Smoking Ban

[Viking]

nm.

[Kanamori]

Where were you? Inside a pub? On someone else's property?
And you expect you can demand to decide what they can and can't allow? You ahve no right to go someplace and insist they change for you.

Since when is there anarchy in personal property? Each persons house or establishment is not their own country. They are not totally free to do as they please; they cannot murder other people on their own property, or dump poison into their earth above a water resevoir. There is a public health interest, and it should be served. Nobody is denying them the right to smoke in their own homes, but a home is much more personal than is an establishment that is meant for other citizens to sit in for profit. It obviously effects others, and the majority of people no longer wish to sit in smoked filled rooms that are only smoke filled because of a minority.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it would be ok for me to poke people with a thumbtack wherever I go? After all it doesn't cause much damage and they could just go somewhere else.

What the heck? That's an absurd analogy.

Since when is there anarchy in personal property? Each persons house or establishment is not their own country. They are not totally free to do as they please; they cannot murder other people on their own property, or dump poison into their earth above a water resevoir.

Smoking on your property doesn't affect anyone else, unlike everything you listed. Duh.

There is a public health interest, and it should be served. Nobody is denying them the right to smoke in their own homes, but a home is much more personal than is an establishment that is meant for other citizens to sit in for profit. It obviously effects others, and the majority of people no longer wish to sit in smoked filled rooms that are only smoke filled because of a minority.

Oh please. The 'public health' is not being affected by smokey bars. A privately owned establishment with smokers does not affect the public as does pollution. It affects the people who go there to drink and smoke. If the majority of people don't want to sit in a smokey room, DON'T GO THERE DUMBASSES.
Let the profit motive force the bar owners to change policies, if there really is such demand for change.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What the heck? That's an absurd analogy.


Crazed Rabbit

How so?

[Soulforged]

Exactly, smoking DOES hurt people, it bloody KILLS them. smoking kills the smoker and all those who are persistently around their smoke.

And if you honestly believe that smoking does not cause / distinctly increase the chance of cancer, not to mention all the other terrible side effects of smoking like clogged arteries and thinning blood, then you really need to talk / listen to some doctors. I do not know of one doctor who wouldn't state that smoking is anything but terribly harming. And if they say on the contraire you will probably be able to find the stinky, ash ridden money along the trail.

That's exactly the problem, there's no serious scientist that states "smoking causes cancer". This is exactly the case of "braing washing", and add to that list "marihuana".

It's pretty easy for those who don't smoke, wheter it's tabaco or marihuana, to say that this is a good move, and pretty selfish, the least that one can do when spouting such things is investigating the facts first.

[Goofball]

That's exactly the problem, there's no serious scientist that states "smoking causes cancer".

Either you are completely in La-La land or you are trying to make a point that is purely semantic and has little value to the discussion as a whole.

In the medical field it is undisputed that inhaling tobacco smoke on a regular basis greatly increases a person's risk of developing cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and a whole slate of other debilitating/deadly diseases/conditions.

To try to argue otherwise is laughable.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's exactly the problem, there's no serious scientist that states "smoking causes cancer". This is exactly the case of "braing washing", and add to that list "marihuana".

It's pretty easy for those who don't smoke, wheter it's tabaco or marihuana, to say that this is a good move, and pretty selfish, the least that one can do when spouting such things is investigating the facts first.

Philip Morris USA (PM USA) agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely to develop serious diseases, like lung cancer, than non-smokers. There is no safe cigarette.

Good enough for you? They make cigarettes if you didn't know.

[Papewaio]

Beyond that it seems that every study devoloped in USA showed between the considarations and tests a tendence to non-causation, but to push an agenda this agencies showed the conclusion first and in big letters saying that it causes it. Anyone who can read and has the will could discover it by himself (Material extracted from Penn & Teller's: Bullshit).

So your source is a pair of psychotic magicians vs Doctors, Scientists and cigarette manufacturers.

If this was poker you have a pair of 2's and they have all the Aces.

[Soulforged]

Either you are completely in La-La land or you are trying to make a point that is purely semantic and has little value to the discussion as a whole.

In the medical field it is undisputed that inhaling tobacco smoke on a regular basis greatly increases a person's risk of developing cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and a whole slate of other debilitating/deadly diseases/conditions.

