I think a discussion about excluding smokers from public funding with the argument that it is a waste of money because they do not live long enough is obsolete if not started with the intention to analyze people's reactions; particularly, when not including other risk groups into the discussion.

What comes next? Excluding protestants because they do not "produce" as many children as catholics (which actually decreases the return of investment in terms of sustainability)? How about people with a known or unknown disease, such as cancer or HIV (not everyone with HIV has "strange sexual practices" or a drug problem)? Maybe they also should pay their funding back when it turns out they have it? Or maybe the relatives could pay the funding back after their children's/ brother's/ husband's/ wife's death? by the way, how about genetic indication? A family where people why ever do not get older than 50, maybe members of such a family also should not get any public funding?

I think, here, it gets obvious that such a discussion generally is not reasonable; but there are further arguments against listed topics:

Investing 200 Euro (300 USD; which makes a chain smoker in Europe) per month for studying does not cover any monthly study fees or accommodation, does it? This argument, thus, simply is foul.

How do you want to check if someone smokes? Would you like to encourage everyone to monitor and denounce others? Maybe you should ask the people who lived in the former GDR how they felt in such an environment? This would be completely unacceptable.

If you take a look into Europe, there already are many restrictions for smokers which made smoking really inconvenient and expensive. However, the original aim to make the people stop smoking was failed. They pay more and take the restrictions ... why? Because it is an addiction (same like alcoholics and food addicted people). What we urgently need are effective preventive mechanisms and strong (and consequent) support for people who would like to stop smoking.

Dear Adrian. in this issue I agree 200%, Smoking is the only thing which not only affects the persons who is actively smoking but at the same time others with passive smoking, therefore if someone smoking in front of me it should be regarded as he or she trying to kill me. Countries like us (Developing) where Society expects good education, awareness will prevent people form smoking bt the concept have been proven to be wrong. As if you are a researcher you are supposed to be well aware about the harms caused by smoking, and if the person still indulge in such things. These kind of persons can't be treated eligible to have any public funding for his or her carrier, it's a wastage of public money.

Sure there are other issues, such as alcohol ... drugs, obesity, violence behavior and so on.

In this subject I address the smoking. Smoking is a choice, not a necessity. Alcohol is a choice, not a necessity, but in low quantities, social drinking, there are no problems.

Eating is a necessity, over-eating is a choice. BMI is mostly a choice, there are rare cases that ,,, still, can't gain weight from water and air.

Let's comeback to smoking. It cost money. If someone has money fro cigarets, why should I spend money for his / her education ??? Just a simple "equation" for a moment.

Personally? - I used to smoke, heavy, very heavy (started with sowing off, be a man, be important, peer pressure?. The cigarettes were not for free. Now, I pay the dues, higher dues.

Sometimes I wonder why anyone should put his/her life before a known danger! In my opinion, habits are developed as a result of deep rooted factors such as depression, cravings for acceptance and belonginess, anxiety, fear and so on! As a constructive critique, I submit therefore that issues should be separated here. First, Provide some form of intervention (Psychological or otherwise) to a known smoker to address the habit, and if he/she failed to achieve self control/discipline, NO DIME SHOULD BE SPENT ON SUCH PERSON'S EDUCATION! BECAUSE "Education is FIRST for CHARACTER before LEARNING". Cheers

@Grace Bamigboye , I completely agree with you.

Time pressure: The student comes to the office and signs up / applies for enrollment, financing. School starts in a few weeks or days. There is an answer, yes or no.

Smoker? Willing to give up? program. Failing? OK, use the cigaret's money and pay for school.

Such programs (intervention as you called it) , I hope you agree, are much more efficient if the issues are addressed early, in high school. Knowing that if you smoke you receive no education grants, there is a higher chance the students will participate in such programs. With that perhaps other ailments can be reduced such as teenage pregnancy , violent behavior, gangs, over-eating, suicidal, etc...

That's a brilliant summation you made Adrian!

I think a discussion about excluding smokers from public funding with the argument that it is a waste of money because they do not live long enough is obsolete if not started with the intention to analyze people's reactions; particularly, when not including other risk groups into the discussion.

What comes next? Excluding protestants because they do not "produce" as many children as catholics (which actually decreases the return of investment in terms of sustainability)? How about people with a known or unknown disease, such as cancer or HIV (not everyone with HIV has "strange sexual practices" or a drug problem)? Maybe they also should pay their funding back when it turns out they have it? Or maybe the relatives could pay the funding back after their children's/ brother's/ husband's/ wife's death? by the way, how about genetic indication? A family where people why ever do not get older than 50, maybe members of such a family also should not get any public funding?

