Question. Do you believe that there is NO link between smoking and lung cancer?
How is it any business of yours whether adults choose to smoke?
Why are you so emotionally invested in this issue?
I'm sorry if scores of family members/dear friends dropped like flies from smoking and/or "second-hand smoke".
This is no excuse to ignore the give and take of a free society.
I believe that it's not a direct cause the way so many claim. What I think is that it's very possible that many of the additives in the smoke could aggravate a predisposition for it, or amplifiy the effects of other things that can cause health problems, such as high cholesterol or hypertension. Why else would there be people that smoke for years and years and years, live to a ripe old age and never get it, while someone like my great-grandmothers could never touch tobacco or be around it much and die from cancer? I think genetics is the key, not tobacco.
That's the difference between causation and correlation. Just because a factor is present in a lot of lung cancer deaths doesn't make it the agent that caused the cancer in the first place.
I very strongly dispute that second hand smoke causes cancer in ANYONE.
Smoking Does Not
Cause Lung Cancer
(According to WHO/CDC Data)*By: James P. Siepmann, MD
Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. I initially was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying "smoking causes lung cancer"1,2, but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything else like that.)