To try to argue otherwise is laughable.

No. I don't see any point in this post other than stating an opinion without anything to hold it. Either way I'm arguing that it doesn't cause cancer. Beyond the legal issue of ordering what one can do with his private property that's becoming annoying.

EDIT: This apparent verbal struggle that you might see here has a lot of importance to determine the merit of the ban.

Good enough for you? They make cigarettes if you didn't know.

Not at all. First of all as you said "They make cigarettes if you didn't know", second it clearly misuses the word causes when they wanted to say "smoking increases the risks of..." and third I presented a link too where it was pretty clear that lung cancer was not caused by smoking. But if that's not enough:
First, one that supports your claims not coming from a tabaco company. And by the way you might find this fact interesting:1.1. Over one thousand million people worldwide smoke tobacco. The percentage of smokers has decreased in developed countries, but is increasing in developing countries and among women.I wonder why the companies still say it causes it? This site however spells it right "it possibly increases the risks of having some type of cancer", different from "causes", however it exagerates the possible risks. So what's next? Well showing how much risk there's. Let's see:from the previous link (the one in my other post). From the article then:

Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less. I personally would not smoke cigarettes and take that risk, nor recommend cigarette smoking to others, but the numbers were less than I had been led to believe. I only did the data on white males because they account for the largest number of lung cancers in the US, but a similar analysis can be done for other groups using the CDC data.

You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**

When we look at the data over a longer period, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A). That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker. It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense to the general public, what a concept!

So what's the risk of been hitted by a car? Yes an old analogy, but it works to demostrate how unreasonable one can be sometimes. That means that we've to forbid cars in public streets too?

And a wise advice at the end:

Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information. Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer), I can enjoy my occasional cigar even more now...now that I know the whole story.

Now if any cancer was "caused by...", then the risk will be as high as to shoot a bullet through your chest and you dying, but that's not the case.

So your source is a pair of psychotic magicians vs Doctors, Scientists and cigarette manufacturers.

If this was poker you have a pair of 2's and they have all the Aces.

That's one of my sources but to be sure I gave it a try on the oh holy internet and thus I posted my link. But aparently no one pays attention anymore. As for your two "psychotic magicians" well those "psychotic" (????) magicians" also consult experts in every field in everyone of their programs.

[Papewaio]

They actually refer to themselves in their publicity as the psyhcotic magicians...

cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer

Which means as a smoker you have an eightfold increase in you chance of getting lung cancer... which results in how many years on average shorter lifespan and an associated reduction in quality of life due to shortness of breath?

Smoking cause a 700% increase of lung cancer in smokers. Cancer is a bit like russian roulette, some people will get killed with a minimal amount of exposure others will dodge the bullet. However there is a link between increase in usage and increase in the rate of cancer... a cause and effect.

So smoking does cause lung cancer.

[Soulforged]

They actually refer to themselves in their publicity as the psyhcotic magicians...

Nice turn. However that's not the purpose of what you wrote.

Which means as a smoker you have an eightfold increase in you chance of getting lung cancer... which results in how many years on average shorter lifespan and an associated reduction in quality of life due to shortness of breath?

So for you an increase of %1 to %8 is causation? WOW I mean do you know how many things are caused by other how many things? Following your logic I mean.

Smoking cause a 700% increase of lung cancer in smokers. Cancer is a bit like russian roulette, some people will get killed with a minimal amount of exposure others will dodge the bullet. However there is a link between increase in usage and increase in the rate of cancer... a cause and effect.

Not exactly. First the exageration of %700 wich is of course false. Second the risk of %8 is tested on non-casual smokers over the period of 50 years, a lifetime, and it's still probably less.

So smoking does cause lung cancer.

Weren't you a scientist? I think it's a little inanpropiatte to state such things without proof.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nice turn. However that's not the purpose of what you wrote.
So for you an increase of %1 to %8 is causation? WOW I mean do you know how many things are caused by other how many things? Following your logic I mean.

Not exactly. First the exageration of %700 wich is of course false. Second the risk of %8 is tested on non-casual smokers over the period of 50 years, a lifetime, and it's still probably less.

So, for those 8% why die of lung cancer, it was caused by something other than smoking?


Also, it's perfectly possible for someone to smoke a lot and then die before they get lung cancer.

