Different. Tobacco is against the system now. Tobacco is a mild brain stimulator, it helps to think more and better (if you didn't know that, well, dig into relevant papers). Nowadays, the system doesn't want "peasants" to think. If not for large fraction of people being smokers and tobacco lobbies, it would already be illegal and criminal offense.
F.Tnioli, are you proposing that measures against tobacco are the result of dark forces in society seeking to reduce the computational power of individuals, and not a medical response to its physical toxicity? Or am I being whooshed?
Not proposing - stating. Yes, i am. No, not "dark forces", - there is no definite ethical evaluation possible; dumbing down of "average Joe" has its benefits in terms of survival of human and non-human species, - benefits and drawbacks too, of course. That said, it's very likely that most forces responsible for anti-tobacco world-wide campaign of last ~2 decades - are dark forces indeed; but not dark _because_ of this campaign. They, themselves, may think the opposite - their goals and intentions may well be definitely dark, yes, - but only because they do not grasp what good effects their campaign has. Rather ironic situation, in fact. And yes, it is about reducing thinking power of individuals much more than about medical response. Medical response is of course also the cause - but very minor one. You see, percentage of people who get killed by (usually excessive) smoking - is small as it is, yet the percentage of people killed by tobacco _before_ they reach retirement age - is very, very small figure (of all smokers).
It is rather difficult to estimate whether the system has net positive or negative monetary effect out of medical effects of tobacco: those quite very few who are killed by tobacco before reaching retirement age - are definitely a loss (in terms of lost taxes and such), however, times more people who are killed by tobacco _after_ reaching retirement age (and actually taking the retirement), - those people, by dying earlier than otherwise expected, are a net monetary gain to the system, since the system does not have to pay benefits to them no more. In any case, i don't think it's any significant difference economically.
Ergo, the main reason for the system to care about medical effects of tobacco - is PR. I mean, propaganda. The system certainly benefits from "explaining" to people that it cares about their health. It's a good way to indoctrinate those who can be affected by such indoctrinations (sadly, it's the majority).
Oh, and to clarify: when i say "the system", i primarily mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism . Refer to Noam Chomsky's relevant interviews and papers on the subject if you seek further understanding of the system. In case you don't know who Noam Chomsky is: he's one of brightests minds in existance today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky , in particular the last paragraph before "contents".
If you honestly think that the system genuinely care about people's heath - then ask yourself: why, exactly, much more deadly causes than tobacco smoking - do not get even quarter of critisism tobacco smoking gets? Such causes are, in so-called "developed" world:
- unhealthy food (i.e. "industrial" and "fast"), consumed by billions of people for decades on end, causing a big share of cardiovascular, digestive and other diseases, including cancers and diabetes - i'd especially underline the deadly role of large/huge white sugar content, net amount in a typical urban daily diet;
- infections and parasites;
- stress and hostilities, which is nothing else than an avoidable (in vast majority of cases) true cause of many suicides, strokes and some other "mechanically determined" death causes;
- alcoholism, which is one more huge true cause of suicides, homicides and various deadly diseases (primarily liver and brain diseases, but also digestive and cardiovascular ones as well). A study in Sweden found that 29% to 44% of "unnatural" deaths (those not caused by illness) were related to alcohol. The causes of death included murder, suicide, falls, traffic accidents, asphyxia, and intoxication.
Armed with knowledge of what i said just above, please take a look at the list of "direct" death causes (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate ), and then ask yourself: are tobacco's medical effects as important as system wants us to believe, if the stamp disease of tobacco smokers - lung cancer, - is only on 18th place in the list (and we know that some lung cancers occur in non-smokers, too)?
Geez, i know it's all off-topic here, but gentlemen, i ask you all to forgive me the extent and location of my here response - it's just a case of acute psychological allergy to the system's lies which (the allergy) i _sometimes_ get... Best wishes to everyone here!