I think, here, it gets obvious that such a discussion generally is not reasonable; but there are further arguments against listed topics:

Investing 200 Euro (300 USD; which makes a chain smoker in Europe) per month for studying does not cover any monthly study fees or accommodation, does it? This argument, thus, simply is foul.

How do you want to check if someone smokes? Would you like to encourage everyone to monitor and denounce others? Maybe you should ask the people who lived in the former GDR how they felt in such an environment? This would be completely unacceptable.

If you take a look into Europe, there already are many restrictions for smokers which made smoking really inconvenient and expensive. However, the original aim to make the people stop smoking was failed. They pay more and take the restrictions ... why? Because it is an addiction (same like alcoholics and food addicted people). What we urgently need are effective preventive mechanisms and strong (and consequent) support for people who would like to stop smoking.

@Thomas Richter,

then we should allow convicted criminals to vote as well, based on your approach. There are causes direct resulted from personal choice, natural events, mass media influence, virus resistance, smoking resistance, anti-smoking campaign resistance. Lets not mix up issues.

With all due respect, here the issue is smoking and education. Not protestants or HIV or motion pictures with violence / horror. Not Catholics or Muslims. Not pornography or hamburgers. Sure I understand your question and I agree with: "What comes next? "

Democracy? well, in this case you should let your child, teenager do whatever he/she wants. Same with the neighbors; let them do anything they want even if their actions comes into your grounds or inside house.

Polluting vehicles, industry? Let them be ! they assure income to many.

Smoking affect all of us, smokers or non-smokers. Directly and indirectly.

So, with all the problems we have, all the health problems we have due to smoking, with an early start at student age, (fragile young bodies), then I'll ask you the same question: "What comes next? "

Do you know the death rate due to smoking? Do you know the decline in education rate? Do you know who feeds on such "market"?

Well, then again: "What comes next? "

Regards and my respect,

Adrian TW

Gents, (interestingly no ladies participating yet), I am a quitter: started smoking with 14, started quitting since the age of 20, now smoke-free for nearly a year. This whole grant, financing discussion is weird. If I am so damned smart that I earn a grant cos someone government, business, et al.) believes in me producing such excellent research/societal contributions, and I disappear then in my early 50s, fine, so be it. Still cheaper for the society than taking care of all the obese people in the US and in EM. Thus, once you received a grant, do whatever you like, whatever you would have done w/o it but make sure to contribute, matter, make an impact for the good. Having said this, smoking sucks because it truly harms people around you, thus better smoke in your own home while enjoying your grant. And make sure to get on a bicycle, eat less shitty food, be well-balanced, and help people w/o a grant, even when they are smokers :) Life is good!

There are some indications about the correlation between smoking and income (low income - higher smoking rates), so one could argue that by removing education access you are in some way leading to a future lower income, and in a way, to heavier smoking habits?

I am really sorry to see people debating about a proposal of pure discrimination between fellow scientists. Interestingly enough, it would mean something if a smoker proposed this kind of a situation. Maybe then I would have translated such a behavior as a "cry for help".

From what I have seen so far the only way to help people is not by putting them to the side. It is by being by their side and support them. In any way it is ones choice if he smokes or not or of he drinks or not. Personally I smoke and don't drink apart from a beer or two when I go out with friends. I would never even think of proposing something so discriminating against a heavy drinker, even though we all know how much it affects someones judgment and abilities.

I believe if we want to help smokers we do it by really helping them get rid of their addiction, standing by their side. If not, then we are just human haters with a fancy label (anti-smokers).

Joca Jacinto, there is also a correlation between low income and obesity.

Education starts at home, so does the smoking tendency (directly or indirectly) even if the youngsters smoke outside home, hiding.

An other issue: not all people are capable to attend higher education levels. The students capable to study they should be discouraged to smoke and also access funds. They can understand the difference between right and wrong. The others will simply be discouraged from smoking by local, building, street, beach, park signs "NO SMOKING ALLOWED IN PUBLIC AREAS :-)

Roman Kraeussi, I am a lady, scroll up to my post! I agree with you "Life is Good" and "Health is Wealth". Cheers

First of all, Adrian, it was not my purpose to offend you. If I did so, please let me apologize. Regards and respect ...

