Worth a Thousand Words

Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration unveiled the warning labels that will now adorn cigarette packages.

Well, they're supposed to be in place by September of next year so they won't start showing up at your neighborhood convenience store for awhile.

But, when they do, the difference will be — as the commissioner of food and drugs for the FDA said — "dramatic."

The overall appearances of cigarette packages will be changed. Warning labels have been printed innocuously on one side of cigarette packages (where they were easy for smokers to ignore) for years, and the language was ambiguous.

But the FDA's new labels will wrap around packages, sharing the space that presently belongs only to the brand name. They will be impossible for smokers to ignore — in no small part because the new generation of labels will carry graphic illustrations of the damage that smoking can do to people.

Now, I have always heard that a picture is worth a thousand words. I guess I have been reluctant to accept that because I am a writer. The idea of images having more influence than words contradicts my lifelong belief in the power of the pen.

But I have seen enough to know that, for the majority of people, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

It's really hard to forget a strong visual image. It's a lot easier to forget words, even words of wisdom.

Words of wisdom are often overlooked. But the words of wisdom on these new labels won't be open to interpretation.

For most of my adult life, I was a smoker. When I think back on that period in my life, I guess I actually read those labels a handful of times — enough to know what they said — but the information never really sank in. Most of the time, I was aware the labels were there, but I always managed to keep them from my sight. I would place a package with the label facing away from me or with the label blocked by something.

Would I have become addicted to smoking if I had been confronted with big labels every time I lit up? Probably not. (If you are a pack–a–day smoker, you will have to look at those labels about 7,300 times per year.)

And I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been drawn to smoking if I had seen full–color pictures of diseased lungs or hearts.

I hear that's part of the strategy. The images that were selected for the labels were chosen after focus groups indicated to the FDA that they were the most effective at repulsing specific groups, such as teenagers and pregnant women.

The new labels are designed to convey the image that smoking is not cool, which is good — to a point.

Nicotine is a crafty foe, as I have said before. It starts as a habit, but it quietly seizes control. As a long–term strategy, it is wise to discourage smoking at all. It's better than having to deal with that addiction phase.

(Someday, I'd like to see the FDA mandate labels that say something like "TOBACCO COMPANIES HAVE MANIPULATED THE NICOTINE CONTENT IN THEIR PRODUCTS TO MAKE THEM MORE ADDICTIVE." Talk about honesty in advertising.)

It is important, as I have written here before, for people to stop treating smoking like a "habit" that one can control — and start treating it like an addiction, which people cannot control. Perhaps, one day, we truly will.

But, in the meantime, I think the new labels are a step in the right direction.

The new labels are an honest and unflinching look at something that has been glamorized far too long — and, as a result, far too many people have become sick and died.

Ordinarily, I'm not in favor of government interference in personal decisions.

By my own choice, I haven't had a cigarette in more than four years. But that is the point. It was my choice.

I have told my friends who still smoke that I will never tell them what they should or should not do. Cigarette smoking is a legal activity for adults (typically, 18 or older), and I will not tell anyone not to do something that I did for many years.

I will give them my opinion — but only if they ask for it — and I definitely do have an opinion about smoking. Few of my smoking friends have asked me for my opinion, though, so I'm glad that the FDA will be requiring these labels.

They'll get my point across for me — and I won't have to say a word — much less a thousand of 'em.

The Smoking Gun

Originally, I suppose, the phrase "smoking gun" was primarily a literary device — a reference to something in a mystery novel that proved someone was guilty of a crime.

The earliest mention of it that I have been able to find was in a Sherlock Holmes story written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle more than a century ago.

As I gather, the phrase fell out of popular use for quite awhile. When I was growing up, my parents were devout mystery readers. They loved the works of Agatha Christie and other, lesser known mystery writers. I remember, as a child, watching reruns of the black–and–white TV series "Perry Mason" with my father, and my parents were devotees of the Angela Lansbury series, "Murder, She Wrote."

