[dontreact]

I think this makes light of the fact that lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the world. Every year millions of people die. Millions. And this is just one way cigarettes have negative impact. I’ve heard doctors say that we would need far fewer hospitals in the U.S if it wasn’t for all the negative effects of smoking.

[gus_massa]

We all are going to die, and people prefer to put their dying relatives in hospital just in case they can be saved. So the amount of hospitalized people will not change too much if someone makes lung cancer disappear completely. People will die from other reason, like a heart attack, other cancer, aneurism, ... So banning cigarettes will make people live longer (that is a good thing) but it will not change too much the number of hospital rooms needed.

[fisherjeff]

I would note that they’re not comparing the effects of the two businesses, but rather the PR decisions made under fire.

Not that I necessarily agree that the comparison is completely apt, but it’s certainly a much closer one.

[dontreact]

The frustrating thing is that tobacco execs are still around. And that there is no hedging or context given so it’s pretty easy to come away with the impression that it’s something more broad than just the PR tactics. In fact I think that’s pretty open to interpretation.

[austenallred]

It’s an absurd comparison by any measure