RE. Laws against smoking in public places/cars or whatever

I am just standing and looking at this from a different angle. I am not fixed solid in the position from which my point comes from but merely stating and enquiring this out of interest.

Some of you say that you would like to give up but you do not have the will power, if you can not enforce the will power to do it yourself, surely you would be greatful that somebody else (the law) did it for you?

It would be tough yes, could this be what leads to the primary condemnation of this action, on the one hand this sort of thing takes the choice out of your hands, but you have little choice other than to smoke anyway because your addiction and will does not permit you to give up.

Perhaps anything which threatens this needs to be argued with using whatever point can be grasped in order to allow your addiction to continue. Is your addiction speaking for you? Is the "human right to choose" argument a mere (pardon the expression) smoke screen? It works well and stands up to scrutiny, but holds little logic as far as your health is concerned, perhaps this argument is being manipulated by your habit?

Would you rather be controlled by a drug induced need or enforced by a government trying to solve a health crisis (without going into the fact that it is one of the causes for the crisis, we all know this, the point is its trying to find ways to resolve this now)

Neither option is particulaly becoming/convincing although one shortens life and one will help it to last longer.

NICE ONE
nn23

I certainly respect the compassion with which you say this. And I understand that some truly want to quit, but cannot drum up the will power. However, I don't want to quit. Yes, it is unhealthy, but since when has the government cared (and I mean from a truly heartfelt place) about my health?

Being as such, I do not want a collection of people, with whom I have no personal discourse, making decisions about how I will spend my finite eternity. Although, I completely empathize with those who do not want to share in my choice, and I try to show them the respect they show me. We must be just to each other's needs.

We are all dying a slow death, until that singularity in time occurs, and we walk a different path. That moment might be at any single point in time until it happens, a seemingly infinite variable. Personally, the life choices I make for myself are inherently more satisfying and constructive. I view such a decision made for me as an encroachment on my liberty as a human being.

And besides, I think the very nature of government precludes it from being capable of "solving the health care crisis." Too many mouths to feed before anyone eats. From a societal aspect, I am much less worried about the smokers as I am the disinterested parents, or the ethically impotent CEO's, or the droves of homeless people, or all those soon to be homeless due to poor lending practices. These actions toward smokers are not about solving problems, but rather about tightening the noose.

Respectfully,
bg04

mmm, So you dont feel that this oppinion of yours is influenced in any way by your drug addiction?


I totally agree with what you say about the government thing, their intentions will NEVER be what they say they are, its all just figures and votes to them, i was refering to the functional role of their ideas, and also querying the perspective that oppressive to are choices their rules may be yes, but if it takes away the choice we have to potentially kill ourselves?

WOWWWWWW i'd really like to know if you, and EVERYONE else who feels the same way as you, is for or against euthanasia or suicide?

It would be VERY interesting to know what your views are on these subjects in light of what you say about your right as a human being to choose to smoke and your views of the governments calls to oppress this right

NICE ONE blueandgold04
nn23

Opression vs taxation


A call in on the news today regarding the topic of limiting smoking in an open air stadium.
He was fine with the ban on smoking at the stadium, but made a point to wonder about the drinking that at times (often) of those who drink and become inebriated, so much so that they are very loud and use bad language in front of children. Anyone who has been to a ball game knows this to be true. He went on to say why isn't there a limit on the beverages allowed and should there be one? Think about it stadiums and bars across the country serve drinks till patrons are really drunk, then they get behind a wheel and drive??? But... everyone is worried about smoke???

hmmm, do you think that this comparrison you draw between drinking and smoking highlights a reason for us not to be worried about smoke?


ALL that you say about drinking in stadiums is SO true, its quite frightening.

nn23 I really do not have much more to say on this topic. lol I have many posts in this thread where I not only expressed my views, but also posted my findings which I gathered, after having spent numerous hours researching this topic.

Sigh... tomato, tomahto ya know.

Just was popping in to add a tidbit.

mmmmm, ok

NICE ONE
nn23

smoking is bd just say no
trust me i smoke 40 a day

No, because I have always been willing to die for my freedom. This life belongs to me, good or bad.



Suicide: People who eat fast food 3 meals a day every day are killing themselves wantonly all over the world. We all make choices and they all bear consequences. To die is not dishonorable, and sometimes to take matters directly into your own hands is not the wrong thing to do. We cannot all be salvaged.

