Originally posted by RichardS It was a long time ago and I can't remember every detail, but this is about right. Way back in the last millenium (about the 1960s), there was no link between cigarette smoking and cancer in France. It seemed that, if you smoked Gauloises or Disque Bleu, you could not get cancer. After all the studies trying to link cancer with cigarette smoking, the government decreed that there was no link in France.
The government owned the cigarette factories.
Eh.
Sorry for talking about photography, but I recall seeing a photo of one of the early Tour de France races showing the cyclists, themselves, smoking whilst racing. Smoking was actually believed to be good for one's performance. Would it have been banned as a performance enhancing drug if the current sensitivities were around over that issue? Apparently during WWII death by heart attack decreased at the same time as there was a decrease in the availability of tobacco to the general public.
The problem of proving these things:
There is a lot of correlational evidence.
There is evidence of the presence of various carcinogens in the smoke.
But can you prove that smoking CAUSED the cancer and not something else, or that the specific combination of carcinogens in smoke causes cancer?
A large part of that depends on what one considers, or is willing to accept as, proof of cause.
Philosophy, research methods and law collide creating a loud report.