| > Sure. That doesn't apply to tobacco or sugar. We're using it in exactly the way the sellers intended. Moderate tobacco use, in some forms, moderately increases cancer risk. Moderate sugar consumption doesn't overtly increase the risk of heart disease or obesity. Overuse of most tobacco products dramatically increases your cancer risk, just as overuse of sugar dramatically increases its associated risks. My point stands that nobody is forcing you to start smoking tobacco or eating large volumes of sugar. Why do you want to push all of the responsibility away from someone who willingly undertakes an optional activity with known risks? It's not like every widely-available tobacco product hasn't had 50% or more of its packaging plastered with "warning, cancer!" labels for the last 30-odd years. Should tobacco companies be held responsible for objectively-false advertising and marketing? Yeah, if memory serves they got beat up pretty well for that by the government many years ago. When was the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes on TV? It's been quite a long time since I have. That problem has already been taken care of. With sugars you might be able to make an argument about a lack of in-your-face warnings - but why should those be required? Moderate consumption is fine. Excessive consumption is where the problem starts kicking in. Various government entities are already kicking up a stink about sugar-heavy products, so I wouldn't be surprised if we got such warning labels in the future anyway. |
Where did I say or even imply that? I just said it's less than 100% – but more 0%. You're obviously quite passionate and/or angry about something, some injustice you've seen or something. I feel like we're talking past each other and you want to have an argument just for the sake of arguing on the Internet. I'm not super interested in that.
I hope you have a wonderful rest of the day. Maybe we'll meet in person one day and debate the issue in a higher bandwidth medium. Cheers.