That sounds just like the AIDS crowd.
How so?
Cancer was around before tobacco use, and will continue to be around if you could make all tobacco dissappear today, this instant.
Cure the disease, and everyone benefits, tobacco user or not.
This ain't bungholing, it's an F'n cigarette. SHeesh!
Or would you argue a few billion more dollars should be pissed down the endless computer model research rathole to tell us all cigarettes are bad for you?
I wonder if gay men are addicted to sex like smokers can't stop puffing. Needle-drug users are certainly gonzo from reality.
Anyway, it took generations before people knew about smoking hazards. AIDS was identified in a very short time by comparison. Practically nobody after the late 1980s can blame anyone but themselves if they've acquired it.
That is sad, tragic, and stupid.
Actually the same can be said of those who started smoking, probably since the '70s.
Most cancers (there are 100+ types of cancer, depending on how you count them) have nothing to do with tobacco use and have little if any relationship to personal choice or lifestyle issues. Yes, there are some possible correlations between obesity and some cancers, but again there is a vast array of cancers for which the patients bear little or no responsibility in any way for their plight. Thus, outside of cigarette smokers, there is no similarity between people arguing for more funding for cancer research and those who have so distorted public debates over HIV/AIDS funding, etc.