Why do people still argue that cigarettes are not banned?

[tgit23]

A) Because some people care to educate themselves a little further than the local media garbage. If one really wants to know the answer to this question they need to dig into the science for themselves and acknowledge what is there without prejudices or biases trying to dis-believe the science presented.

First, Lung cancer isn't nearly as common as people are led to believe. 0.005% people a year will die from lung cancer; that's 5 out of 1000 people. 60% of non-smokers get lung cancer so you can't really say cigarettes cause lung cancer. You can say it increases the risk of getting it; but it is not correct to say it causes it. This is observably obvious. How many die of lung cancer per year?? about 160,00 but does anyone really pay attention to the fact that's out of 320 Million people?

Second, There is also a study done in Japan that shows higher rates of Lung Cancer in non-smokers than smokers (thus leading to the conclusion smoking protects against lung cancer; If someone was a die hard activist - like the anti-smoking crusade has done but the other way around.) And frankly from all the studies I've read it appears the extremely light-smoker actually does appear to have lower rates of lung cancer than non-smokers. Seems only the heavy smokers have increased risks.

Third, Contrary to popular biases; their isn't many studies form the tobacco industry itself. Most come from research departments in universities (like UCLA, Standford, Yale and etc..) and many of them also come from the same organizations mis-leading the public. Truth of it is; it is very easy to spot the deception if one just takes the time to read the actual case study information.

B) Its a battle between how much the political world should nanny it's citizens and whether social engineering should lead politics instead of sound science.