Cigarettes And Whiskey And Wild, Wild Sex

Cigareets And Whiskey

And Wild, Wild Sex


R.E. Prindle

     The war against cigarette smokers has just escalated.  My thinking is that for some reason it will be more successful than the war against drugs.  While I don’t smoke and wouldn’t choose to associate with those who do I see no reason to deny those who do their pleasure.  Forewarned is forearmed, they know they could be buying into health problems.

     While the US has adopted grotesque and morally offensive packaging requirements Australia has chosen to enforce a generic packaging edict that requires all manufacturers to use a generic package with no brand ID.  Joe Jordan in the above linked piece argues that:  ‘It is the duty of the government to protect the people.’  While that is an all embracing statement that while I don’t think applies to individual choices the statement strikes me as relatively meaningless.  Assuming that it is true and the government does have the obligation to oversee our personal habits how far can governments go without invading individual freedom of choice including the freedom to destroy oneself if one wishes.  After all euthanasia is law in the US.

     It is argued that smoking can cause cancer.  I agree it can cause cancer.  But does everyone who smokes get cancer?  No.  Of the top ten cancers in the male population of the US lung and bronchial  cancers rank second at 80.5 per 100K.  A woeful second to prostate cancer at 156.9 per 100K.  Just being a man is more dangerous than smoking by double.  So, what is the government going to do to protect we men from maleness?  Hmm?

     According to government statistics the total US cancer rate is 437.1 per 100K just short of  half a percent so lung cancer accounts for just 18.4% of cancer cases or 0.2%.  Nor is it clear what percent of lung cases are unrelated to smoking or occur in combination with cases complicated by hazardous working conditions, miners for instance.

     Now, I agree that smoking cancers and all others are much too high.  But, ask, since citizen’s health is the government’s responsibility according to Mr. Jordan, what is the government going to do about colon and rectal cancer which ranks third?

     I dare say that the high incidence of rectal cancer arises from certain sexual practices indulged in by certain males.  The statistic may even includes AIDS, I don’t know.  Obviously since rectal sex practiced by homosexuals is a leading cause of cancer isn’t it the government’s duty to post signs in men’s rooms informing the gay community that rectal sex is hazardous to their health?  Shouldn’t condom companies be required to print offensive warnings  on each and every rubber warning of the dangers of rectal sex?  Perhaps homosexuals should have warnings silk screened on their buttocks.  I mean, let’s cut medical costs.  Really go after them.

     Shouldn’t billboards be placed in conspicuous places showing an ulcerated asshole combined with perhaps a big red circle around an X with the warning ‘Don’t screw with this?’

      Think about it.  Rectal rates are 52.7 per 100K or 65.5% of lung rates.  Way too high.  Let’s have a TV campaign against rectal sex.

     I don’t smoke so I don’t really care how they treat smokers and I’m not involved in rectal sex, so go get ’em Gov.

     First they came for the smokers, then they came for the pederasts….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s