Anyway, I don't see the point in arguing about how many deaths it causes. You aren't denying that it's unhealthy.

[Soulforged]

So, for those 8% why die of lung cancer, it was caused by something other than smoking?


Also, it's perfectly possible for someone to smoke a lot and then die before they get lung cancer.

Anyway, I don't see the point in arguing about how many deaths it causes. You aren't denying that it's unhealthy.

Never did that. The point is that it is not more unhealthy that say...eating hamburgers. We always measure risks in society to see what's reasonable to forbid and what's not. Shooting a bullet to your chest without your consensus is bad, smoking without your consensus is very far from bad.

[Spetulhu]

So for you an increase of %1 to %8 is causation? WOW I mean do you know how many things are caused by other how many things? Following your logic I mean.

First the exageration of %700 wich is of course false. Second the risk of %8 is tested on non-casual smokers over the period of 50 years, a lifetime, and it's still probably less.

8% is 700% more than 1%. Basic math.

If a 700% increase in lung cancer isn't caused by the tobacco, what caused it? Perhaps the alcohol these smokers have been drinking in smoky bars?

[Papewaio]

Nice turn. However that's not the purpose of what you wrote.
So for you an increase of %1 to %8 is causation? WOW I mean do you know how many things are caused by other how many things? Following your logic I mean.

Non smoker 1% chance of dying of lung cancer.
Smoker 8% chance of dying of lung cancer.

Everything else being the same, it leads to the logical conclusion that smoking causes an increase in the rates of lung cancer.

And due to the fact that smoking increases the rate of death in other areas these acutally dull the risk increase for lung cancer. Simply put the act of smoking increases their chance of dying from another disease before lung cancer gets them.

Not exactly. First the exageration of %700 wich is of course false. Second the risk of %8 is tested on non-casual smokers over the period of 50 years, a lifetime, and it's still probably less.

1% increased by 100% = 2%
1% increased by 200% = 3%
1% increased by 300% = 4%
1% increased by 400% = 5%
1% increased by 500% = 6%
1% increased by 600% = 7%
1% increased by 700% = 8%

As noted smokers increase their chance of dying from other diseases by smoking. If you could save them from the rest the actual increase in lung cancers would be more then the base eightfold increase seen currently.

Weren't you a scientist? I think it's a little inanpropiatte to state such things without proof.

And I'm now a Mission Critical Support Tech... which means my job is to create strategies to minimise risks across an enterprise level and understand the details of how even tiny changes can blow out issues. My portion of the network has a customer expectation of 99.999% uptime. So even tiny things are investigated and minimised. If customers worry about the 5 nines dropping down for a network to 99.997%, why wouldn't others find a 700% increase in the rate of lung cancers caused by smoking something to worry about?

[Atilius]

OK, anyone care to defend this one?

Smoking Ban Moves Outdoors

[R'as al Ghul]

Calabasas graphic designer Roberta Iervolino was doing city data processing as part of a community service sentence she received for running a red light. She said she deplored the city's draconian actions — and felt they might say something more profound about the town.

"I'm not a smoker, but I think it's horrible. This is a free country. I don't think this is a good social trend," she said as she sat around the corner from a sign that announced that the use of cellphones in City Hall is prohibited, except in designated areas.

"I was running from my car to get here because it was raining. And as soon as I got in, a guy told me not to run," Iervolino said. "I guess that's the nature of the game around here. It's ridiculous."

What would we do without rules?
Looks like Calabasas is a criminal hideout.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Do you have any statistics on that ?

BTW sports cause quite a few fatalities and a whole lot more injuries, a very large drain on our already weak social security system, should we ban all sports then ?

yes, we should ban sports

[_Martyr_]

As an Irish Orgite (irealnd has had the ban for a few years) I can wholeheartedly say that this is not some quasi fascist conspiracy designed to reduce people's freedoms as some people would have you believe. Practically everyone I know, smokers and non smokers, now hail the ban as a HUGE success. Bars, pubs and resteraunts are infinitely more pleasurable to be be. A new culture of going out for a smoke has emerged, where the specially allocated outdoor areas at the back of pubs and clubs are now a perfect place to get a few minutes out of the load music/atmosphere and have a quiter chat and meet new people... if you know what I mean! Hey, and if it works with Irish weather, then it'll work ANYWHERE! My shirts no longer need chemical treatment to get them to stop stinking. Food is so much more enjoyable without adding the "smoked" flavour to everything. Smoking numbers have dropped dramatically. Down from about 32% to low 23% (roughly). When I go abroad, I find I dont like going out as much precisely because of the smoke. I would be much more likely to go to a country where there is a similar ban.