Euthenasia: If that patient is of clear mind and wishes to be eased of their pain, who am I to deny them that decency? We can be so foolish, assuming that death may not be the most humane eventuality. Those who grandstand about how wrong it is have no compassion for the situation of others. They can only think of their own desires and gratifications.

Government is not in place for the health and protection of every citizen. That is a blatant usurpation of its rights. A government is in place for the defense and maintenance of the nation as a whole.

I saw the most wretched commercial this weekend. It was put on by lobbyists for anti-smoking. It was a woman who explained the surgeries she had to have on her tongue, throat. The real kicker was, she had the gall to blame all of it on secondhand smoke. Now, your average TVland watcher would think "Wow, that's terrible, pass that bill!"

All I could think was, "How tragic. But how are they sure that it was due to secondhand smoke? There is no direct link for causation, and there are plenty of instances where people develop cancer without any known reason. But in this case they are sure it was due to secondhand smoke. Riiiigggghhhht." Air pollution, bad DNA, too much soda pop, the chemtrails our gov. leaves; outrageous possibilities!!

This misinformation and attack on the minds of the ignorant is how the government keeps its hold. And by government, I mean special interest groups and corporations.

I think Scarlett is pointing out that there are larger issues out there. Issues that need to be resolved for a better level of humanity.

god i hate this topic but it's sort of addictive .
i hate to smoke for health reasons not cause i don't enjoy it
and i always tell myself i will quit i have a young daughter and would not deprive her of a father due to my vices i also drink having a beer right now slurp
at the end of the day goverment can tell us its bad but they still add money on ciggarettes at every opputunity because the revenue they make of of them is astonomical and as ive stated in previous posts
they will pass that loss of ciggarette tax on to something else when people start to quit i.e big cars 4x4's and such as i drive a 4x4 i'm getting shafted both ways as the price for road tax has almost doubled so in affect my point is smoke or be smoked either way it's like burning money

I agree there are 'larger' issues here. No one - including our governments - have the 'right' to tell us what we can or cannot do on or in our own property providing we do not put others at risk.

Let's see ... no smoking, no alchohol, no fatty foods, no sugar (rots teeth), no synthetic fabrics (the mills pollute our world), no hair dyes (can "rot the brain" - sigh), no computers or TVs (prevents kids from getting enough exercise) and on and on ... sounds all so silly, I know, but geesh, when would it end if we let them get started.

Aah, the world would be such a kinder place if we were left to make our own decisions about so many things - whether they be good or bad for us.

On a personal note, I hope no one will mind my adding this, although a tad off-topic ...

We were sitting outside a restaurant on a busy street ... half of the front designated for 'smoking', the far side for 'not smoking'. A women with 3 loud, rude and sadly obnoxious children sat down in the smoking area - and then started ranting at our friend for lighting a cigarette. This normally gentle soul simply let her finish and then informed her that she and her children were bad for his health as, after being exposed to them , he was surely in need of a Valium. Gentle grin.

It is strange how self-centered people can be. I think that is part of the root of this problem, on both sides of the fence.

I think they ought to outlaw flatulence except in designated bowel relieving areas. And then those areas must be contained by an inpermeable bubble.

"Can only speak for myself but I've tried smoking patches (even doubled them up!), the pills and hypnosis ... and have come to the conclusion that although I'm not addicted to anything else, cigarette smoking is my 'bane'. Luckily I, oddly enough, enough smoking - and also come from a family that seems to live nigh on forever, smokers or not."

Just wanted to ad something.

This always works.

DONT BUY ANY PERIOD.

Now you cant smoke....

Go cold turkey.....

curiously enough ECW Wrestler "Sandman" who was known for his smoking and drinking that put Stone Cold to shame. hasnt been seen smoking or drinking excessively on television for a couple of months now. Just noticed that over the weekend. I think that the corporation is wising up to the fact that he is one of the main role models for young adult males (13-18) and have cut the unhealthy behavior to help curb the teen smoking in this demographic.

This is just my opinion not news from either WWE or ECW

PS
Cold Turkey works for many people you just have to watch because the addiction can take other forms. (ie caffeine, food, gum,alcohol, ect)

Hey everyone! I to was a smoker until 2 years ago. I dont mind if people smoke out side but I never smoked in public places or in my house, because 1) I had kids and 2) it just stinks like hell. If I go around friends houses and quite a few of them smoke it doesn't bother me at all. In Australia they have just made it illegal to smoke in cars where there are children present under the age of 16.

