[gela]

1) - In the 1950s 3 times as many smoked then did not smoke.

Thats nice, but the research is ongoing.

2) - Many more people start smoking later in life and the older you get the more likely you are of having health problems, non-smoking children are not as likely to have health problems and they are part of the over all population count. Age is a big factor. So, do we have more people over the age of 30 smoking then under the age of 30?

age is taken into account, and so is when you started smoking.

3) They conducted one study in Africa and found that the native women did not suffer a lot from lung cancer but they found a number of (non-smoking) Nuns (white people) who had cancer of the brest. Both the Nuns and the Natives lived in the same environment. That rasied the question as to why the white nuns had a high rate of cancer and not the native black women. They discovered that race played a role in what kinds of illnesses you are most likely to encounter in your life.

No one is hear to deny that there are many factors that contribute to cancers. We are arguing that smoking is a big factor that contributes to lung cancer.

[/quote]
4) If smoking is the major cause of all those health problems then how come 25 percent of the unhealthy people are non-smokers? If they were isolated from "the cause" then they should not have been effected by the cause, and therefore would not be unhealthy. Logically speaking. That fact is evidence that smoking is not a major cause of such unhealthy condidtions. But if most of the population smoked and only 25 percent did not smoke, then that would account for why those stats appeared. But were not correctly interpreted. [/quote]

Again, smoking isn't the only factor that contributes to lung cancer, its just a large contributer.
Some people are geneticaly predisposed to it, and live in the city. Some people work with diesel.
Some people smoke.

They did have studies that found no link between smoking and cancer, but the anti-smoking people told everyone that the tobacco industry was somehow funding those studies and so nowadays people view those studies and "incomplete" or as .... junk science. They even had one ad on TV about that to discredit studies that found no links between smoking and serious health problems. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember that? Do not kid your self. The tobacco company could in fact afford to hire scientists to conduct studies and to make claims that smoking is not harmful (and they in fact did that)

Got proof?
Perhaps theres a reason that they have been discredited.

Drug companes spend millions on TV to downplay the fact that aspirin can prevent health attacks just so they can sell their own expensive products.

Irrevelent. But its funny how you take they scientists word on the asprin but not on the lung cancer.
Wheres the proof that asprin causes lung cancer?

The difference is the amount inhaled. If you lived in a city where you had millions of cars and trucks filling the air with tons of toxic Carbon Monoxide you would be getting a gaint dose of the stuff. With no clean air left to delute the Monoxide with. Where as you get just a teenie weenie amount from cigarette smoke. Test it out. You stand in a closed garage with a car pumping out fuel fumes and I will stand in a garage with 40 people smoking, and my self smoking, we will stay there one month. Guess who will come out in the best best health? Or guess who would die and who would not die? . Are you up to doing that real time test? Point made.

Im sure we would both come out with some health problems.. depending on our genetic predisposition.

No ones denying that car fumes are also dangerous. But in the surveys, they would obvioulsy take into consideration everything that is inhaled - they would compartivly study people from country towns and people from cities.
I have heard that living in a city makes you more prone to lung cancer. But guess what- smoking still contributes to lung cancer. Your point isn't proving anything.
Again, funny how you believe the scientists about carbon monoxide. Mabe thats one big conspiracy aswel.

At least let people die by the vice of their own choice. I let people drive their cars, so final word - bug off and stop the anti-smoking conspriacy.

Look at that, a legitimate point. The anti smoking campaign isn't wrong, but mabe they are also exagerating things a whole lot.
In Australia, they have a good reason to - we have health care, so any terrible sickness you get, the public has to pay for with taxes.