I literally said "so care needs to be taken" and you hit me with a slippery slope argument?
Exercise is maybe a slippery slope because it requires enforcing a positive action, but if we're going to force people to be healthy anyway, why not? In a practical sense, not a theoretical one? If you've got theoretical concerns, why doesn't that apply to cigarettes?
Literally nothing in the world would be less fun or good or enjoyable if cigarettes simply no longer existed (unless you're already addicted, and the day that cigarettes disappear will be the first day of the rest of your longer life).
Although I will say a minimum possible harm argument is weird on practical grounds. Members of my family have smoked in the past, its done them some theoretical tiny amount of damage that is so close to 0 as to be the same thing. That doesn't require the police to get involved. The harm done by the amount of work to earn the taxes and pay the police was probably greater than the damage done by the smoking.
> Literally nothing in the world would be less fun or good or enjoyable if cigarettes simply no longer existed
That seems ridiculous. Obviously there are people who smoke for pleasure. I know several. You can't just tell them that they aren't having fun and pretend that counts.