"In Australia they have just made it illegal to smoke in cars where there are children present under the age of 16."

How about that and so should the USA!
And in homes where kids are present. Kill your own self....

Its funny parents want to protect their kids yet they smoke in the home and the car and their kids AND themselves have to breath in the MOST dangerous part the after smoke!

How about...... teaching your children to roll down the window? Novel idea, I think by the age of 16 they should have learned how to do that

It's a hot debate! Roll down the window LOL. But can you still smoke in pubs in the US? That will be next to go in Aus.

Smoking in public is banned in New Zealand
Isn't that great!

blueandgold, there is plenty of evidence to support the dangers of second hand smoke...at least, the dangerous nature of the smoke itself. If cigarette smoke passing through a filter is harmful to the smoker, obviously the same smoke, unfiltered, would be just as dangerous if not more so to anyone else.

Generally, lungs do not like to be exposed to heavy metals and chemicals. Look at workers in auto-body shops, coal miners, ect. These folks are exposed to dangerous vapors all the time; they often suffer respiratory disease as a result. Cigarette smoke is a stew of such dangerous chemicals.

The problem is not in proving that second-hand smoke is dangerous; the trick is in quantifying its effect. Smokers can measure their intake by a unit; the cigarette itself. But how do you quantify second hand smoke? Constantly measuring particle density where ever you go? That's not very practical. The best you can do is to take an educated guess. The amount of second-hand smoke inhaled will constantly change throughout a person's day.

People who experience infrequent exposure...such as a visit to the local bar once in a while...probably won't see much difference in their odds of getting cancer. But imagine if every public place you went was full of smoke; an accumulative effect would exist. The odds of negative consequences would rise considerably for a large number of people.

Another issue worth pointing out is that it's not that second-hand smoke will give you cancer; the point is that it simply increases the odds. There are people who have smoked heavily for many years without getting cancer. Does that mean we can conclude that smoking does not cause cancer? Of course not; overwhelming evidence shows that it does. Instead can we conclude that smoking increases the odds of developing cancer. This gives us a more clear picture of what's going on. You might make it 40 years smoking 3 packs a day without the disease, but it's highly unlikely. And even if you don't get cancer, there is a host of other diseases you will most likely develop...from the damage you've caused to your lungs.

So where does that leave us? If we keep smoking out of heavily used public places such as government buildings, supermarkets, ect, we'll be better off. If bars want to allow smoking, I say, let them. Employees choose to work there knowing full well the dangers of smoke, as do the customers. Generally I would say that public places most of us have to frequent to partake in our daily lives should be protected from smoke; places we don't actually have to go should be allowed to choose for themselves.

The irony is that most buisnesses would remain non-smoking; they would loose far too many customers if smoking was allowed. People just don't like to be told to ban it.

Well locally pwned, I agree with much of your post. I brought up that commercial because it was an illogical argument, an appeal to emotion based on inconclusive cause and effect relationships. As human beings we all have different genetic predispositions, thus we will all respond differently to certain stimuli. Who can say that second-hand smoke was the only catalyst for her cancer?

However, most of our actions as human beings can be classified as 'increasing the odds of developing cancer'. There is even a theory about the number of replications of a cell and the number of mutations developed. While I agree that this is an issue about health, I think it has morphed into an issue about liberty as well. I agree that highly public buildings should be smoke-free, but by the choice of the owner/proprietor, not as an ordinance of the government. One cannot legislate good health practices. Those must be left to the individual.

As a caviat, any government building has the full right to decree a smoke-free environment within it's walls. But this has turned into a question of ownership, how far does the government's reach go? Do they own your nightclub, or my car, or my brother's restaurant? If so, then this is tyranny, and time for a revolution. If not, then what gives anyone (who is not an owner) the right to decide what can be done within your property (as supported by the law)?

This issue represents a usurpation of the powers we have granted our government; give them an inch....

Regards,
bg04

PS_ Around my home, many businesses are closing because of the ban. Many people want to have a drink and a smoke in a communal setting. This ban will have detrimental economic effects, yet to be felt.

True. However, I would think that the known carcinogens contained in cigarette smoke, had she been exposed to it for large amounts of time, would have to at least make the 'Top Ten.'

And going further, since there are so many possible causes for cancer, shouldn't we try to limit as many of them as possible?

I do agree with you that the issue here is really property rights rather than the dangers of second-hand smoke.