However, exactly the thought of discrimination Dimitrios brought up is what I wanted to point at. For me, honestly, it is quite unbelievable that this discussion is possible on a scientific platform with such a little amount of controversy. As I saw that there just were "you are right" statements, I wanted to provide the contra pole, as this actually reflects my opinion.

One general statement: Please, when using any statistics (here, on correlations between smoking and particular parts of the society), it would be great also to provide a source and at very least the national context in which the study was conducted. Smoking (and drinking) has a strong cultural background and the acceptance might be extremely different from context to context. Without a closer definition of the context, we get to a pub-discussion and loose the last reasonability why it could or should be done within a scientific platform (it is supposed to be a scientific platform, isn't it?). However, for Germany this statistic generally works, but it does not mean that people with a higher income do not smoke at all. Even though in German language, here (4) you can find tons of (I think at least partly understandable) smoke-related diagrams for the context of Germany.

Back to the initial discussion:

As for the point that education and thus, smoking starts at home, my parents never smoked, my grandparents never smoked, my both brothers never smoked, but I did (when young in secret, when older everywhere) and unfortunately still do. One very interesting aspect speaking against the "education theory" from Adrian, is the entry age related to the social status. The diagram on page three of (4) shows that people from parents (in Germany) with a lower income start smoking much later than children with high-income parents.

As for me, please, make politicians forbid smoking in any public places, even in the rural areas and under the open sky (apart of private home, of course). I would welcome it. I love sitting in a restaurant and not having smoke around me (although I miss the opportunity to smoke a relaxing cigarette after the meal). Even though I still do it, I hate smoking, I hate spending tons of money, I hate having a bad condition when going out for sports (mainly jogging and hiking), I hate the imagination I might die earlier because of smoking, and most of all, I hate that my clothes stink. You won't believe it, even though I stopped again and again, I came back to smoking. Why? Because even after a 2 year period of being smoke-free, I still experienced a permanent craving and in times of stress, resigned. Just you know, I hate smoking and maybe the politics and the smoking industry, but I surely do not hate the smokers. Change politics but do not punish people who do what the politicians want them to (see below). Much more, help them! Why do you think that the governments support the pharma industry to develop the weirdest things but not to develop anything that works against smoking?

The argument of making smoking uncomfortable does not make people stop smoking. This is sad and somehow amazing, but whatever governments have tried, be it full or rather half-hearted, e.g. raising the taxes or forbidding smoking in any public buildings (including pubs and restaurants) in its best, just caused changes in smoking-habits but in general, failed. Btw., raising the prices at least in Europe was just a half-hearted attempt because the states somehow seem to enjoy receiving the taxes from smokers. Thus, they raised the taxes with the argument to support people to stopping smoking .... but did it little enough that even with a lower income, they still could afford going on. Further, the EU supports growing tabac until 2012 with 338 M Euro (5). Doesn't this show that the society is not really interested in people stop smoking?

Even though it could work, making Nicotine an illegal drug also is no solution: What to do with the people who already are addicted? Suddenly make them criminals?

However, Alcohol abuse must not be excluded from this discussion (at least not with the initial argument on return of investment), because the consequences of alcoholism are at least as serious, as they are for smoking - and here, different to smoking (1), a direct relation between mortality rate and alcoholics can be determined (Also here, there are additional supported reasons to die, such as heart attack). The guesses on the shortage of the live-span of alcoholics varies between 10-12 years (2) and 28 years (3). And an alcoholic is not necessarily someone who always is recognizably drunken ... it rather is the opposite: As for Germany, 14% of men and 7% of women are alcoholics - how about Russia?.

For references, see

(1) http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.de/2009/12/heart-disease-death-rate-increased-by.html

(2) Leu, R. (1981): Kosten und Nutzen des Alkoholkonsums aus volkswirtschaftlicher Sicht. Drogalkohol, 5, 2, pp.3-10

(3) Single, E.; Collins, D.; Easton, B.; Harwood, H.; Lapsley, H.; Maynard, A. (1996): International Guidelines for Estimating the Costs of Substance Abuse. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Ottawa

(4) http://www.abnr.de/files/factdkfz04.pdf

(5) http://www.welt.de/welt_print/article2033579/Europaeische-Union-will-Tabakanbau-offenbar-doch-weiter-foerdern.html

And regarding the your question, Adrian, you stated before, yes, I know about a lot of statistics regarding mortal rates of smokers, drinkers, illegal drug abuse, and food obsession.

