>>6982465My guess is that making cigarettes is cheaper or the profit margin is much higher.
>In 1989 it was £1.51 for a packet of cigarettes, taking inflation into account the price would be £3.86>In 2018 it's closer to £10 and will exceed that amount in some parts of the countryIt's always about what is economically best, as in "how do we get the most shekels from the least amount of work", it's what economics is.
Back in the '80s, and though it's often floated as a conspiracy theory, and I'm sure you can guess by (((who))), a particular cigarette company was starting to panic about people dying from smoking. They weren't arsed that they were dying, but they were at risk of their customer base dying off and this meant losing money, and it meant people were unlikely to start smoking because they had seen all of these people die and they didn't want to do the same. So what they did was poured a large amount of money into making cigarettes safe. Eventually some cigarette scientists developed a method for just that, almost 100% safe, normal cigarettes, that didn't cause cancer.
So what stopped it, why don't we have them? Well again it's due to shekels. See the company understood that if they started to promote these cigarettes that 100% didn't cause cancer and were 100% safe, then they would be inadvertently admitting that the previous cigarettes they had sold were known to be unsafe. This meant every single person who had ever smoked that brand, who had ever developed some kind of smoking related illness was then due a huge amount of compensation that the company would have to pay out. So they didn't go through with it. Much like the asbestos companies that still exist, they just play dumb and say there's no proof that X causes Y. Even on cigarette packets here it doesn't say on the packet, "smoking causes cancer", it's always "smoking could cause cancer", because they want to keep their shekels intact with plausible deniability.
There's a good doc about it.