As far as businesses loosing money, my wife has worked in the field (tobacco cessation for youth) and has showed me data that suggests the opposite. But then, I am sure there are many factors involved...the type of business, the location, the political climate of that location, ect. I would imagine that bars would suffer, where as family restaurants, shops, ect would be fine, if not better off, with smoking banned.

But again, I suppose that is all moot if your overriding concern is the property rights issue.

I don't mean to seem insensitive, or possessing of a death-wish, but eternal life is impossible. Thus, one could miss out on so many experiences by trying to limit their exposure to carcinogens. So.... no more cheeseburgers, beer, alcohol, salt, etc. At some point life must be lived, without fixation on eternal preservation. Cancer is such a dominant problem because our lifespans have lengthened to the point where its danger supercedes many life-threats of past civilizations.

However, I am compassionate enough to understand that not everyone enjoys a cigarette; so smokers must be considerate of non-smokers. Yet, the same must hold true the other way around. That is where much of the angst comes from, IMO. Most can choose to be around or not around smokers. But, we live in a society where people demand to be catered to. Therefore, if my smoking makes someone uncomfortable, they feel justified in villifying me, even if they can choose to get away from me. I don't villify those who choose not to be around me when I smoke.

And, I do think this is a property/liberty issue more than anything else. If it were a health issue, soda would be outlawed except in the home. As would Twinkies (those things never rot!). This is another manner in which control can be exacted on the multitudes. If I knew a restaurant didn't serve steak, due to the risk of choking, I wouldn't patronize it if I wanted a steak. Should all restaurants not be allowed to serve steak (imposed by the government) because it poses a choking risk?

Respectfully,
bg04

I'm somewhat of two minds on the whole smoking subject.
On the one hand I tend to be somewhat libertarian on the topic of personal freedoms.
That translates to if people want to smoke, let them smoke, as long they're not subjecting their habit to other people who don't want to inhale it. So far as public establishments, I think if it's a place like a bar or club where smoking is agreed upon by the workers and patrons, let them at it. I'd prefer not to see it in your standard fare restaurants, but I don't know that the State should have the final say in that.

On the other hand, smoking is one of those things that is 100% detrimental a society's health. It has zero positive attributes. Even other things that are considered unhealthy aren't as bad as smoking. Eating fatty or sweet food habitually is a bad thing, but in moderation it'll never hurt anybody, indeed fats are needed in one's diet.
Drinking heavily is obviously unhealthy, but in moderation it can be a very good thing. A glass of red wine a day has benefits both to the cardiac and endocrine system.
There is no such upside to smoking, in moderation or otherwise. It isn't going to kill you in one breath, but the more you expose yourself to it, the more at risk you are for disease in both the respiratory and cardiac systems. Not only is this bad for the individual, but it adds more stress to our already over-burdened health care system.

Now this isn't saying that I believe smoking should be banned, we are still living in a supposedly free society. But I believe there should be incentives to being a non-smoker. I think you should be able to get lower health insurance premiums if you can demonstrate that you're a non-smoker, for example.

I believe that Non-Smokers have a right to a smoke free environment however smokers also have the right to have a smoke in a comfortable environment. one sealed 10x10 room out of a 20 story office building designated for smokers is too much or a smoking section in a restaurant that is well ventilated is too much.
If we give space to the non smokers than we must give space to the smokers.

I smoke and refuse to eat many places that dont have a smoking section. the exception being Fast Food and Small restaurants that dont have the space for seperate sections.

Or as a parent you could protect your kids and wait to smoke. EVEN with the windows down you can smell that sick smell.

I have never asked but why do people smoke?

I mean why do they continue? Beyond the addiction.

You KNOW its bad for your health. And people around you.

Confuses me and I dont mean to offend anyone I just never asked.

I mean its not cool I mean no more cool than picking your nose in public.

Good post...but why did I smoke? Thats the millon dollar question! I started smoking at 17 mainly to fit in but as time went on I really enjoyed smoking (thats the addictive part) When I smoked I didn't realise how bad it smelled or how bad your clothes ect stunk of smoke. I gave up the smokes for one reason only....my health. When you smoke you think that I wont get sick or it wont affect my health. We all have heard the story of great uncle Bob who smoked all of his life and lived to nearly 100! Truth is he is the 1 in a thousand who beat the odds and I dont want to die early like my dad did through smoking. I hear you say if my father died to young why the hell did I start smoking? (please refer to my opening sentance) Ive being smoke free for over 2 yers and have no intention to returning to it......Im now 44.

