But why does consent matter?
Esp. in regards to an animal that's about to be killed without it's consent anyway.
In this case, when we're dealing with animals that display clear signs of near-human intelligence: whales, dolphins, apes, octopi, etc. There's a pretty big difference between animals that could conceivably understand what's happening on some level and animals that are more or less mindless instinct-driven grazers. This covers roughly the same category that pretty much all leftists want to ban the killing of outright, for various reasons.
In other words, there's a difference between killing an animal that could reasonably be construed as being of what we think of as sapience and one that isn't, and there is therefore also a difference between fucking an animal in the former category as opposed to one in the latter. The former will always be unacceptable because you're killing/raping what might be a person, the latter is acceptable when harm is minimized and the benefits of doing so exceed the cost of causing harm.
From there, it's fairly obvious. Killing dumb animals for food in a humane manner is acceptable because the benefits (easy, plentiful source of protein &c), while fucking them is not (you don't need to cause harm to get an orgasm). Mind, I'm not saying that zoophiles are morally wrong simply for having their predilection, but when acting on it causes harm it become an issue. S'not any different from any other type or subtype of sexuality: it's all well and good unless you're harming another being against their consent.
Cigarettes are not going to last long, not in Europe anyway. And there has been talk about reducing healthcare refunds for obese people/
Ah, now I've having fond dreams about what it would take for that in the States. It's silly to treat one unhealthy habit as if it were completely uncontrollable while regulating others heavily.
Unrelated: Saw a username today (elsewhere) that read thus:
TeaPartyisTaliban