Xest wrote: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.
As with most of our discussions the devil is in the detail. The only reason why there are warnings on the cigarette packets is because government requires it by law. The tobacco companies still refute the evidence. To admit that it causes cancer would be the end of those companies. They simply have to dispute it for political reasons.
This is not the same thing as a browning gun Xest. It is completely different.
The facts are they have been unsuccessfully sued on numerous occassions. How was this done. The claimants argued that they knowingly put their life at risk and that the claimants did not know the risks. Its partly why we have the warnings. To stop lawsuits that were costsing too much money and time.
So on this your analsyis is flawed.
Xest wrote: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?
That article is inconsistent and unclear it slides around between cause and risk. I think you will find that Wiki is subject to rules and consensus just like the evidence on smoking. Once more as political as things come.
Not only this but the article is not subject to any form of direct peer review and so nope I don't accept its authority. The systematic reviews I gave you are much much more significant. In there they do not use the language of cause. They speak of risk and the second one of inconclusive evidence.
Xest wrote: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?
You see now your slipping into democracy to justify your point. The simple answer is no. The 'fact' is there is no proof there is simply some signs of an elevated risk. There is not point putting up a smoke screen Xest that won't work. Like I said you can buy into the WHO and so on if you like. That is a political decision and does nothing to improve the evidence which I am afraid remains inconclusive with respect to cause and effect..
Xest wrote: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.
On this point I think once more your not completely right. Feel free to prove me wrong though. The same group that you agree with argue that in fact smoking is costing the taxpayer much more than the revenue it generates in taxes. Let me put it another way. Why do you think the government is so keen to discourage it? The major reason why it doesn't tax smoking more is because taxing smoking is a direct tax on the poor.
You see this is a very complex political issue and in the main has very little to do with science. Once you start using politics to justify your argument Xest all you generate is more political problems.
Tuthmes was right to point out there is a degree of hypocrisy in banning smoking in public. I can live with a modicum of that though because after all I do worry about the risks. The problem is I am unsure about the myriad of other risks I am exposing others too I just feel there is less we can do about many of those.
Master Of Spamming 
