Last Thursday, as a part of an effort to prevent tobacco use, the U.S. Drug and Food Administration unveiled and proposed 36 warning labels to appear on cigarette packages by late 2012. Unsurprisingly, the labels have generated a bit of a controversy. Their “graphic” content depicts everything from a mother cavalierly blowing smoke onto her baby to a pair of disease-stricken lungs set alongside captions spelling out the hazards of cigarette use.

While the FDA’s good intentions are commendable in some capacity, the cynic inside me can’t help but do anything other than roll his eyes. Now I don’t mean to be insensitive or downplay what are the obvious health hazards associated with tobacco use, but the FDA’s strategy here isn’t just head scratching, it’s downright laughable.

First off, unless you’ve been living on the moon for the past three decades, suffer from some uniquely dangerous case of ignorance, or spend most of your waking hours in an ether-fueled stupor, the effects of tobacco use should in no way surprise you. Since their days of recess and long division, every John and Jane Q. Public has endured a fair share of negative campaigning addressing the dangers of cigarettes. The facts are already lodged deep within our society’s cultural conscience, and this proposal is yet another glaring example of the federal government’s rankling relentlessness. But it’s an approach so inane, so staggeringly stupid, you’d only expect to see it in a faux article in The Onion or maybe, oh I don’t know, on Glenn Beck’s show.

According to U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Howard Koh, the labels — which are required under a tobacco regulation bill passed last summer — are aimed to “reinvigorate the national commitment to ending the tobacco epidemic.”

But if the FDA’s idea of reinforcement is a prevention strategy that employs fear through over-the-top, worst-case scenario images to evoke an emotional response, then I think we have bigger problems that warrant our attention.

While we’re on the topic of epidemics, what about the country’s alarming rise in obesity rates? In a 2009 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, obesity rates accounted for a little more than a quarter of the U.S. population and are often highlighted as a “factor contributing to several leading causes of death including heart disease, strokes, diabetes, and several types of cancer.”

Applying the same rationale, why don’t we attach pictures of obstructed coronary arteries and enlarged hearts onto bags of fast food while we’re at it?

And how did we overlook alcohol? As our public’s moral overlords exhaust themselves relentlessly beating the proverbial drum with anti-smoking campaigns, glamorous advertisements celebrating the wonders of alcohol — a substance equally as dangerous and responsible for thousands of deaths each year — run rampant, saturating nearly every sector of our society.

So while cigarettes get treated with redundant slide shows of doom and gloom, alcohol distributors get rewarded with four hours of ad space during the Super Bowl and a couple hundred cutesy promotional billboards, just so long as they remember to remind consumers to “Drink responsibly.”

It’s entirely possible that the warning labels could be effective. But the issue at hand isn’t efficacy; it’s the fear-based approach the FDA is taking. If you decide to quit smoking: Good for you, Mazel Tov. But just don’t do it because some tasteless warning label inspired you.