Ask anyone who has seen the nine graphic images that the U.S. government will require cigarette manufacturers to include on their packages beginning in September 2012 what they think of them, and the answer is almost unanimous. They are, they say, "disgusting," "sickening" or "repulsive." That's understandable. The images are designed to disturb.
The four most gut-wrenching of them picture horribly diseased lungs, tracheotomy holes, a cadaver and lips with open sores. The goal, the government and antismoking activists say, is to prompt individuals to make the connection between cigarettes and the damage they can cause. That may or may not occur.
Those who have seen the images and agree they are shocking are less certain about their efficacy. Most seem to agree that the new labels will help convince some people to stop smoking or never begin. There is less certainty about its long-term efficacy.
That's always been the problem with antismoking campaigns. Some work to varying degrees, but others do not. Current cigarette labels carry a relative small and mostly innocuous health warning. There's general agreement, though, that the little label has become so familiar that it no longer has an impact. The graphic labels revealed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week are unlikely to generate the same level of comfort.
The message delivered by the images is straightforward: If you start or continue to smoke, the habit can sicken, maim or kill you. That's a hard sell, as they say in the advertising business, but sometimes the more vivid and gruesome the message, the more successful it will be.
The new labeling campaign addresses pressing issues. Smoking remains the leading cause of death. It affects not only smokers, but all who are round them. It is expensive, too.
Smokers' health, on average, is far poorer than that of nonsmokers. Their medical costs are considerably higher than nonsmokers'. In Tennessee - where about a quarter of the population smokes and much of the cost of health care is borne by the public - the expense can be budget-busting. A successful antismoking effort could improve both lives and the bottom line.
Smokers on the whole are a persistent bunch. It will take a lot to make them change their habit. Indeed, the graphic images are likely to be more effective in deterring new smokers than in converting older ones. Still, the new campaign - revolting as it might be - is worth a try. Given what's at stake, it makes sense to do or to try anything that might prompt people to consider the dangers of smoking, and quit.