And, while I am certain they were familiar with the concept of the "smoking gun," I never heard them discuss it with each other or any of their friends who also enjoyed murder mysteries.

Then, as evidence of his complicity in the Watergate scandal began to accumulate, Richard Nixon's defenders in Congress began to speak of the need to find a "smoking gun" in the president's hand before they could be persuaded to support his removal from office.

On Aug. 5, 1974, the "smoking gun" was revealed. Earlier, Nixon had released the transcript of a conversation with chief of staff H.R. Haldeman from June 23, 1972 — six days after the break–in at the Watergate. In that conversation, the men discussed having the CIA block the FBI's investigation into the matter. The transcript showed that the president had sought to obstruct justice, an impeachable offense.

Nixon's support in Congress evaporated and, convinced that he no longer had enough support to survive impeachment in the House or a trial in the Senate, Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974.

It is ironic, therefore, that the National Archives is releasing more than 100 hours of tapes and about 30,000 pages of documents from the Nixon administration today — exactly 37 years since the "smoking gun" conversations.

"Most of the tapes related to the Watergate scandal ... have already been released," observes Charlie Savage in the New York Times, "but scholars say some new materials on that topic are expected."

It is also ironic, I think, that Barack Obama signed into law yesterday the bill that puts tobacco products under federal control via the FDA.

The bill was passed overwhelmingly by both chambers of Congress earlier this month.

I find it ironic because, although Obama pledged to give up his own smoking habit in a deal he made with his wife in exchange for her endorsement of his decision to run for the presidency, there were indications yesterday that he has not been completely successful in the effort.

"I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it's been with you for a long time," he said. Observers pointed out that there were subtle clues in his word selection — "I know how difficult it can be" rather than "I know how difficult it was" — and in his refusal to answer direct questions about his smoking habit.

In the absence of photographs or video footage of Obama sneaking a smoke on the sly, that will have to serve as today's "smoking gun."

Obama can't lose his job over it, but, if he wants to be a persuasive role model who can encourage young people to avoid the habit or give it up, he needs to be able to assure his listeners that he truly is a reformed smoker.

Smokescreens

Smoking is a tough habit to give up.

I don't need anyone to tell me that. I know from personal experience. I stopped smoking more than two years ago. But as I have told my friends frequently, I don't consider myself an "ex–smoker." I consider myself a "recovering" smoker, not unlike a recovering alcoholic. The chances that I'll "fall off the wagon" seem to be more remote with each passing day, but I feel that, if I continue to acknowledge the possibility of backsliding, I'll be better equipped to avoid it.

It's my personal strategy.

I have many friends who still smoke. And I've assured them that, whatever my personal opinions may be, I will never tell them what they should or should not do. I believe, as I always have, that adults should be allowed to make their own decisions.

Nevertheless, I'm glad Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation that gives the Food and Drug Administration greater authority over the tobacco industry, including the ability to regulate the ingredients in tobacco products and to control advertising.

That's a good step — but it's long overdue. It's been nearly half a century since the government began taking baby steps toward regulation of tobacco products by printing the somewhat innocuous warnings on cigarette packages that smoking "may be hazardous to your health."

Subsequent studies only reinforced the early conclusions about the risks posed by tobacco consumption — but, during the interim, cigarette manufacturers were proactive at protecting their turf and seeking to expand it. It was a few years after the surgeon general's initial warning before TV banned cigarette advertising. And it took a quarter of a century for the government to ban smoking on airplane flights. During that time, we know that tobacco companies worked to manipulate the nicotine content of their products to ensure that consumers would become addicted faster — and would face greater difficulty "kicking the habit."

The legislation that sailed through Congress will, at long last, bring some major changes to the tobacco industry. Hopefully, with this new legislation — soon to be signed into law by a president who has admitted to his own struggle with the smoking habit — fewer young people will be lured into tobacco use.

And, in a nation that finally seems to be serious about health care, that seems to be the surest way to eliminate one of the greatest threats to public health.