The difficulty of giving up the tobacco habit has been common knowledge for centuries. People smoke because of advertising. There is remarkably little evidence that advertising plays an important role in getting people to smoke, as opposed to getting them to smoke a particular brand. Given the complexity of the issue, none is likely to be forthcoming in the forseeable future. None of the widely publicized studies that have appeared in recent years, including the much-hyped research on Joe Camel, actually measured the impact of advertising on a teenager's propensity to smoke.
Smoking imposes costs on society.
States have a right to demand compensation from tobacco companies for the costs of treating smoking-related diseases under Medicaid. This claim ignores the long-term savings traceable to smoking and the tobacco taxes smokers already pay to cover the costs they supposedly impose on others. And by the same logic, states could sue the manufacturer of any product associated with disease or injury, including alcoholic beverages, fatty foods, candy, firearms, swimming pools, bathtubs, skateboards, and automobiles. Secondhand smoke poses a grave threat to bystanders. The evidence concerning the health effects of secondhand smoke is not nearly as conclusive as the evidence concerning the health effects of smoking.