Anders_H: "Smoking is not "accused" of being strongly correlated with negative outcomes. It is strongly correlated with negative outcomes...."

This is the opposite conclusion of the first citation I provided. And the second "in house" LW link asserts that in terms of decision making about smoking in light of whether or not it's linked to cancer is about a 50/50 proposition.

Anders_H: "...as a simple empirical fact." This is a huge abstraction. Please clarify.

Anders_H: "This is a statement about the joint distribution of the observed variables "smoking" and "negative outcomes", and it has nothing to do with causal inference."

I understand that, but I'm not asking about that. I'm asking why the correlations are thought of as causes by reports on the relationship. And it is indeed an ACCUSATION commonly presented by the press, etc..., that smoking causes or is positively correlated to cancer. Furthermore, ccording to Hume, causal inferences are THEMSELVES observed by constant conjunction, implying we have know sure way of knowing what the relationship between causes and correlations is.

Anders_H: "I cannot even imagine a scenario where the statement "Smoking is strongly correlated with lung cancer" is false...."

Again, I refer you to the first citation, which also underscores the fact the line between "weak" and "strong" is done by fiat, another challenge to the so-called link between smoking and cancer.

The Japanese smoke more (if not the most) than most cultures yet are also one of the most healthy cultures. This goes to your "slightly more interesting question," but it also goes the challenges of positively correlating smoking with "negative" outcomes. A further problem is that "negative outcomes" are normatively tied to cultural standards. Another problem is with average life expectancy comparisons, as they are to sensitive to outlier inflation.