Driving the Smoking Cessation Debate: Using Terminology and Case Law With Which
The Intended Audience (Politicians, Often Lawyers) Is Familar
This is in support of the position taken by John Britton and Alan Knox, "Helping people to stop smoking: the new smoking cessation guidelines," Thorax 1999; 54:1-2.
I agree that "Preventing smoking . . . at the primary level . . . lies with politicans . . . though the medical profession certainly has its role to play in driving that debate." The Crime Prevention Group focuses on cigarette control at that level.
Pursuant to the profession driving the debate well by showing cigarette hazards already known by the nineteenth century,
In driving the debate, doctors can greatly assist by using such legal terms and definitions with which politicans, often lawyers, are familiar. This will help develop recognition of the fact that smokers' involuntary deaths (not to mention nonsmokers') meet criteria established in case law on poisoning and murder, details at https://medicolegal.tripod.com/tobaccomurder.htm.
Due to medical recognition that cigarette-caused deaths were already at the "holocaust" level in 1971, doctors can further aid the debate by citing case law providing for prosecutions for resultant deaths, details at https://medicolegal.tripod.com/genocide_icc.htm.
When Michigan acted upon the medical profession's already extant warnings of the cigarette hazard in 1909, the health coalition was broader-based than now, including for example the faith community, pursuant to principles summarized at https://medicolegal.tripod.com/bibvcigs.htm. Re-involving that often influential portion of the community can be of significant aid in helping end the cigarette holocaust.
By using the terminology of the intended audience, politicians and lawyers, and by reviving the past pro-health coalition which included the faith community, the medical profession can indeed successfully drive the debate on ending the cigarette holocaust into the judicial system pursuant to law.