... I go on reading in this thread, but stop my active participation in this discussion now. I think, I have provided all arguments, I can imagine. If you have a good tip on how to stop smoking without getting too aggressive or brain-dead (busy with not wanting to smoke), you are welcome to send me a short message.

yours, Thomas

Dear Adrian,

Your comment "Joca Jacinto, there is also a correlation between low income and obesity. "

It is positively correlated or negatively?

Well there may be positive correlation between smoking and obesity, hypertension and between obesity, diabetes and hypertension, obesity and diabetes etc. but yes there is genuine correlation between low income and obesity, but the nature of such a correlation varies greatly in developed and developing countries.

Best Regards,

Sidharta

Any idea how many brilliant scientists, world leaders and nobel prize winners would not have received an education because of the proposed scheme? I cannot agree, mitigation, yes, removing opportunities from those who may have so much to offer to society despite a smoking habit, no.

I quit smoking long time back, but when i find someone smoking a cigar or a particular brand right in front of me, i am tempted to smoke, but somehow manage not to smoke.

But wouldn't lie here, suppose only in discos (once in a while) with friends, i can't help my temptations and do smoke as many as i can. Elsewhere, anywhere, I don't smoke. Perhaps the tempting environment, euphoria or peer group engagement with some of the heavy smokers have a direct correlation with smoking habits. I don't know, but it all depends on will power. So i would say i could not quit smoking, but i hate the smell of the fumes anyway. So how to overcome such temptations? Any suggestions?

@Richter

"As for Germany, 14% of men and 7% of women are alcoholics"

well that's a far lower number...only 14%? I don't think so, perhaps the opposite-41% i think.

An interesting set of responses here as one would expect from a question designed to provoke them. The idea of a ban on grants on smoking students in itself is probably unrealistic, is unfair in that it discriminates against people who are smoking and does not include many other groups who could or maybe should also be disqualified on the same grounds such as the morbidly obese, alcoholic or addicts to other substances. As far as I am aware there are no such constraints in place within the grant giving organisations. In the UK , for example, the majority of undergraduate grants are in fact loans and have to be repaid so there could be a sound business reason for not giving them to people who may not be able to repay them. But as smoking does not yet disqualify you from obtaining long term loans of other sorts I do not thnk that discriminating on the grounds of the legal use of tobacco is likely to happen in the forseeable future. Of course, times change, and predicting the future of smoking is very difficult - but as Mr. Richter says, European legislation on smoking in restaurants, public places etc has not made a great impact on smoking numbers so far, so it is unlikely to die out for a while yet.

Dear Sidharta Chatterjee, in the USA, low income population segment has the highest obesity incidence (low quality, cheap foods, high level of stress and depression).

Dear Thomas Richter, thanks for your great participation, comments. No, I did not get offended. I am sorry if I made it sound like this. No, I do not hate smokers. I love people and I believe in protection, education, cutting "toxic" habits...and so on.

Upon your request and for the interested members, here it is the way I stopped smoking from 3 packs / day to zero, after 9 years of smoking, so not slowing down. I always had the cigarets pack with me. Pretending smoking, I had the cigaret constantly between my lips but without lighting it. Dry smoking I call it. I would be careful to "use the ashtray", as the gesture counts a lot. I was, with my hand, handling the cigaret as I was smoking for real, pretending. Inhale (air), exhale imagining it was smoke [mouth, nose ;-) ] . No exceptions. A gave up in March 1980. Since then, extremely rare I would enjoy a cigarette, somewhere like 0-10 cigarettes / year .

I love smoking but there are 32 years since I am just fine and ...

1) I am not afraid that I'll start heavy again,

2) I enjoy when I do

3) I do not miss it.

I have cigarets in my house, (not too far from me now) and often they expire, dry too much, get bad taste. I enjoy no filter. If I buy, when I buy, I have hard time to ask preferences; so many changes in the cigaret manufacturing, selection.

Please try my method to quit, let me know :-)

Rregards,

Adrian TW

Dry method of smoking is indeed helpful, no doubt about that since there are dummy cigarettes available in the market. But in some countries in the Far East, smoking is outrageously banned not just in public places, but also in hotels (smoke detectors) that distract smokers and create a non-smoking environment , as in Hong Kong.

Adrian, some more clarification is possible- "in the USA, low income population segment has the highest obesity incidence (low quality, cheap foods, high level of stress and depression)."

High level of stress is also a matter of concern among the affluent too, but i find obesity is also very high among middle income group (well-to-do) families who rely too much on junk foods (fast food chains).

