Having read (but not necessarily digested) the thread, it seems that there are a few misconceptions flying around.
As another smoker, I think I'd be happier if they (the manufacturer's) weren't allowed to advertise and weren't allowed to include so much other crap in the tobacco. That's not only "tailor mades" but hand rolling tobacco as well.
It's a pretty weird state of affairs, when you consider the reason's that the manufacturers are allowed to make the tobacco modified, in the excuse that they want to be able to offer a brand with a specific "flavour", and to do that, they incorporate lot's of chemical's that in any quantity, would be considered hazardous.
This link is from the UK's anti smoking group, so there is probably a certain element of propaganda, but there's also a fair amount of good scientific research as well.
Let's face it, when the world started to adopt smoking, which I understand came from native American's in the first place, they didn't have a clue about the possible side effect's. It seems that it was only when the "authorities" noticed people's death's that they thought about investigating it.
Erm, also the earlier comment's about making money because of virus developer's is just the result. The analogy of more money for development/wages etc if there was no such thing as a computer virus (irrespective of virii, trojan's, worm's, etc etc) is somewhat naive.
At it's most cynical, business has but one function, to be able to extract as much profit (financial or otherwise) from it's customers. It effectively prey's on it's customers, using one of the most fundemental trait's of human nature, that of greed.
If there was more money, because of the absence of virii, they wouldn't pay any more, because they seem to have identified that while for certain employment, "top dollar" is a necessity, but where they can get away with it, they pay as absolutely as little as possible.
Don't forget, if you use a large business as a model (easier to explain than a small one), it's cheaper to pay large "fat cat" type bonuses to a small number of "bosses" than it is to pay the whole workforce a "living wage".
to bring the tobacco thing back in, here in the UK, we are probably paying a higher taxation ratio for our tobacco product's than anywhere else. At about £4.50 (about 8$'s US) per 20 cigarette's, that's about 80% tax.
But while the current government have upped the profile of anti/non smoking advertising, it's fair to say that a total ban would never happen, not until thing's have done a lot more levelling out. At the moment, a complete ban would cost the UK tax payer about an additional 8% in income tax, and 8 pence in the pound for every pound earned, times just under 60 million, is pretty big numbers.
Yes, there's also some "science" that may link smoking related illness, with second hand smoking, though I don't feel that it's conclusive, I feel that more damage is done by car exhaust fumes, than tobacco smoke (anecdotal I know!), that would be without factoring in all the other industrial processes that produce potentially noxious fumes.
It doesn't really matter whether it's computer virii, tobacco, or whatever, they're all very emotive subject's. It usually depends on your particular involvement with something, as to the level of your own personal evangalism on a subject/product/behaviour.
I suspect that you could find similar stat's in the US (probably much more easily than in the UK) but the problems that our politician's are trying to fix are getting smaller and smaller (for example the crime/murder rate of 300 year's ago, compared with today), first it was road death's, then drinking and driving, now it's vehicle speed's/engine pollution etc etc. Whoever coined the phrase "nanny state" weren't far wrong.
Maybe if we took all the money spent on traffic speed camera's in the last decade and ploughed it into cancer/aid's research we'd be able to save more lives. But if you compare that, to a single, but vocal parent who's lost a child in a road accident, disease just isn't "sexy", it doesn't (unless it's something very horrific) sell news papers, tv advertising air time, etc etc and it's harder for the politician's to say we've saved x amount of lives by investing y amount of money into z disease research. Much more convenient to be able to give nice easy/comfortable stat's like we've cut road death's by whatever percentage - what a cheap headline that is!
Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt! New ball's please umpire
regards
John
