Thomas Jefferson’s words notwithstanding, all men (and women) are not created equal. Some
are gifted athletes. Others are Nobel Prize winners. Most, though, while away their lives staring vacantly at reality TV shows. I’d place cigarette smokers in the latter group. Can there be a more clueless and moronic class of human beings than cigarette smokers? Not only are they knowingly destroying their health, they’re paying huge amounts of money to do so.
I’d leave smokers to their inevitable plight if it weren’t for a new survey I happened across in a recent Daily Dog. It shows that one-third of smokers surveyed by GlaxoSmithKline misunderstand the health impact of ‘light’ or ‘mild’ cigarettes. Almost half (44 percent) say they typically smoke light or ultra light cigarettes, with one-quarter of these nincompoops saying they do so because they mistakenly believe light cigarettes are less harmful and easier to quit than regular cigarettes. Oh baby. And, I thought that two-year-old, chain-smoking Indonesian kid was clueless. He doesn’t hold a candle (or, lighted match for that matter) to American smokers.
The GSK survey was timed to coincide with the government’s intention to ban such words as light, low and mild on all cigarette packaging. Well, there’s a few more million dollars down the tube. The warning won’t matter. Smokers are too dumb to get it.
I wonder if the same morons who believe the words mild or light indicate a less toxic cigarette would accept similar adjectives if placed in front of other known killers. To wit:
1.) Al Qaeda Light (“Honey, I’ve just been recruited by a real sweetheart of a guy named Osama. Even smokes light cigarettes.”)
2.) A new, mild 9mm from Glock (“They say they’re safer, babe. They use softer, lighter bullets!”)
3.) Low tar BP oil (“Surf’s up, hon. Let’s do some snorkeling in Gulfport!”)
4.) Iran Light (“So what if they start building nuclear weapons? They’ll be nuke lights.”)
5.) Wall Street Light (“Those AIG guys are 100 percent honest. They earned every nickel. So what if it was our nickel?”)
Maybe if we just referred to the Great Recession as ‘light’ smokers would happily puff away believing their life savings haven’t gone up in smoke? Might smokers also dismiss the Catholic Church hullabaloo as much ado about nothing if the Vatican started positioning the pedophilia cases as ‘mild’?
According to the same survey, smokers also think cigarettes are safer if they’re contained in light colored packaging! Maybe the Taliban should change from black-hooded robes to teal instead? I’d have to believe the Bloods and Crips could start recruiting smokers to their ranks if they began marketing a kinder, gentler line of gang clothing. Perhaps mocha and lime? And, if those Montclair-based Russian spies were really diabolical, they would have sought out American smokers within the intelligence community, donned light-colored clothing and asked for some mild intelligence and light secrets.
I ask you: is there anyone dumber than a smoker?
First I tought that this article is promoting smoking but by reading further few lines i realized its worth,,very well written.
fit custom shirts
OK RepMan – That absolutely made me laugh out loud! And it wasn’t a potshot. It is the truth! See you soon.
Now, now, bookandbloggeek. No need to play rough. W. may not have been America’s brightest president. In fact, I’m still confident history will record him as our worst president. But, that doesn’t excuse your pot shot. BTW, I heard he raised $5mm to build his presidential library. That’s $1mm per book.
Who’s dumber that a smoker – George Bush.
Your world weary perspective is spot on, ghostofprpast. That said, all it takes is one high profile cell phone/brain cancer case (say, Lady Gaga for example) to put the issue front and center. The cell phone/brain cancer story also lacks a poster child a la that thuggish, two-year-old Indonesian kid. Maybe some kindergarten class can attempt a Guinness world record by speaking non-stop into their cell phones for an entire school year? That ought to stimulate a few tumors to metastasize.
You suggest in the previous thread that a potential link between cell phones and cancer will become a big deal in the near future — but I’m not so sure. I believe tobacco’s successful template for we’re-giving-ourselves-cancer-but-we-don’t-care will be readily applied to cell phones, as well.
I see two things at play here. One, there is no truth any more; rather, we are inundated with conflicting information and, in the face of this overload, are allowed to make up our own minds. That’s good when selecting which Pontiac to buy, but bad when the topics deal with health and science.
Second, there’s no real punishment for the offenders. It’s hard to imagine a worse scenario than tobacco, a product that when used as directed will likely kill the customer (and whose harmful effects were knowingly covered up for years) — yet, they’re still there, still on the market and still profitable. Sure, they’ve margins have been cut, their reputations have taken a beating and they’ve had to set up shop on other, unsuspecting continents, but we didn’t put them out of business.
I see a two-week story about the cell phone-cancer connection, followed by some prescriptive Band-Aid legislation from Congress, before we all turn our collective attention to the release of the Carrie Prejean wedding night video.