Disingenuous my black ass lung.

To get things started, I'd like for you to see the first paragraph of an article that ran in the June 14th edition of The USA Today newspaper:

By Rita Rubin, USA TODAY
In anticipation of a ban against using words such as "light" or "mild" on cigarette labels and ads, tobacco companies have lightened package colors to convey the same message, a move the American Lung Association and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., have attacked as disingenuous.


Webster's Dictionary defines "disingenuous" as "lacking frankness, sincerity, or simplicity; crafty, not straighforward."


First and foremost, this Rita Rubin is a poor excuse for a reporter. She words this as if it's something new the cigarette companies are doing in an attempt to camouflage the truth about their products. Do your research, you stupid bitch, this isn't anything new. Show of hands: how many of you didn't know the difference in the color of a Marlboro Light cigarette pack as opposed to a Marlboro Full-Flavor cigarette pack? Or, at the very least, knew there WAS a difference? Anyone? I knew it, good. Even those of you that don't smoke know there's a difference. And those of you who claim not to know are blowing more smoke up my ass than I am into the ozone.


Cigarette companies have been using different colored packs for as long as I can remember to convey the difference between full-flavor, light, mild, menthol, and even menthol lights are a different shade of green. This is nothing new, as the article would have us believe. Full-flavor Marlboro cigarettes have even been called "Marlboro reds" by people purchasing them! The entire point of the argument this stupid fuck Waxman and the ALA are making isn't about the cigarette companies trying to "get one over" on the American people, but an attempt to justify an argument that should have been made 30 years ago. There's not a single person who smokes that doesn't know a "lights" pack from a "menthol" pack from a "mild" pack. And those of you who are considering taking up the habit will learn or already know yourselves.


You may remember years ago that President Clinton wanted to ban cigarettes altogether. There's NO WAY he consulted anyone in his cabinet before making this announcement. Do you know how much money America would lose if we banned cigarettes? Billions! That a big capital B, friends! We can't afford the loss in revenue from the taxes that come from cigarettes, especially now when there's a war on (granted, a war we never should've been in from the beginning). That money helps to fund the murder spree of our former president. (Before I get hate mail, this is not a slight against the soldiers who are fighting for me and my family and friends. They can't help it that the guy who gave the order was a fucking retard.) And don't try to hand me the stand-by argument that insurance rates increase because of cancer-causing cigarettes. At least give me something new to chew on, instead of showing your ignorance by throwing THAT old bone!


So, Mr Waxman (or Representative Illiterate), who's being disingenuous? The cigarette companies who've complied with the new law and removed the words "light" and "low tar" from their cigarette packs and maintained the colors? Or a desperate, coniving fuck who claims those companies are attempting a "new" tactic? Who, precisely, is being crafty and is not being straightforward? It's guys like you that trample on the constitution and call it acting on "the greater good."


And, unfortunately, that's a cancer none of us can escape.