[fl0ki]

This doesn't point in the direction you are suggesting.

Imagine we had a pill that prevented lung cancer risk from smoking cigarettes. Would we say that preferring fresh air over cigarette smoke is "a fad, promoted as a cure-all for everything, its adherents have a near-religious devotion to it" just because we could now eliminate one of the many severe consequences of smoking?

When we know something has several adverse effects, it's not a "fad" or "near-religious devotion" to want to avoid it, even if some of those adverse effects can be mitigated with medications.

That's even putting aside the likelihood of other consequences from those medications, especially when many are combined, as they often end up being.

[astura]

^--- See what I mean?

Dude just compared eating rice (a staple food staple food for 3.5 billion people) with cigarette smoking.

I rest my case.

[ImPostingOnHN]

To whom are you talking? It looks at first glance like this post is "playing to the crowd", rather than honestly directed towards the person you're responding to.

[fl0ki]

I was replying to a comment about epilepsy, not rice. Not everyone who eats carbs will suffer epilepsy just like not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. A medication mitigating that effect doesn't invalidate concerns around the trigger.