Sun, Sand, Sex, and Cigarettes.

H/T Rose for this highly conflicted article in Marie Claire.

On the one hand the article, written by Jenna Rosenstein, rails against smoking, while on the other hand it depicts a whole raft of sexy pictures of models and actresses smoking.

So the text says stuff like this:

…let’s not mince words: we all know smoking cigarettes will kill you. It’s toxic to you, your loved ones, and your pets. It’s socially and fiscally irresponsible. And we haven’t even started talking about the environmental impact of Big Tobacco. So why are Instagram starlets such as Hadid, Kylie Jenner, Nicola Peltz, Elsa Hosk, Dakota Johnson, and Sofia Richie—not to mention dozens of celebrities and models at the Met Gala— suddenly so cavalier about using cigarettes as props? Since when did it become cool again to show that you smoke?

While the photos depict stuff like this photo of Kylie Jenner:

I suppose that the answer to their question is that smoking has always been sexy, and always will be sexy, and no amount of sermonising about it will ever stop it being sexy, and it’s always going to be cool to be sexy, and so always cool to smoke.

So Marie Claire is actually answering the questions it asks in the text with the pictures it embeds into that text.

Q: Why is it cool to smoke again?

A: Kylie Jenner.


And also we don’t know that smoking will kill you. That’s just something we’ve been told thousands and thousands of times. And being told something thousands and thousands of times isn’t the same as knowing something. What we all know is what we actually personally experience, and what we experience is that smoking doesn’t kill anyone at all, ever. So really we know is that smoking doesn’t kill you.

We also know that smoking doesn’t kill your loved ones or your pets. And we also know it’s not socially and fiscally irresponsible.

But Jenna Rosenstein ends her piece thus:

When I look at the women in these images, I don’t see behavior worth emulating. I see cancer, disease, and frankly, stupidity.

I guess I just can’t see it. I just can’t see cancer, disease, and stupidity in this picture.

All I can see is sun, sand, sex, and cigarettes.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Sun, Sand, Sex, and Cigarettes.

  1. roobeedoo2 says:

    I see cancer, disease and stupidity in every Tobacco Control press release regurgitated in the MSM,

  2. garyk30 says:

    ‘Smoking kills you’, is a totally useless and un-scientific statement.

    1. Do non smokers never die from the diseases said to be caused by smoking?
    2. How many cigarettes smoked does it take to kill a smoker?
    I have smoked over 400,000 and have yet to die.
    3. Why is smoking never listed as the ‘immediate cause of death’ on death certificates?

    4. In law, medicine,and statistics, ’cause of death’ is a term which refers to an official determination of conditions resulting in a human’s death.
    There are only 3 conditions that cause death; they are, loss of brain function, heart failure, or respiratory failure.
    Smoking is not a condition and can not be a ’cause’ of death.

    5. Why did all people die before smoking became common?

    6. Do these people actually think that no one will die from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking if there is no smoking? 🙄🙄🙄🙄😂

    • Joe L. says:

      Nice breakdown, Gary! This info, along with other concise facts should be printed on leaflets that we can politely hand to any Antismokers we should happen to encounter.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Agree with Joe L… This is all true yet it eludes nearly all public notice. It is also clear from recent studies that one in two of all persons living in what used to be first world countries will get cancer regardless of their smoking status. On top of that all of the so-called smoking-related diseases are on goth e rise while smoking rates are down. The antismoking evidence doesn’t addd up so they just raise the volume of their propaganda to compensate.

  3. I see cancer, disease, and frankly, stupidity.
    That’s not what I see….now excuse me while I go for an ice cold shower…where did I put my hair shirt?

  4. Vlad says:

    When I look at Jenna’s article I see stupidity. I checked out her Twitter feed and unsurprisingly there’s more stupidity (this month alone). Apparently not so long ago she turned vegetarian, with the goal of being vegan. Why? Because among other things (don’t know what books she’s reading) she fell for the latest vegan propaganda film called ‘What the health’.

  5. Emily says:

    Everyone knows that smoking is cool and sexy. It’s just the way it is. That’s what drives these people insane, that there’s something they hate and are afraid that is cool, and they will never be cool :)

  6. Sand says:

    Well you can smoke cigarettes and it might kill you. Or you can be a non-smoker at it will definetely kill you. No one gets out of this world alive. Whatever you do, the consequence is death. Cancer, heart attack and brain strokes are the most commone ways to go. It doesn’t matter what you do. It is your destiny. And only a question of when. All these anti-smokers ends up like laughing stocks, on the day of their execution, the way they behave.

  7. natepickering says:

    In the first picture, it appears that Ms. Jenner is quite clearly smoking a joint and not a cigarette.

  8. A whole barrage of anti-smoking fuckwittery centering on the situation in Africa has just been put up by The Grauniad:

    • Inside the murky world of Nairobi’s smoking zones

    • On the tobacco road – David Levene in Kenya

    • How Big Tobacco has survived death and taxes

    • Tobacco: a deadly business
    Threats, bullying, lawsuits: tobacco industry’s dirty war for the African market
    Revealed: In pursuit of growth in Africa, British American Tobacco and others use intimidatory tactics to attempt to suppress health warnings and regulation

    One wonders how ‘accusing governments of breaching their own laws and international trade agreements and warning of damage to the economy’ equates to “threats” and “bullying”…
    Also: “There are an estimated 77 million smokers in Africa” means their smoking rates are very low even compared to those in more affluent countries which are at all-time lows due to decades of mass brainwashing and incremental taxation and stigmatisation. Yet life expectancies in Sub-Saharan Africa are the shortest in the world (less than 55 for both sexes in eleven countries) – while the lung cancer rates down there are the lowest in the world! Mind-boggling intellectual dishonesty from the ‘healthist’ loonies as per usual…

  9. Joe L. says:

    I had the same impression, Frank. For someone so deeply distraught by all the recent pictures of models looking glamorous, sexy and “cool” while smoking, Ms. Rosenstein ironically added a gratuitous amount of images of models looking glamorous, sexy and “cool” while smoking in her article. If you didn’t read the article itself, you’d think she was promoting it!