[Slyspy]

Where I work the overwhelming majority of staff and patrons welcome a ban on smoking. Most of the rest are indifferent. Even the smokers hate smoke when they are eating, and many welcome the move in the belief that it will help them cut down or give up entirely. I would guess that the smoker/non-smoker split is roughly 40/60, maybe more. And this isn't some trendy cosmopolitan bar but a small town local pub.

[A.Saturnus]

Do you have any statistics on that ?

BTW sports cause quite a few fatalities and a whole lot more injuries, a very large drain on our already weak social security system, should we ban all sports then ?

After the smoking ban in Italy half a million people stopped smoking there. That implies thousands of people not dying from it. Granted, it doesn't consider how many people would have stopped without the ban, but a ban is a great help for people who want to stop.

Sport causes fatalities but in general it is rather healthy. Before you summon other examples: no other behaviour cases as much death as smoking. 5 million people every year. Worried about a pandemy? We already got one. Smoking.

[A.Saturnus]

I've to disagree with you and agree with Crazed Rabbit. It seems that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or it causes it in so few cases that it isn't reasonable to ban it. This law is just authoritarism, and for what I know it happened on USA too, I hope this kind of mind set doesn't expands to the south too, I don't smoke, in fact I find it disgusting, but in society we've to learn to accept other people's habits unless they hurt other people.

Yeah, it's just coincidents that 85% of all lung cancer patients are smokers. The life of a smoker is in average up to 20 years shorter than that of a non-smoker.

No, I don't want to argue. I say smoking is extremely unhealthy. And the WHO, the ministries of health of almost all countries, all insurance companies, science, the medical world, other health organizations, courts and even tabacco companies agree with me. I don't need to convince you too.

[KukriKhan]

I'm still smoking. Less and less, and in fewer and fewer places (basically nowhere indoors). You know what surprises me? Two things:

1) The vehemence of the anti-smoking crowd
2) How fast we've changed from a mostly-smoking society to a non-smoking one. I mean the whole political movement has really only existed since the 80's.

When I grew up, everybody smoked... the only issue was what brand, or whether cigarette, cigar or pipe. Of course, I'm not employing the "everybody did it" defense here - just pointing out how quickly things can change.

[Soulforged]

Non smoker 1% chance of dying of lung cancer.
Smoker 8% chance of dying of lung cancer.

Everything else being the same, it leads to the logical conclusion that smoking causes an increase in the rates of lung cancer.

Yes it does. But there's a lot of factors converging that we should take into account to determine if smoking is exactly the cause. Beyond that, empirical science manages with probabilities, a probability of more than %50 can be considered causation in this case, but that's not the case when the probability is of %8 or less. Remember the research is biased.

And due to the fact that smoking increases the rate of death in other areas these acutally dull the risk increase for lung cancer. Simply put the act of smoking increases their chance of dying from another disease before lung cancer gets them.

Again the risk is minimal to null. Being of %8 percent increase in a period of 50 years of non-casual smokers (i.e. smokers that do so often).

1% increased by 100% = 2%
1% increased by 200% = 3%
1% increased by 300% = 4%
1% increased by 400% = 5%
1% increased by 500% = 6%
1% increased by 600% = 7%
1% increased by 700% = 8%

Yes noticed that later. Sorry.

As noted smokers increase their chance of dying from other diseases by smoking. If you could save them from the rest the actual increase in lung cancers would be more then the base eightfold increase seen currently.

We should search for the risk of those other deseases first.

And I'm now a Mission Critical Support Tech... which means my job is to create strategies to minimise risks across an enterprise level and understand the details of how even tiny changes can blow out issues. My portion of the network has a customer expectation of 99.999% uptime. So even tiny things are investigated and minimised. If customers worry about the 5 nines dropping down for a network to 99.997%, why wouldn't others find a 700% increase in the rate of lung cancers caused by smoking something to worry about?