Contrary in the East, Asia and Africa, obesity is ONLY seen in rich people, not in the low-income-group, or no-income group. One should eat enough to be obese first. Hunger and "malnutrition-under-nutrition" is a bigger challenge than obesity in the East, contrary to the USA as you have mentioned.

Best Regards,

Sidharta

Coming back to the question, I find this really a discriminatory practice, rather, a deferential strategy if funding is cut back or refunded solely on the ground that someone is a smoker. There could be some other rational reasons too. If allotment of funding is made on such practice of people likely to die earlier should not get funding because the student is a smoker is but, not a valid ground to disable access to funds. Yes, funds are scarce but still this cause could not be the one to cut back someone's future contribution to the society.

Rather, why not the Cigarette company biggies don't start anti-smoking campaigns by themselves to educate people/students/smokers about the effects of smoking rather than instilling fear and phobias as an implicit method? Does it deter chain smokers?

Well it seems someday an add regarding funding applications would appear like this:

"SMOKERS AND DRINKERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR FUNDING"...-

How ridiculous could it be?

Check out this link though bit old study but is still relevant:

Alcohol Drinking in Never Users of Tobacco, Cigarette Smoking in Never Drinkers, and the Risk of Head and Neck Cancer: Pooled Analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium

Mia Hashibe, et.al.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/10/777.long

Good question.

In terms of rights, denying education grants based on smoking, is just as right as denying education based on sugar consumption, alcohol consumption, or reckless car driving. As excessive milk drinking was proven to increase the risk of prostate cancer, it would be a good way to continue. Higher than average intelligence is a risk factor for depression, mental illnesses and suicide, so this may be also a logic evolution. As stress is a risk factor, we should also provide no financing for stress seekers, or people wanting jobs with associated stress. Basically, let there be no public funding, let students pay, and leave them decide what they do with their lives.

In terms of religion, most religion beliefs were founded before smoking was invented.

I guess it may be wise to take our chances and allow education to be given to smokers too, and maybe, as they are educated, they may be convinced to quit.

I agree about protection of people, but it's pointless to protect people from themselves.

Mr. Bradut Bolos, thank you for your excellent, detailed post.

There is no clear answer to a question of this type. Sure, I never agreed with marginalization of any kind, or with judging people. Still, in our society, the rules and laws come into place as to limit us from certain abuses. Some personal abuses represent abuses against others, directly or indirectly.

- From your post, I understand that "let them be, let it be, anything goes, any time, any place, it does not really count.

I have an answer for you, with all due respect. We can't do that. It's called "ignorance" and ignorance is the number one killer in a society. We need to identify the highest risk factors and address the ones that are easier to control, monitor. Smoking is not a necessity.

- Reckless car driving = will cost you points, suspension of driving rights, higher insurance rates = money. Most of developed countries have huge monetary penalties on "Reckless car driving". Insurance rates go high for 3 to 5 years.

- Sugar and milk are part of the human diet but in excess are "toxic". Internet can be toxic. All abuses are toxic. Some products, such as tobacco, are toxic regardless of the quantity used. It has tot do more with the length of exposure (as active smoker or as passive), then the used / inhale quantity (absorption, retention, bio-accumulation factors).

- The stress is a risk factor – here, one should recognized that you a kind moving the words around as to force your argument to stand-up. After the sugar, milk and higher intelligence examples, your next arguments, based on your logic would be:

a) If a student does not drink enough water (2-2.5 L / day), due to dehydration, becomes a high risk factor. No funding. Well, perhaps next step would be, no employment since we can’t count on such person to be healthy and be at work tomorrow, or next week.

b) If you have a house on a hill, I should not employ you, I should not finance your car or education cause, due to possible land slide, your house can kill you in the night.

c) If you stay too much on internet, facebook, ResearchGate, is very likely you become alienated from your real life, stressed, no investment for you, no job.

d) If you don’t walk 30 minutes / day, no grands.

e) If you write poems and have a successful article in Nature Magazine (high Impact factor 27-30 , ISI), then you are very intelligent, therefore there will be no research money for you.

- - - Well Mr. Bradut Bolos, I have no intention to continue on. by doing so it will be out of context (subject / question) submitted here.

Your arguments, my arguments, together pro/contra (remember, I enjoy smoking, I am for democracy) can find solutions not only for smoking and education funding but, as it appears, to apply logic in such fashion as to be a sustainable society.

