18Art of Political Incorrectness: Smoking
"Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics."
Fletcher Knebel
Today marks the momentous eight billionth time I've sat through the same anti-smoking commercial. This time, a bunch of teens set up a podium in front of what they call a major cigarette company. At first I didn't know it was an anti-smoking commercial. I thought they were going to have that balding guy in a tux come out and say that the New York Lotto Jackpot is now 66 million dollars. That's 66 MILLION dollars. (3 dollars after tax) Hey, what other commercials have you seen with a podium? Anyway, these kids then put up a giant sign. It was white letters on orange borders. Then it hit me. The only people who use that color scheme are members of 'the truth.' That meant one thing. Appeals to human stupidity. This time the sign said "Why do you sell a product that kills your customers?" It was suppose to be amazing, leaving an absolute guilt over all the workers in that skyscraper, or rascaliero in Spanish. I saw the inherent bias that is prevalent in every one of these commercials. Instead of questioning the morality of the cigarette company, I could only marvel at those who took the message seriously. I wish I was there when they filmed the commercial so I could walk up to the signholder and ask, "What company doesn't sell products that kill your customers?" Seriously, name one. Cars? Screwdrivers? Refrigerators? Surfboards? I can't think of a single product that has not killed people. Computers catch on fire and destroy houses. Paperweights have been used as murder weapons plenty of times. Even marbles choke babies. I could lug that exact sign and put it in front of any store, anywhere, be it a Home Depot or Wendy's.
I'm sure what they MEANT to say but couldn't fit on the cardboard was "Why do you sell a product that may increase the chances of your consumers developing a mild case of death?" That would actually be appropriate. But that also covers a vast penumbra of objects. Computers/cell phones/televisions/microwaves apparently give out harmful waves that can cause cancer. (I don't believe it, but many people do) That apple you had for breakfast apparently had been sprayed with harmful pesticides (I think this is absolute bull too, but the ol' paranoia machine is powerful). That organic apple you're eating has NOT been sprayed with helpful pesticide, and you're liable to contract diseases because of it. The New Car Smell causes brain damage. If you've served in the army, the depleted uranium shells are causing a whole host of diseases most people consider 'icky.' The lead in your Wheaties is actually grinded solid lead, and lead can cause something aptly named 'lead poisoning.' The (real) truth is, there is oh so precious little in the world that does not actively kill you. The only reason our life expectancy is so high is because there are drugs that stall the horrible end in return for other diseases. For example, the current top heart medication causes liver damage. Life sucks, doesn't it?
When questioned, any active anti-smoker will say "I want to stop people from smoking," as their purpose. When questioned why, I can guarantee at least 98 of them will say, "because it's bad for you." For them, that's the end of story. If you ask for scientific proof, they say there's plenty of proof. But how many of them know what they're talking about? They say science, but where is it? Do you expect me, the skeptic, to find out the facts? That's you're job! How many Truth members realize that most of the statistics they carry out are blatently wrong? Fact in point: in 1989, the surgeon general gave a grave speech. "2,000 kids start smoking every day." It started a revolution in anti-smoking actions. Kids caught smoking were not merely stopped and a parent conference arranged. They were now expelled. Smoking became a crime comparable to attempted murder. Bullies beating kids to a pulp were given an hour of quiet time. The victim, driven to drugs because of the pains, was placed in juvenile hall. Anti-smoking corporations received so much public support they started criticizing everything from sugar to video games. Yet the surgeon general lied. What the report he had read from said was, "2,000 twenty year olds start smoking every day." Pretty different isn't it? And yet I still see the 2,000 figure toted around, although even if it was true, it was over 15 years ago. There's even more truth-stretching going on in the very core of Truth propaganda. I'm sure you heard this in DARE or the news. "Smoking increases your chance of getting lung cancer 23 times." Sure it sounds horrible and all. But with all the facts, it doesn't seem all that scary after all. Think about how many people get lung cancer normally. Not very much. Only about 1 in 50,000 develop it. So that means that 23 out of 50,000 smokers will develop lung cancer. Even this less than .25 figure should be taken with a grain of salt, as the study of effects of things on humans is one of the most inaccurate fields of science out there. Just think. The study that the 23 figure was from collected data for 25 years in six major cities. And yet it didn't account for specific amounts of smoking. It didn't count into effect the massive increase in pollution or secondhand smoke. It also conveniently forgot that in 25 years, many people have started and quit smoking on a regular basis. That 23 figure could waver. No. It WILL waver as more data is put in. There's just no way to get rid of all the variables. As I see more and more of these half-truths that are later proven false, I have disregarded most statistics in general.
