I see that the Gallaher tobacco company has denied any direct link between cancer and smoking. A Dail committee was told the other day by the company's corporate affairs director that while Gallaher accepts the evidence of studies indicating that smoking is a "risk factor" in illnesses like lung cancer, that is not the same thing as saying that smoking causes lung cancer.

Thank God for that clarification. It has been made before of course, but people just will not listen. These same people have the notion that smoking is addictive, that it causes "problems" and is just not a nice habit.

Gallaher makes it clear, however, that smoking is not addictive: "People can choose to smoke and they can choose to give up smoking, as millions do."

Good. Nicotine patches, hypnotherapy, praying, amputation of hands all unnecessary. You just make a choice. So let us all get the following clear for once and for all.

Smoking is not addictive. Smoking is fun. Smoking is even more fun for young people, which is why most cigarette advertising is directed at them. Smoking is an attractive, sophisticated lifestyle choice. Smoking clears the air, kills many dangerous bacteria and helps protect the atmosphere. There are serious health risks involved in the decision not to smoke. While no direct causal link has been established between death and not smoking, the refusal to smoke has long been established as a "risk factor".

In short, smoking is good for you, and it makes you a better and more beautiful person: if you smoke, you will live longer, enjoy better health and a more fulfilled life, die happy and go straight to Heaven. At the same time, non-smokers should not be demonised, but people should learn to be wary of them. However, passive smokers, people too mean to buy their own cigarettes, are parasites who should be shunned, and obliged to pay a special tax which would help to keep the price of cigarettes at an affordable level. But getting these simple truths through to people is the problem. Let us try to simplify further one already simple issue, namely the "risk factor" mentioned at the outset. Let us establish an ordinary scenario. Say you are fortunate enough to secure tickets to the AllIreland hurling final. Now, Waterford ("exciting newcomers to the big stage") might make it to the final (maybe not, after yesterday), but for our purposes let us consider two as-yet-unknown foes on the green sward of Croke Park.

The play is fast and furious. Paudeen MacGiollaruadh suddenly suffers a fierce belt of a hurley on his right leg! Inadvertently delivered by Seanin Og O Ceallachain in the heat of battle, the stroke has smashed Paudeen's femur to smithereens. Nevertheless, he bravely runs the length of the field and scores a point from 30 yards out before collapsing in a heap.

When Paudeen is taken off on the stretcher, and the acclamation for his feat dies down, comes the hard thinking. Why is poor Paudeen's leg broken? There will be those who instantly jump to the conclusion that whacking with hurley sticks causes fractures. A very foolish simplification. By his actions, Seanin may have contributed to Paudeen's fracture, but as with cancer and smoking, no direct causal link can be proved. Studies will indicate that the whack was a risk factor, and we must accept that - but it is only one of many. In the first place, Paudeen probably had a history of broken femurs in the family: he was genetically predisposed to suffer a fracture at some stage. So is it fair that Seanin should be blamed for Paudeen's faulty gene? Is whacking people with hurleys, a natural, unaddictive activity, to be outlawed? Are we to curb the advertising of the traditional caman? Moreover, if one delves further, it will almost certainly turn out that Paudeen was not smoking when struck, so that his immune system was weakened. Paudeen is also involved in amateur dramatics: when he goes on stage, the encouraging cry "break a leg" is often heard - another risk factor. Paudeen turns out to have missed breakfast. He holidayed in Spain in 1994. He failed Maths in the Junior Cert. He played rounders as a child. He fell in the under-9 potato-sack race. He won't eat carrots. He enjoys afternoon television.

Each and every instance a possible risk factor in the unfortunate fate that has overtaken him.

And so with cigarettes and cancer. It is now surely time that misguided health activists, so-called scientists, the multitude of cranks, the anti-fun brigade, the political correctness lobby and the powerful, secretive group of anti-business anarchists devoted to the destruction of the upstanding, outstanding, entirely ethical cigarette trade should cease their vicious, obsessional campaigning, and turn their attentions to the real baddies in the addiction stakes: the sticky bun corporations of this world.