Not a scientist, but - as a kid in a science museum I remember seeing pictures of healthy pink lungs next to pictures of a smoker's lungs. Never occurred to me that they could have been "faked" or could have been, for instance, the lungs of a smoker who also worked in a coal mine and died of black lung.


A bald statement like "Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, "medical science" has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat" ought to be easily disproved if false, simply by trotting out a single study where a mouse or rat got lung cancer as a result of smoking cigarettes, passively or not.

Besides cancer, though, aren't there other risks and disabilities attached to smoking?