Why do I smoke?? No reason in particular. I have an on again/off again relationship with cigarettes. I smoke about a pack a week now but ive stopped smoking before and Ive smoked 2 packs a day before. But I come from "tobacco country" (Southwest Virginia and North Carolina) where almost everyone smoked. Of course I smoke "home grown, home rolled" (NOT Pot but actual tobacco) when I can as it takes alot of the Carcinogens out of the tobacco.

But i gottta die of something might as well make my choice of it

I think, in the end, everyone needs a vice. It is simply part of our human nature. Some have a sweet tooth, some drink when they shouldn't, some indulge in a Jack in the Box Cardiac Arrest Burger, some drink energy drinks, some swear, some drive too fast, some seek adrenaline rush, and... some smoke cigarettes.

At some point we have to tempt death to know life. This is not all-together bad because we all know death will win eventually, but there are those times when WE win!

I smoke because I want to. I quit for 8 years before, and when I am ready, I will quit again. But I don't want to quit right now. I agree with BlackSpyder...


I enjoy the taste of peppermint gum and a smoke. I enjoy the taste of a caramel apple cider and a smoke. Plus, I have had some of my best conversations with the people I love over a cigarette; I would not trade those memories for a day more of life.

And let's be honest, the majority of people who make a huge deal out of this are not inundated with smoke for even the greater part of their day, they might confront it once or twice (maybe). However, these are the same people who see no problem with sitting in traffic for 3 hours a day with their air blowing in. And what is in that air? Carbon Monoxide, gasoline fumes, other pollution.

This brings me to my earlier point, that this whole charade is about a small group of people conditioning the rest of us to OBEY THEIR RULES OR ELSE! This should never be a Legislative issue. Think about this, as a society there has already been a huge push towards better health. Has the cost of Health Care gone down? Those in control want us to live longer and be healthier so we can continue to provide a solid tax base, more cows to milk=more milk. And the older you get, the chances of developing a serious health condition increase exponentially (whether you smoked or not), more serious condition=more money. Those in control are not stupid, and their aims are not for a better humanity.

We have the right to pursue happiness, if you are not happy next to me while I am smoking, pursue your happiness somewhere else. I am nice enough to realize that if folks have nowhere to go, I won't smoke around them.

"But i gottta die of something might as well make my choice of it"

Hope its okay if I laugh at that.

I hear rat poison works too.....

Why would anyone CHOOSE to kill themselves slowly? Sure air has pollutants but nothing we can do really.

I'm not sure what are you arguing here?
You want to volunteer yourself to possible lung cancer to stick it to the government?

So far as the health care system, there are things that need to be fixed about it to be sure, but people exposing themselves to carcinogens on a regular basis isn't helping the situation. One of the things that is going to help it, something that a lot of health insurance companies are starting to incorporate, is to provide incentives to living a healthier lifestyle. That goes to providing monetary rewards to being a non-smoker, making sure diabetics take preventative measures so they don't incur the cost of larger procedures like amputations, taking steps to limit obesity, etc.

I don't care what people choose to do to themselves so long as they have some common courtesy for the people around them, but if you're choosing to engage in a lifestyle with high risk for cancer and heart disease, then you should be the one paying the higher insurance premiums.

Nothing you can do, huh? Ever consider moving to a part of the world less tainted by air pollution? There is always a choice.

Hahaha . Laugh all you want, your humor doesn't offend me at all. At least we made you laugh and not cry.

Some pleasures bring pain. That still doesn't detract from the pleasure of the moment. The football player is having fun playing the game until they get hit wrong and are crippled for life. Does that make them stupid for having played the game? The cheerleader loves the joy of flying through the air, until they are dropped and die. Would you belittle their passion?

I don't mean to flame you, it is just that we cannot know the heart of everyone else; what gives them joy and for what they have passion. You may enjoy a Mountain Dew, but it is not healthy for you. However, if as a result of your passion for MD you developed kidney stones, I would not say "Rat poison works for that too."

I am not trying to kill myself, I am already dying . Sometimes I just want a cigarette, just like some want a touchdown or some want a double backflip. Who decides what joy is tolerable and what isn't?

Respectfully,
bg04

Mercy no!