- I see that you are into finances as specialty. I understand! From the financial point of view, smoking like most of our products and services consumption, is a great deal of a money making machine: Cigarets produce money. Education brings funds to universities. Health care makes money. More sick people, more medication, more doctors, hospitals. Funeral services charge a lot. Money move around. Is that it.

- From the sustainability point of view, sustainable development, economics (real natural economics not moving the money around), we have to optimize investments, resource consumption. Please revue the principles of biophysics, bio-economics. Money is a man-made invention. Nature (us and our resources) was here before us. Let’s keep it so it can keep us.

- The anthropogenic economy, as of now, may fill our pockets and our bellies but empties our souls and bit by bit our planet, Terra.

All it comes down to maintaining equilibrium. Regards, Adrian TW

I find this an interesting discussion, with many personal, 'engaged' views.

The problem with considering smoking in its own context, without relating it to other examples of health risks jeopardizing the paradigm of efficient or useful investments so to create a more sustainable society, is the sheer fact that there are many other forms of abuse to the "person" and "society" that pale the smoking problem and need limitation. Smoking is a problem that needs attention, definitely, but rules of investment could be adapted in so many 'more urgent' ways so to address societal poverty (e.g. logical trade off between societal equilibrium or social health and monetary gain for the few). Examples are legio, and I'm sure we can all think of many (related to poverty, crime, ecological sustainability, etc.). That's likely one of the reasons why this question receives so many answers that bring other aspects (other than smoking) to the table. There are many other societal problems which could do with addressing them in the context of remunerative investment and which are more urgent in developing a 'healthy' society.

Putting a problem in a broader context, may, inadvertently, bring more focus to the problem and I feel this is one of those problems.

Let's all stop smoking quickly so we can address 'societal health' at large

Please forgive my somewhat playful last sentence and perhaps too broad an answer/comment to the original question posed. I respect everyone's views, they strengthen the debate.

I value the smoking problem highly, just not as high as other issues.

Best wishes,

J

Dear Adrian,

All that I say is that we shouldn't look for reasons that could be short-minded.

I would be glad to have a student with 250 IQ, smoker, drinking alcohol, flawed in whatever way, as long as he may produce a valuable contribution to science. It is not life length that define us, but results, and benefits to society.

Yes I have a financial formation and deformation as well, but that does not mean i don't understand other logic. As my research today is focused on using epidemiology in finances, i have a pretty decent knowledge of risk factors determination methodology. Yes, smokers are exposed to higher cancer risk than others, yes they may expose others to risk. Just the same a reckless driver exposes himself and others to risks. Obese people tend to get their children obese, as food habits are educated in family just like smoking. Are those people useful? Could anyone judge a whole person based on such a detail?

As i found out it's so easy to dismiss others, "smokers", "drinkers", "poor" "fat" and assign guilt, judge and convict. This i cannot agree with.

On the other hand, i can understand very well "sustainable development". People "need" things, and "people want things" . We can minimize "wanting" and emphasize "needing" and decide for others what they "need". That's what communists did. They assumed they can decide needs and plan production accordingly. Ignoring the "wanting" got them in trouble as social support was lost, as people stopped "wanting" communism. "sustainable" is to some extent a choice of priorities towards "needs" instead of "wants". So we may not need smoking, we may not need so evolved cars, so big houses, so much luxury, but we may want-it.

Medicine goes further because cancer exists, consumption drives creativity, and the universe is infinite. We need to want more, and create more so we may have-it. This is what drives progress.

Imagine fewer people having cancer, say one in 1.000.000. Would cancer research be funded as it is? Say someone close would be the 1:1.000.000 unlucky one, and no relief would have been imagined.

The byproducts of cancer research are immense, and some have huge potential to improve human life, even if cancer is not treated.

As all our debate unfolds, what we do is that we rationalize as "objective needs" what we think we and others should want, and this includes smoking both-ways. Anti-smokers rationalize effects while hating the smell, and fearing cancer, smokers rationalize counter-arguments to that, while feeling somewhat guilty, as society has lately branded smoking as bad.

As i recall, smoking used to be recommended by doctors to reduce stress during WW1. Now, they forbid smoking to soldiers on battlefield as health hazard. This is hilarious, as they do not forbid being shot. So, the "just cause" is now to stop smoking, not to stop shooting. War is great, smoking is bad, how weird is this. Just as weird as smoking is good. It's neither good, not bad, we just want-it or not.

A perfectly controlled environment is static. Think about Robert Sheckley's book Omega. Do we want is a excessively controlled world?

Best regards,

Bradut Bolos