    Jenna Rosenstein clearly has an unhealthy obsession with smoking, so much so that she doesn’t even realize her efforts make her look stupid.

    Antismoking is bad for your mental health.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Isn’t Ms Rosenstein writing for a “girlie” magazine? How come she excluded sexy looking males smoking?

    • waltc says:

      The writer doesn’t pick the pictures

      • Joe L. says:

        Maybe not, but even if not, I’m sure she had some say in how many pictures to add. Does the author not get to approve the final piece before publishing? I’m sure it also depends on the publication.

        • waltc says:

          Nope. Not in magazines. You’re even (often unpleasantly) surprised at how they’ve edited or rewritten your copy and you don’t see what they’ve done till after it’s published. You’re considered a writer-for-hire and very few publications pay you the courtesy of asking you to make your own revisions or cuts.

        • Frank Davis says:

          So the editors of Marie Claire subverted her message? Or did she expect them to publish her piece with pictures of a frowzy Kylie Jenner with her hair in a mess, in order to ram home the message that smoking is uncool? Or maybe Kylie Jenner always looks dead sexy whatever state she’s in.

          At least I can choose what pictures I can include in my posts. I chose the sexiest of those available.

        • Joe L. says:

          Thanks for the info, Walt. So, maybe, just maybe, the editor of Marie Claire is a smoker and decided to sabotage this raving antismoking lunatic’s piece by slathering it in sexy pictures of models smoking.

          On the other hand, Hanlon’s Razor tells us that the staff of Marie Claire are most likely just a bunch of bumbling idiots.

        • Rose says:

          Perhaps she just doesn’t see what the rest of us see, as if her brain has developed a predictive x-ray after all the things she has absorbed unquestioningly over the years.

          “as a country, we’re wising up. We now care about things like kale and green juice…”


          The new kale? Why you should be eating more cauliflower
          4 May 2017

          “Move over kale, there’s a new superfood in town. Recent studies have shown that foods many of us purchase on a regular basis have just as many health benefits as some of the more well-known superfoods out there and it appears it’s finally time for the humble cauliflower to shine.”

  10. beobrigitte says:

    And also we don’t know that smoking will kill you. That’s just something we’ve been told thousands and thousands of times.
    We baby-boomers sure have heard this line thousands and thousands of time. And we’re still here. And we have to work past the age of 60, so we must be alive and kicking. We all are being told that we live longer….
    Jenny Rosenstein, write a 500 word essay on that.

    But Jenna Rosenstein ends her piece thus:

    When I look at the women in these images, I don’t see behavior worth emulating. I see cancer, disease, and frankly, stupidity.
    Sooooo, the baby-boomers (and youngsters who acknowledge our existence, thus raising questions) are stupid? Really????

    Perhaps one fine day this ?very young Jenny Rosenstein will discover that rather than thinking what you’ve been told to think, to learn to think for herself.

    There is some hope…. Jeeeez, and to think that people like her have to secure my state pension…….

    • beobrigitte says:

      On second thought, should I destroy her by telling her: ” You FAILED”?

      • Smoking Lamp says:

        Cancers are influenced by many factors. The one the antismokers and lifestyle controllers avoid is random mutation…

        See Tomasetti C, Lu L, Vogelstien B.Stem cell divisions, somatic mutations, cancer etiology, and cancer prevention. Science, 355:6331, 1330-1334. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf9011
        Abstract: “Cancers are caused by mutations that may be inherited, induced by environmental factors, or result from DNA replication errors (R). We studied the relationship between the number of normal stem cell divisions and the risk of 17 cancer types in 69 countries throughout the world. The data revealed a strong correlation (median = 0.80) between cancer incidence and normal stem cell divisions in all countries, regardless of their environment. The major role of R mutations in cancer etiology was supported by an independent approach, based solely on cancer genome sequencing and epidemiological data, which suggested that R mutations are responsible for two-thirds of the mutations in human cancers. All of these results are consistent with epidemiological estimates of the fraction of cancers that can be prevented by changes in the environment. Moreover, they accentuate the importance of early detection and intervention to reduce deaths from the many cancers arising from unavoidable R mutations.”

        • waltc says:

          If that’s the study I think it is, the authors were put through such Enstrom-type smears by the lifestyle brigade, especially the TC faction, that they later amended their conclusions to report that smoking was the exceotion to tne rule, i.e., that all but “smoking-related” cancers were random whike smokers’cancers were caused by smoking. If I saved that recantation, I’ll post the link.

        • waltc says:

          Here you go:
          Original study

          revision — after they were reviled by the lifestylers:

          “This theoretical example is not very different from what occurs…with respect to the etiology of the most common form of lung cancer, adenocarcinoma. Epidemiologic studies have estimated that nearly 90% of adenocarcinomas of the lung are preventable and that tobacco smoke is by far the major component of E. [environmental causes]. Secondhand smoking, occupational exposures, ionizing radiation, air pollution, and diet play important but smaller roles (17, 18). Moreover, no hereditary factors have been implicated in lung adenocarcinomas (19

        • Joe L. says:

          Thanks, Walt. Very interesting.

          Is this the same “most cancers are due to bad luck” study that made big headlines a couple years ago? If so, I was completely unaware of the recent “revision.”

  11. Pingback: Consequences | Frank Davis

  12. ramrock says:

    Those wonderful 70s, when you smoked even being a minor and came out funny songs like this that, today, would possibly be censored:

No need to log in

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.