I am merely presenting my belief that the true motivations for this governmental movement are not centered around better public health. This movement is about control. My choice to smoke has nothing to do with the government, just as the government should have nothing to do with my choice to smoke.

And I agree about the health insurance. You have to pay to play. Again, that is a decision by private entities; not a decision made by my government. However, it does beg the question; what of those individuals genetically predispositioned towards cancer and heart disease? They are going to place more strain on the system, should they bear more of the financial burden?

I also agree about common courtesy (see many of my earlier posts). I smoke for myself, not for other people. I am willing to forego the company of my wife when I go play basketball, I accept the same consequence when I have a smoke.

Cheers,
bg04

PS_ How do you quote only a portion of the post, but still include the name of the poster and date/time info?

Unfortunately the way the health insurance system is, there are people who have health conditions to where they are "uninsurable", that is the insurance company isn't willing to take them on as a liability. Though I don't think that should be extended to people with predispositions that they can't really change, like heredity. If it's something you have control over though, I think rewarding healthy behaviors that benefit both parties is a no brainer.

Just highlighted and deleted the portions of the post I wasn't replying to.

Well, we could go on about how unjust the health insurance system is. Let me just say I do agree with your point, and penalization for risky behavior by private entities seems somewhat fair.


Thanks for the tip!

Just click on the at the lower left of the other person's post, and then you can "edit out" the portions that you don't want to quote, like I've done here.

Oops - make that the lower right. I was looking at it from the inside of the monitor. Sorry.

Yes buts thats more like comparing apples to oranges.

In a game a death is a accident. In the smoking area its considered "Well he did it to himself/herself" Or "They had it coming"

Its more of a choice that could be stopped.

I dont drink a lot of soda's by the way. They only make you more thirsty and FAT. Also makes you feel bad and weak. I drink water. The only sugary drink I would drink is gatorade or sometimes sweet tea. Mostly water makes your skin healthy and the rest of you.

I do understand where you are coming from.

I would not BAN smoking totally. Let the ones who want to do it do it alone or with others who do it AWAY from people who dont want to smell it.

Places where I would ban smoking would be like a public gathering(carnical,theme park) or the flee markets.

So basically if you knew you would die tomorrow if you smoked again would you? Or would you choose to stop and live one more day with family? Because cancer takes away days, days that could be spent with family. How much is your time worth versus kicking a bad habit or taking away one pleasure for many more years of enjoyment with family?

How much is one extra day worth to you?

I have read and heard of stories of people that died because of cigs and how they wished they just had never did it so they would have more time with their family.

[quote name='cowsgonemadd3' date='Apr 7 2007, 01:08 PM' post='491216']
[quote]
How much is one extra day worth to you?

I have read and heard of stories of people that died because of cigs and how they wished they just had never did it so they would have more time with their family.

Everyone must make a choice, if you want to smoke and know the risks then you have made an informed choice. As I said before I don't care one way or the other, I chose to stop smoking with no regrets.
As for smoking in public places it will be banned here in Aus within a couple of years. I went out thursday night to the pub with my wife which is a shared smoking area (they all are still shared in Aus) and although I dont mind the smell of smokes after a while I had had enough.

Cancer. The Big nasty C word. I find it funny that everything we do causes it.

Think about it for a minute Automotive exhaust, smoking, drinking, "arasol" products, your gene pool. We're playing Russian roulette with 6 loaded chambers here. All you can hope for is a misfire.

I long ago acepted the fact that I was going to die by one of 4 things in my life. Racing, Cancer, Heart Disease, or Depression. I wouldnt be surprised if any of these things killed me tomarrow. I can tell you that cancer and heart disease dont run in my family. and that "Depression"(or so they say) runs on both sides.

sorry if this seems like a rant but I get fed up with the word "cancer" being used almost as a catch all. If we knew how to cure it than I would believe in the supposed causes but we cant cure it. One thing I believe is that the cause and cure are linked because the Anti-venom always comes from the same snake that bit you.

We KNOW smoking causes cancer.

Hate to nitpick, but not exactly correct.
Smoking isn't a cause for cancer, as not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer.

Smoking does increase your risk of getting cancer by a very significant margin, but it's not fully cause and effect.

I agree with that,arcman
just to add a little more facts that smoking does also increase not only cancer risk but also other
diseases

-leg ulcers may develop and gangrene requiring major surgey for such treatment
-Gastritis and peptic ulcers can be caused also
you may also contract rare diseases from smoking

And who want's Emphysema !!!