12. For many years the tobacco industry made strong efforts to convince adolescents to begin smoking (often while pretending to work against smoking by young teenagers: they ran advertisements urging teenagers not to smoke, because "smoking is an adult pleasure," which of course made smoking very attractive to those who wished to be considered adults); they also "planted" cigarette smoking in movies that would appeal to teenagers-that is, they paid the television and motion picture studios to show their attractive young stars looking sophisticated while they smoked. This was important to the tobacco industry because they realized that if people did not get addicted to nicotine at a young age, they were much less likely to become smokers (comparatively few people start smoking when they are older). We regard this as appalling behavior by the tobacco industry: the industry had clear indications of the health hazards of smoking, yet they made great efforts to hook impressionable young people on a powerful drug, nicotine, so that they would continue to smoke. Suppose that we discovermuch to our surprise, and contrary to all urrent research-that smoking actually improves the long-term health of adolescents. Would that change your moral evaluation of the tobacco executives who promoted adolescent smoking? Would you consider their acts right or wrong