Quote:
Quote by: Matt W  It has been explained, either on this thread or another, why scientists use these terms. You are willfully ignoring it. Again. The facts are that cigarettes are bad for you, and indeed, is being backed up in court. Deal with it. |
Lets calm down, this is just a debate and nothing more then that.
Science always takes the position that they do not advocate absolutes, which I assume is what you mean when they say "might" be linked. science is an on-going process of more discovery and not in the business of claiming some absolute truth. Which is the point that I was relating to people who said that science has proven something in an absolute sense.
The court cases evolved around the fact that tobacco companies did not put warning notices on their products to inform the public about the "potential" health risks of smoking. And that they promoted smoking with the intent to be deceptive about those suspected risks. In those legal debates they even coined the term "junk science".
Due to strong politcal influence, the Surgeon General, who is appointed by the President, made a number of statements about the potential hazards of smoking. And made "determenations" which became the government's stand about the medical aspects of smoking. Because of that governmental stand the judges had little choice other then to accept that determination by the Surgeon General as a bases for making their rulings. People who started smoking in the 1950s or 1960s were not warned they said, because the cigarette packs were not so labeled with such warnings concerning that product. The lawyers showed memos where the tobacco company knew about some of the first studies done that might link smoking to cancer, but attempted to create a different impression via advertising. I recall one ad where they advertised "low tar" in their brand. And they promoted filters - etc.
It was the "lack of labeling their products" that nailed them and resulted in them loosing their court case and paying out fines. Not because of debates over the health hazards.
I can deal with that fine. It is mostly the bans, the sin taxes, and all those stupid TV ads put out by the anti-smoking people (mostly with false information) that I do not want to deal with, but forced to deal with.
Not to mention the control freaks.