outside reading v

Outside Reading V-
an editorial
by Samantha Henig
When Smoking Scare Tactics are Accidentally Cool
December 4, 2010.

When Smoking Scare Tactics are Accidentally Cool, by Samantha Henig, is a short article that discusses the proposed changes for cigarette packages. The Food and Drug Administration wants to make warnings clearer and more grave by utilizing extreme and often grotesque pictures depicting the horrible effects of long-term smoking.

Henig uses witty personification to explain what the FDA is trying to do, writing that "In place of the current Surgeon General’s Warning, which politely taps smokers on the shoulder to whisper about risks of lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and pregnancy complications, these graphic labels, which would occupy half of the package’s surface area, shout that you are going to die." This was an effective way to establish what the article is about. But Henig soon makes her opinion known by adding a statement immediately after that: "That's the idea, anyway."


Henig seems to think that this new marketing campaign is not the best way to get the job done. While describing some of the new pictures to go on the packages, she uses words like "comic-book-style font" and "Superman-style." These words have youthful connotations, as comic books and superheros mainly kids hobbies. Therefore, choosing to use these words with regards to a cigarette package makes it seem as though the new ideas are childish and possibly ineffective. Also, by using these words, Henig draws a connection between the appeal of comic books to children, and the appeal of cigarettes to children. She states that "school-aged kids are part of the target audience." But comparing (what should be portrayed as horrible) cigarettes to fun and entertaining comics books, she is making a comment on the appeal that is added to cigarette packages with these new pictures. "The illustrations," she writes, "though less snicker-worthy than the photographs, carry the risk of being cool."

Another tactic Henig uses to get her point across is oversimplification. She talks about how other countries, on their cigarette warning labels, simply state the dangerous side-effects such as sperm damage and potential fatality. She says that these make the message clearer "than that of a comic-book arm getting injected with a cigarette." Her description of the picture makes it seem silly, using again the "comic-book" comparison, and not mentioning its symbolism. The fact that the cigarette is being injected into ones arm offers the obvious connotations of illegal and highly addictive drugs such as heroin. The comparison of smoking to these drugs is scary and could likely be effective in deterring people from smoking, but Henig looks past it in her criticism. However, her phrasing is nevertheless effective in making the new warning labels seem ineffective.

I think that this paper has a good tone for an AP essay. It is witty and makes a strong personal opinion known, yet still remains sufficiently formal.

In regards to the writer's voice and how it changes my response to the piece: I really like the writer's voice. It's casual and her use of similes and metaphors and comparisons make this a piece that is informative and easy to understand.