Enjoy your permanent brain damage and lung cancer.

Smoking has dropped to something like 25% in America and lung cancer has yet to even hit a speedbump. If you try and get any data that crosses lung cancer victims with smokers, you'll get no data, they simply don't release those stats.

Edit: My position is that the anti-smoking bandwagon is a panacea. It really won't make a dent in public health at all, but will make the sheeple feel like they've tackled an evil in the world. The anti-smoking campaign is such a run-away success that it feels to me a shame that all that effort is put towards such a petty indulgence.

and Tammy Faye, is about to succumb to lung cancer.....Where is he now...Jim Baker???

He's all wrong. Cancer is caused by smoking don't you know? Even though the near 80% drop in smokers per capita in the last 20 years had zero impact on all cancers including lung cancer, it's still our number 1 killer!

"More die and are killed by pharmeceuticals than any thing else"

What? Where are you getting this from?

According to WHO:

Leading causes of death in developed countries:

1. Ischaemic heart disease
2. Stroke
3. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
4. Lower respiratory infection
5. Lung cancer
6. Car accident
7. Stomach cancer
8. High blood pressure
9. Tuberculosis
10. Suicide

I'll readily agree that pharmaceutical companies do some terrible, terrible things, but I feel like this video misrepresents some of the key issues in the Prozac case.

If you're going to claim that people die from tobacco (presumably lung cancer, etc.) a lot of those diseases are caused by the smoke. Smoking weed would still cause those.

he sings(sang) so effortlessly ... too bad he thought that he had to smoke to have that voice.

'Cole was a heavy smoker, smoking up to three packs a day. He believed smoking kept his voice low. (He would, in fact, smoke several cigarettes in quick succession before a recording for this very purpose.) He died of lung cancer on February 15, 1965.'

enzoblue, you might have to look back in time a litte to get that data for the US, probably in a library as opposed to the intronets; it is true that people frequently have an overly ambitious estimate as to how frequently smokers die of lung cancer, but the professionally accepted data is typically around 80% of lung cancer patients just happen to also be smokers . The statistic that people who smoke are more likely to develop lung cancer is then tossed about, minus the sidenote that lung cancer is fairly uncommon (maybe 2% of deaths, not like car wrecks or AIDS).

I'd cite some sorces but its not hard to find that stuff abouve ... pubmed, google, etc.

They were a bit shaky on the tobacco thing though. There's still no link between smoking and lung cancer, it's all spin. If you don't believe that, just try to find any raw data on how many lung cancer victims are smokers - you won't find it. They simply don't publish that data, they just give their interpretations. You will find a ridiculous amount of data on just about every other aspect except that one.