Smokers do not like cigarettes that have "minutes of life lost" ruler printed on them

Originally published at:


Pretty sure that’s the point of printing it.


I realy like reserach about how to make drugs uncool and their harm obvious.

What would be the equivalent for cannabis? I figure it will be legal over here in Sweden sooner or lather and how could coolnes then be minimised? And what quantifiable and verifiable harm information could be included with the sales?

1 Like

I’m ok with this . At the same I’m wondering if cigarrette companies will ever push it far enough that smokers could ironically , claim they they got ptsd from the constant bombardment of disturbing labelling.


As far as I know all anybody’s got on it is that if you’re a heavy smoker before the age of 25 it might cause some cognitive problems.

1 Like

It can hardy be good to inhale smoke from plant matter besides the Nicotine/THC but I dont know the tar and particle levels in typical joints.

I’d rather have an educated public on the effects of various drugs (including alcohol, caffeine) than one that criminalizes using drugs.
When I visited Amsterdam in the early 2010’s I was impressed by how much info was available, most of it provided by the retailers themselves. I wish Canada’s roll out was more like that rather than trying to limit the number of retailers and making it nearly 2x more expensive than street value.


Consensus at the moment seems to be that the anti-inflammatory/anti-cancer effects seem to cancel out the inherent problems with smoke. Of course it’s hard to have good long term data on use of illegal stuff, so it’s hard to say. I’m guessing we’ll probably have some studies out of the netherlands soon enough?

Meanwhile, I heard they decided to not run ads for those of us with depression.


Want to like because it made me chuckle evilly…

1 Like

Everyone knows what smoking does. As a person who has cut down from a pack a day to a pack a week. This is judgmental and unnecessary. No warnings no matter how gruesome they are need be reminded.


Isn’t vaping the way of the future now anyway?

For those of you doing the math at home, this works out to someone who smokes a pack a day for x years losing x/6 years off their life.

1 Like

I suppose that if and once cannabis is federally legalized that the packaging should have similar things.

Usually if your parents are doing it, its already uncool.

I agree that it is kinda just F’ing with people who are already smokers but won’t help them to quit. I think the idea is to make non-smokers less intrigued to try or start. Lets face it, people can have a very different perception of what smoking is, good or bad, despite the reality of it.

1 Like

Nonsense. That’s the good stuff!



Yeah “free choice rational actor” models go out the window for addictive goods. The point of tobacco control policies is to reduce the burden of harm to a population imposed by corporate behavior: it’s not about the individual.

In the tobacco control research world, there is plenty of emphasis on (and evidence for) a variety of tobacco control policies reducing the intensity of smoking (i.e. # of cigs smoked per day, number of days per month during which folks smoke).


Please read my reply to @Magnus_Redin2 below. Equating the risks of cannabis and tobacco is a false equivalence.

There is no nicotine in cannabis.

There is considerably more tar produced by cannabis smoke than tobacco smoke, though that’s in reference to the cannabis and tobacco plants. While cannabis is most often smoked raw, tobacco is typically smoked in cigarettes to which most tobacco companies routinely add additional unnecessary carcinogenic additives including artificially boosting the nicotine level to increase their addictive properties.

Dry cannabis vaporizers produce less tar than smoking cannabis because the oils in the ground plants are heated above their vapor point, activating the cannabinoids (including THC) and carrying them with the vapor to be inhaled. Please note that I’m referring to dry herb vaporizers that take raw ground cannabis. I’m not referring to marijuana cartridges from companies which may include undisclosed additives.


In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors. Cannabinoids receptors have not been reported in respiratory epithelial cells (in skin they prevent cancer), and hence the DNA damage checkpoint mechanism should remain intact after prolonged cannabis exposure. Furthermore, nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it. It is possible that as the cannabis-consuming population ages, the long-term consequences of smoking cannabis may become more similar to what is observed with tobacco. However, current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke.

It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated


They should print ‘Streets, sidewalks and lawns are not ashtrays for your butts.’