Again with a biased research, and playing with mathematics. If I say 8 -1 = 7 it will not sound as bad as %700 increase in the chances, what matters is the absolute chance of getting it, increasing above the non-smoker, and that's only seven and probably less. I could research about the chances of getting any disease by other habits, but I'll do so only when I've enough time, besides many on this thread don't seem to be interested.

EDIT to add: Cardiovascular system diseases: this source provides that the change for an smoker of getting a kind of cardiovascular condition is 2 to 4 times the one of the non-smoker. The same source shows a significant increase in the chances of getting such conditions being a passive smoker. This other source provides more detailed information on secondhand smoke: "Kawachi, et al. (1997) in a prospective study of coronary heart disease (CHD) in 32,000 female U.S. nurses aged 31 to 61 yr., for nonsmoking women exposed only at work, observed a dose-response gradient for passive smoking and CHD. Adjusted relative risks of CHD were 1.00 [for no exposure], 1.58 (95% CI, 0.93-2.68) [occasional exposure], and 1.91 (95% CI, 1.11-3.28) [regular exposure]. Thus, regular exposure to SHS at work caused a 91% increase in CHD, shown in Figure 3 below." The relative increase if of %91, but the absolute one is still pretty low. The other studies showed a similar increase. And all this among, again, other factors like genetics and exercise. The risk is as low as cancer, and is among other things that are as risky.
Pregnancy problems: an interesting source again the source once again mentions the constant tendence of the media to push an agenda, and of the agencies too, when they post conclusions that contradict the results of the test. And read this (actually the whole page is worth a read if you ask me): "These findings, obtained by using laboratory assay, confirm the reduced risk of developing preeclampsia with tobacco exposure. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1192-6.) " And there's a lot like this, not only it's not as risky as many think, but it even has a lot of benefits. I'll not post every single statement on that page because they're to much, but they also talk about benefits in regards to the cardiovascular system.

I think that after this we can reasonabily state that banning tobbaco, beyond the already annoying legal issue, is insane.
Perhaps later I'll post some of the risks that come from ther sources.

[Papewaio]

Soulforged you are showing your lack of understanding of statistics.

Non smoker 1% chance of dying of lung cancer. So out of all the things that you can die of out of 1 hundred different ways you will die once from lung cancer.
Smoker 8% chance of dying of lung cancer. So out of all the things that you can die of out of 1 hundred different ways you will die eight times from lung cancer.

That is a 700% increase in the likelyhood as a smoker of dying of lung cancer compared with a non smoker.

The 8% is not to do with the correlation coefficient or the standard deviation of the data. The 8% is purely the chance that you will die of lung cancer. The other 92% of things you will die of will be other things.

Also the increase in rates of lung cancers is not the only thing that smoking causes. And as Saturnus pointed out of the people who get lung cancers 85% of them are smokers... yet the amount of smokers in most first world countries is less then non smokers.

Again with a biased reasearch, and playing with mathematics. If I say 8 -1 = 7 it will not sound as bad as %700 increase in the changes, what matters is the absolute change of getting it, increasing above the non-smoker, and that's only seven and probably less. I could research about the chances of getting any disease by other habits, but I'll do so only when I've enough time, besides many on this thread don't seem to be interested.

It is an increase of 700%. By simply being a smoker you have an eightfold higher chance of dying of lung cancer then a non smoker.

Smokers life span is also on average considerably shorter then non-smokers.

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE=Papewaio]

Soulforged you are showing your lack of understanding of statistics.

Non smoker 1% chance of dying of lung cancer. So out of all the things that you can die of out of 1 hundred different ways you will die once from lung cancer.
Smoker 8% chance of dying of lung cancer. So out of all the things that you can die of out of 1 hundred different ways you will die eight times from lung cancer.

That is a 700% increase in the likelyhood as a smoker of dying of lung cancer compared with a non smoker.

Yes already got that. Eight more times, eight time less and sevenhundred percent chance increase. That's what I said, you said the last, the same but with other simbols. They mean the same.

The 8% is not to do with the correlation coefficient or the standard deviation of the data. The 8% is purely the chance that you will die of lung cancer. The other 92% of things you will die of will be other things.

Yes agreed. But the chance is added up over smoking over a period of 50 years. The risk is still low.

