It is estimated that smoking causes some 120 000 premature deaths
every year, of which about a quarter are from lung cancer and around
one fifth are from chronic obstructive lung disease - bronchitis and
emphysema. Statistics show that the incidence of cancer increases
linearly with the number of cigarettes smoked. The presence of tar
and all the other chemicals found in cigarettes accounts for the damage
and subsequent uncontrolled reproduction of lung wall cells.
There is no argument against this. Smoking cigarettes does increase the user's risk of fatal lung diseases. However, what is the government's motivation in informing us of this (or any of the warnings for that matter)? Are they really concerned for people's health? Philanthropic? Altruistic?

NO. CHEAP.

In Canada, they are only concerned about the cost of taking care of the old sods who are dying from their lifetime habit, and it's too damned expensive. While there's nothing wrong with them trying to pare their immense budgets, it's the mode of thought that's disturbing.

You see, it's also been scientifically supported that excess of
McDonald's food causes fatal heart disease
and that
Walking around downtown during summer contributes to obstructive lung disease.

So why target cigarettes? It's because of the cuts that they had to make to cigarette taxes when the prices were so high that smuggling was more popular than legally purchasing them.


let them die when it's making us the cash, but stop them if it's costing us too much money. it's so fucking obvious.

bsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbs
Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease,
a young man beautiful sits, listening
to the blues,
music about loss.
And what does he know about loss
because I am the one who will lose him.
He sits
At three in the afternoon
a permanent fixture at the bar
beneath the neon light, which
I think should only shine at night.
He sits,
for me to memorize in my notebook.
He sits,
smoking why not
in the red light, and a fly
dies on the windowsill.
Cigarettes cause him to use
two packs of sugar
for every cup of coffee,
and glancing into my black cup,
I feel that his is darker, more bitter,
no matter how much sugar.
With the rising pollution levels blasted into the
atmosphere since the industrial revolution and the
massive deforestation in order to accommodate us and our food
and our marvelous toys, The pink, supple naked inside of the
nonsmokers lung is as vulnerable as Frosty the Snowman
visiting the heart of an active Volcano.

It is the tar-coated, armor-clad lungs that will see
humanity thrive past the industrial Eco-hell that is sure
to arrive.

Quitters never win and Winners never quit!

When I was a smoker, the horrendously expensive task of purchasing the little packets of death-sticks was made somewhat more bearable by reading the warning labels. It was always a lottery: if I drew (shudder) "Smoking Causes Heart Disease" or "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer", or worst of all the dreaded "Smoking Kills," my first drag seemed a little sharper, the taste more acrid, the clouds of smoke filling my lungs more clinging and toxic. The "Your Smoking Can Harm Others" label was better, in a sort of sick sociopathic sense, but still grated against my youthful altruism. But if I got "Smoking is Addictive" (well, duh...) my day seemed a little brighter or, at the very least, less immediately lethal. And if (joy of joys) I ended up with "Smoking When Pregnant Harms Your Baby," a message anatomically impossible to apply to myself, then I felt downright immortal.

I'm sure there's a metaphor for life there somewhere, but I'll spare you.



My thanks to ohe for reminding me what some of those half-forgotten health warnings actually said.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.