You're not trying to argue that people who smoke don't get lung cancer at higher rates than non-smokers are you?
You may find tobacco offensive, you may even find data which suggest it is the prime carcinogen, but the fact is the data from basic research into curing cancer (not just hacking out parts, frying the rest with radiation or chemicals, but actually stopping the mechanisms which make cancer progress at the cellular level) has the potential to benefit anyone with cancer, regardless of type or cause.
The people who don't like tobacco because it is stinky have been hornswaggled into tossing time and treasure into a situation with little net gain in the fight against the disease, while being led to believe that something is being done by that.
It is a fraud. It takes away attention and funding from the possibility of basic research into the disease itself, and covers the inadequacies of those who wave the flag of that bromide instead of pursue cutting edge research.
As for smoking, if I ever get lung cancer, the cigarettes will get the blame, not the chemical exposures I have had over the years, not the rock dust I breathed drilling shot holes in the Blue Ridge on a highway project, not ambient exposure to any of a host of other chemicals/dusts, or pollutants. But those stinky cigarettes are such an evil, easy and obvious target that the bar has been lowered by some to include anyone ever exposed to so much as a whiff of 'environmental' tobacco smoke as being at increased risk. As such, breathing and water consumption are little different defining paramters, and in some areas are probably more harmful than a little second hand smoke is in others. That is my point.