[brassic]

I'm an ex-smoker and I had the same thought as I read the article: I wish I'd known this.

But really, I know it wouldn't have made a difference. From an early age I was taught at school that smoking would kill me and I started anyway. The idea that detailed knowledge of one particular cause of death would have made a difference is laughable. It's just a way of deflecting blame from one's own responsibility.

[saalweachter]

I dunno, there's a fun argument to be had about informed consent.

It's fair to say that everyone know smoking is bad by now, but does everyone possess a correct and complete enough understanding of how and why to meaningfully consent to the risks? If you understand that smoking can cause cancer, but not that it can cause cancer even years after you stop smoking, is that good enough? If you think you can go on a cleanse and purge the toxins from your body, are you really competent to consent to the long-term risks? We don't let minors do nearly anything, from sex to signing contracts to receiving medical treatment, because we do not believe they are mature enough to properly weigh the consequences. If a minor decides to begin smoking, are they able to meaningfully consent to the risks, even if they have been adequately explained?

All medical interventions are weighing hopefully large benefits against hopefully small side effects, but even terrible side effects can be acceptable if the benefits are large enough and people receiving the treatments have been adequately informed and can meaningfully consent.

[umanwizard]

Not sure where you live but in my country we already don't let minors smoke.

In most parts you can legally have sex before you can legally smoke.

[saalweachter]

In my country it is illegal for minors to smoke, and a majority of smokers start smoking as minors.

[umanwizard]

Well sure but I'm just pointing out that the analogy isn't great. There are already plenty of things minors can't legally do and we don't try to ban them for everyone.

[saalweachter]

It's not a question of illegal or not, it's a question of whether smokers are able consent to the risks of smoking, and therefore whether the companies are absolved of damages.

[umanwizard]

Your argument was that minors cannot meaningfully consent to the risks. But smoking is already illegal for minors.

How can a company be held liable for people who choose to use their product illegally? This doesn't make sense.

(It's different of course if they are directly encouraging children to smoke. In that case, they should have the book thrown at them.)