It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and children.
There is probably a genetic component that predisposes some individuals to develop cancer or heart disease as a consequence of smoking. Until you can definitively tell an individual that he or she has no such predisposition, it is irresponsible to advocate that smoking is unconditionally safe.
I challenge you to show us the post on any smoking thread anywhere on this forum where we made the claim that smoking is "unconditionally safe".
Living in a dangerous world is far from unconditionally safe, but this is not a debate about safety, it's a debate about personal freedom, property rights and whether any goobermint anywhere has the right to control us serfs with phoney statistics.
A. Define, scientifically, "safe."
List those things that are, "unconditionally safe".
I await your illumination.
Yeah, we know, only the ANTI's opinion counts.
It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack Gunshot Wound. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.
It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack SUV Rollover. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.
It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack Due to eating to much fatty & Junk food. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.
It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack in a Snowmobile Accident. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.
It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack Bee Sting because the store had live flowers outside. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.
It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack Diabietis because he drank Soda. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.
As you can see your arguement can be replaced and used to justify laws and restrictions on any behavior/activity the nanny state government wants to.
So a "father who dies of a heart attack" from shoveling snow, brought on because he's spent most of his life behind a desk is more comforting for the widows and children? Get real. There are no guarantees, and everyone dies. Using emotion-laden 'soundbytes' when discussing statistical costs is disingenuous at best.
There is probably a genetic component that predisposes some individuals to develop cancer or heart disease as a consequence of smoking. Until you can definitively tell an individual that he or she has no such predisposition, it is irresponsible to advocate that smoking is unconditionally safe.
I've never once heard ANYONE here say that "smoking is unconditionally safe." If you have, I'd like to know where. I can tell you this: MY family history is such that I feel confident I'll live plenty long enough, whether or not I smoke, and no matter WHAT risks I decide to take, they are none of anyone else's business.
It's LEGAL. Which makes it none of your business WHO buys and smokes it!