All anti-smoking companies question the morality of the cigarette company. I question the morality of the anti-smokers. Recently a REBEL magazine made its way through my high school. On the cover was a teenage girl. Her hand was held out, and the words "Tell big tobacco: Not for sale," were photoshopped on it. I laughed for ten minutes when I saw that picture. What I found as the supreme irony was that the girl on the cover sported 80-dollar haircuts. The manicure probably cost 25 dollars. The makeup. Abercrombie shirts. Designer coat. A skirt that probably cost as much as a year's worth of polio shots for a small country. Shoes that a crouching Malaysian 12 year old constructed for 7 cents yet she paid 160 dollars for. Sure, she told Big Tobacco: Not for Sale. But bring on the conformity. They won't give 5 dollars for a pack of smokes for an hour of clear mindedness but will fret hours over which hundred dollar lipstick matches with their pedicure. They banned cigarette commercials on television and magazines, saying "it makes kids think that smoking's cool." Strangely, all those ads has been replaced by the anti-smoker's ads, all unilaterally trying oh so hard to convey that anti-smoking's cool. Whenever I see these, I just shake my head. At least with cigarettes, I had variety.
It seems that I'm writing about irony a lot, and I am. Let's move on. This is what people seem to forget most about 'Truth.' It is a corporation. They are a company. With employees. They have reached a power so great that through them, a woman can sue the tobacco industry for billions of dollars because they didn't warn her about the dangers of smoking. (Except when she started smoking, there was very little proof (there still isn't) that smoking causes harm. So it was only natural that they didn't warn her. Frivolous lawsuit at its worst.) But there's a catch-22. For the company to stay alive, so must the same company they swore to destroy. If the smoking industry were indeed gone, would the employees of 'Truth' celebrate? They just lost their jobs! The people at the top have made so much money off of this, that they can't stop. So what will they do? They will feed on paranoia. After tobacco falls, next will be the already weakened alcohol: the substance that's been in use longer than personal hygiene. After that falls, then what? Sugar? Meat? Radiowaves? The company cannot stop until the entire society has been sterilized. It may sound like a big conspiracy theory, but what else can they do? That's why I draw the line at tobacco. No more from here.
Perhaps it is the greatest irony of all that people still fear the idea of a sterile society. They see THX 1138 and say, "That can never happen," or "I'd die before I put myself in that." Yet they feel passionate about banning the exact things that keep any society from becoming one. What do you want? A world without the simple joys that nobody but you pays for? Or a slightly decreased AVERAGE life span due to such simple things as fun?
Nobody will deny that smoking is healthier than not smoking. But does that give the right for these people to so harshly criticize, and even downright attack, those that smoke? Smokers on the street are looked at with more contempt than at those who threw the gas switches at Auschwitz. Everywhere people are told, nay, forced, to quit smoking because it's better for them. I say piss off. If care to live to 150 attached to a hospital bed, eating, breathing, and defecating all through tubes of some sort, I'll do it. But now, if I live a wild 60, I'll be fine. Remember this quote from Stephen King. "You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end…" I'm going to live my life from beginning to end, and no one's going to tell me that I can't because of some freaky disease I don't care about.