Once again, you are wrong. But nice try at turning your opinion into fact. Sorry though, it won't work.
Find a cancer cure, then it does not matter if you get cancer, and it does not matter why. It could even be from a virus. Get it???
Cancer is only one of the issues, as I have pointed out twice already, but you don't GET IT.
One last time. Spend the money on good, basic cancer research, not pissing around with billboards and dubious computer models, but find a cure, not a remedy, a cure, something which will benefit everyone, (not just those who despite all social villification, being treated like a second-class citizen, and putting up with the tedious self-righteous rants of ex- and anti-smokers, just might take up the evil habit).
One last time, it ain't your money and you don't get to choose how other people spend theirs.
And please don't pretend you aren't advocating smoking, you certainly are, down to your very screen name. Misery loves company.
My remark about wasted funds was in response to post number 3: "Man this would be some good news if this progresses....the money should flow for this research...." by Earnest at the Beach.
It's about the funding.
The screen name is a nickname that goes back over 30 years. You do not have a clue to its origin.
All I have advocated in this thread is spending the money, some of that money taken from smokers (ironically under the auspices of offsetting smoker's health care costs) on research to find a cure for cancer, by which everyone would benefit.
I take it you are at odds with that goal, otherwise you would not continue to distort my statements or completely fabricate arguments which were not stated.
The rest is the product of your desire to debate tobacco, which was definitely not my point.
Well, it is often taxpayer money.