Sharkith wrote:Another thing you are wrong on is that in fact there have been many cases where tobacco companies have been sued for 'causing cancer'. Not once have they been forced to pay out.
You can't sue a tobacco company for suffering ill effects due to passive smoking, only the individual responsible for causing the passive smoking. You can't sue for suffering cancer, because it explains the dangers on the packet. There have been cases where employees have been able to sue their employer for putting them at risk by not making smokers use a separate area to smoke in away from other employees however.
It's similar to weapons, you can't sue Browning if someone shoots you with a Browning gun only the person who shot you, you can't sue Browning if you shoot yourself with a Browning weapon.
What you are buying into is the 'agreements' such as the first reference in the heavily biased Wiki article that some public health scientists have put in place to put political pressure on governments. I have no problem with you buying into that Xest. What I have problems is when someone claims something is based purely on scientific fact when the facts are in 'fact' otherwise.
You do realised Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and that there is therefore no reason that the same article wouldn't have comments from those supporting smoking in the "Controversy" section providing their comments have plenty of valid references cited? Or are you suggesting that the number of scientists who argue that smoking causing harm is inconclusive are an absolute minority and if so doesn't that tell you something?
I'm not entirely sure why you're so convinced that it's entirely a political issue, as has been pointed out the goverment benefits more from tobacco taxes than they would without them, whilst it would take strain off the NHS (oh but what has the NHS got to do with it? smoking is harmless!) it wouldn't reduce NHS costs enough to make up for the loss in tobacco revenue.