Forehead tattoos instead of dirty pictures

The United States Appeals Court has told cigarette companies that they do not have to put nasty pictures on packaging (story provided on msnbc).

Isn’t this decision a relief? Not because I have children who I wish to protect from such horrific images as those proposed by the people who suggested and probably wrote the law.

A friendly calf who probably knows that cigarette smoking causes cancer

Not because I’m a former smoker who still occasionally considers grabbing Just One to enjoy with a pint (don’t worry, I tried this theory about six months ago … I was green with … ugh).

And not because it’s bullshit to allow a product to remain legal all the while implying that it’s as bad as methamphetamine.

Back at the Ranch of Intelligence and Obviousness, we know that this legislation not moving forward is a relief because: If a person smokes he or she is already knowledgeable about the dangers. Honestly, haven’t we officially reached the point in the United States that if you smoke; you know it could eventually kill you?

Some people might argue they didn’t understand the news stories, warning labels or doctor’s suggestions or didn’t trust the dastardly Liberal Media or assumed the warning labels were only another government lie since cigarettes could still be purchased at every mini mart, grocery store and truck stop from Boise to Punta Gorda. But these groups aren’t going to be dissuaded from smoking by a horror movie photo on a cigarette pack.

"There is no further education to be gained by the second kick of a mule.”  -- Random somewhat related quote of unknown authorship found by My Guy

Our government either needs to make the sale of cigarettes a crime (after all, calling a particular activity a crime has worked so well with all those other pesky things like marijuana) or they need to Provide The Truth and then Let It Be. No more allowing cigarette sales while using dirty pictures in an attempt to correct the corrupted science that our government and cigarette companies trotted out 50 years ago that said cigarette smoking was safe, and Oh My God, You Are So Cool.

Allowing the rotten teeth and throat hole photo law to move forward would only further prove that wealthy cigarette makers have many politicians in their pockets (we can still buy these cancer-causing fire sticks), and that many of these same politicians will do anything to join a Look I’m Doing The Right Thing group (you can only buy cigarettes with icky photos).

If it’s necessary to pass a law related to cigarette smoking, since we’ve grown bored with issues like our slow economic growth, poorly-managed government agencies and, gasp, Afghanistan, perhaps our leaders could pass a simple one-size-fits-all law: All cigarette manufacturers must place true messages of doom on their packaging (which they already do) and smokers who find themselves adversely affected in any way that is related to smoking or addicted to smoking cannot sue for damages, but can receive a free Warning Label forehead tattoo! Woohoo! Free tattoos people!

In fact, this very same law can be applied to all of the crap sold alongside cigarettes: Soda pop and cigars, candy bars and potato chips, ground “pink slime” beef and chemically-enhanced, low-calorie “diet snacks.”

Because really, I know we’ve all consumed at least one of each of those products in the past few months: Even though we’ve received honest information about these products and know that chips and soda and slime are crap.

So we’re either able to take responsibility for consuming shit that we know is shit or we step up and take our free forehead tattoo.

p.s. I’m aware that cigarette logo and scary photo laws have been passed and enacted in some countries … so tell me, has the desired result, less smoking, become a reality? Did you support this before it became law? Do you support it now? I’m interested in your opinion!