>
> Stigma, there is some. But there is also pretty-well-proven medical,
> scientific reasons that show that smoking is bad, mmkay?
>
There are for many more things scientific reasons that they are bad. However
those things are not banned. Smoking has got a negative image and so are the
victims of smoking (lung cancer patients). However many other type of cancers
or elderly diseases are the result of a bad habits as well. Some parts of the
food industries might also be blamed damaging public health (e.g. law suits
against fast food chains). Many other examples can be found in which actions
by people or organisations are damaging public health and not only by damaging
their own health but also the health of others. There are no bans however.
Smoking is enormously being stigmatized. We are not acting in a same way to
other habits. For instance why don't we ban alcohol consumption in bars (it
kills non consumers as well in traffic accidents). Why don't we ban cars that
can drive faster than say a few miles above the maximum driving speed on
highways? Smoking has the stigma and it's industry has lost power to fight
against it. For alcohol and cars this is not (yet) the case (it would also
have much more negative effect on the economy) .
Even if the smoking industry has scientific studies proving contrary things it
would only stir up things resulting in them being blamed interfering with
research by sponsoring it. If you are only looking for bad effects of smoking
you are sure to find bad effects. However what about certain positive effects
of smoking? It seems to calm down people for instance. That might be a very
good thing in certain work environments. I remember a research in which
certain groups of people who stopped smoking (something like women I believe;
the weaker sex) didn't benefit from it and might even have a lower life
expectancy.
Who says A, must say B as well.