Also the increase in rates of lung cancers is not the only thing that smoking causes. And as Saturnus pointed out of the people who get lung cancers 85% of them are smokers... yet the amount of smokers in most first world countries is less then non smokers.

I didn't saw any statistics on that.

It is an increase of 700%. By simply being a smoker you have an eightfold higher chance of dying of lung cancer then a non smoker.

Even presuming the veracity of such reasearchs, you're still expressing it that way, if I say that %1 of all the non-smokers over the period of a lifetime will get lung cancer and then say that %8 of the smokers over the period of lifetime will get lung cancer the chance if low.

Smokers life span is also on average considerably shorter then non-smokers.

Well you might find interesting that article that I posted in my edited post above (the last one).

[Harald Den BlåToth]

I'm still smoking. Less and less, and in fewer and fewer places (basically nowhere indoors). You know what surprises me? Two things:

1) The vehemence of the anti-smoking crowd
2) How fast we've changed from a mostly-smoking society to a non-smoking one. I mean the whole political movement has really only existed since the 80's.

It's all hype generated by health insurance companies. Smokers DO develop a tobacco related pathology (lung cancer) and are more likely to develop other illnesses (COPD, CHD) whose evolution is far graver and faster than in non-smokers.
In other words, health insurance companies lose money. They tried to impose greater taxes to smokers than to non-smokers. It didn't work simply because smokers declared themselves non-smokers to pay less. So they tried the other way around. They turned the smokers into the modern lepers. One's almost ashamed to acknowledge that he's a smoker.
If they do it they do it for money not for the sake of the smokers...

[Kralizec]

Meh. I don't care much either way. Partly because I stopped smoking a few weeks back, but even before I started smoking I didn't generally care about other people's smoke if they're at least polite enough not to blow it in my face.

You can go overboard with anything, but I don't see much of a problem with people who smoke 1-2 packs a week (what I did). If you get cancer because of that little bit, you probably were geneticly inclined towards it. Sure all smokers die at an earlier age- but in a society where the economy suffers because the average age is on the rise, is that a bad thing?

Stop population ageing - start smoking

[A.Saturnus]

Yes agreed. But the chance is added up over smoking over a period of 50 years. The risk is still low.

700% is not low it's almost astronomically high. If any substance has a 700% increase of causing cancer, it will be outlawed immediately. Unless it's pushed by the tabacco industry. Add to that that the base level chance includes passive smokers. Yes, there are behaviours that involve a greater risk. Shooting through your head with a gun for example (which is also outlawed in public places BTW). But on society level, no other behaviour has so much negative impact. 5 million people a year. It's a bigger problem than AIDS. If you consider weighted mortality (that is young deaths weight more than old ones - also called Years Lost to Life), which is a measure for the societal impact of a disease, lung cancer scores number one.

If they do it they do it for money not for the sake of the smokers...

Yeah, they save lives just to get money - that bastards.

1) The vehemence of the anti-smoking crowd

That may have to do with the fact that smoking is the biggest health problem of our time.

[Soulforged]

700% is not low it's almost astronomically high. If any substance has a 700% increase of causing cancer, it will be outlawed immediately. Unless it's pushed by the tabacco industry. Add to that that the base level chance includes passive smokers. Yes, there are behaviours that involve a greater risk. Shooting through your head with a gun for example (which is also outlawed in public places BTW). But on society level, no other behaviour has so much negative impact. 5 million people a year. It's a bigger problem than AIDS. If you consider weighted mortality (that is young deaths weight more than old ones - also called Years Lost to Life), which is a measure for the societal impact of a disease, lung cancer scores number one.

Well I think all comes down to a matter of evaluation (though I didn't see any references on statistics, I'll just buy your words for now). I consider 7% difference to be low, you consider %700 more to be high. Anyway have you read any part of the link I posted, I assure you it's worth it, even more to those that think that smoking is bad for your health. I was one of those, my father smoked and I blamed every single thing on that fact, even his death, until I discovered it was totally unrelated (it was SAMSCom). Now after you read the actual sources and see what's happening maybe it might turn your mind completely or not, I can't force anybody, I'm just recommending. I'll still consider 8% in a life time to be low, even more with a biased source, let's say that I don't find any reason to restrict freedom in any way.