=101
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
You need the know context. Canada's has universal healthcare and it costs taxpayers too much money to treat cigarette related illnesses.
At some point you've done what you can. People are stupid, they will do stupid things.
If it costs basically nothing to try to do a little more, why not do it?
Because "knowledge" isn't the problem. You're addressing the wrong issue and wasting your resources on the wrong problem.
And I'll shovel shit against the tide... I bet we get to the same place. Drunks gonna drunk, druggies are gonna drug, smokers will smoke. YOU CAN'T FIX THESE PEOPLE WITH A LITTLE AD ON A CIGARETTE. Don't waste your time.
It won't fix it, so why bother? Lets put labels on heroin and see how that fixes that problem.
Make them illegal to sell at this point.
Considering cannabis is legal in Canada, I think tobacco should be as well. Just don't make plants illegal.
Do you also think opium should be legalized?
Yes. Along with all other drugs. Criminalizing drug use just fills prisons and does nothing about addiction or abuse.
Yeah, that plant wasn't even a crime until like 100 years ago. Our anti drug attitudes are fairly new, and banning the plants is just stupid. You know why fent and methadone exist? Because they're synthetic opiates that can be made without poppies. America has been hit the hardest by the fent epidemic because we still have a ton of opiate addicts, but it's impossible to find anything clean because it's even more illegal.
Every other nation is doing fine on fent compared to America. Find it funny that the nation that burnt thousands of other nation's plants en mass is now getting dicked far harder because they burnt those plants and people just found worse sources. If poppies weren't illegal, fent wouldn't be what it is today.
Calling cigarettes plants is like calling refined sugar a vegetable.
I wouldn't make sugar illegal either.
Agreed.
Although there are a ton of people who abuse either sugar or cigarettes. Both of which have terrible long term effects on your body that we end up paying for through their hospital visits.
There needs to be a solution where healthy people don't have to pick up the slack of people who purposely ruin their bodies. Such as from smoking, eating a ton of sugar, etc.
Makes perfect sense. The warnings on every pack have stopped being effective so start printing lessor warnings on the part that's immediately thrown away.
Honestly why not skip the middle man and pass legislation to get them to stamp the warning directly in my lungs
Let me guess, no minimum age increase still? So not dealing with the root of the problem.
Kids will bypass the age limit anyway
That will always be the case no matter what we do. No need to worry about that.
Collect them all!
Wayne: I'll have a dart...wait a minute.
Dan: What is it, Waynes?
Wayne: It says here on my dart that "cigarettes cause impotence".
Dan: Wells, you can always enjoys watching other people's kids falls off of bikes, Waynes.
Wayne: (takes a long drag) I could watch kids fall off of bikes all day long, Dan. All (drag) day (drag) long (drag).
I want a pack of these extremely bad, those look hard af
I think the next step should be that, while you're smoking the smoke writes "Smoking Cause Cancer" in Morse code.
😂 😂 😂
Stupid fixation for idiots with control issues.
It is all about creating and enforcing a subclass to abuse and shame.
... what?! Canada has universal health care and it costs taxpayers too much money to treat cigarette related illnesses. It's all about educating the population about the risk and having a healthier population.
Outlaw caffeine, cannabis, alcohol, whole milk, candy, internal combustion engines, etc, and then tell me about how the fixation on tobacco isn't simply a propaganda play, and how we need to make sure everyone is most premiums healthy and miserable because we need to keep health care cheap.
Are you from the past?
Time traveler!
Aren't we all?
I thought that when I first read this thread, but a little googling revealed that cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada (as of 2019). With that perspective, it makes a little more sense why they would be targeting this issue specifically, even if it is almost guaranteed to not stop the majority of users.
I see your point, but also, it takes 40 to 60 years for cancer to manifest from cigarettes. At that, there are SO many other cancer sources, that you cannot associate the cancer solely to the cigarettes.
Baby powder, antacids, aspertame. Those are the most recent carcinogens that have actually been shown the cause cancer in a more aggressive timeframe, and I would go so far to say that it took so long to discover those dangers because doctors just blamed ALL THE CANCER on the cigarettes.
I generally agree that I think there are bigger fish to fry that don’t bring any joy to the user. I smoke weed and smoked cigarettes in the past and have no illusions about their safety, but at the same time I recognize that I get a benefit from it and it outweighs the risk for me.
I was simply trying to point out that this is actually aimed at their primary cause of death rather than being a simple scapegoat to take focus off of other issues.