Last time I checked, cars are not under the FDA, either, Bob, and yet you used them as being an example of something being unsafe that would be removed from the market and yet you chastise me for using cigarettes? Yes, I can see that some brain is rattled here. Try again.
Maybe you can explain the logic of that to me, Mike. It made no sense at all.
I followed it roughly right to the point where you said that I used them as an example, which made sense, sort of ... . I understand that you're still trying to get parts for your Corvair and your old Pinto, but I put that down to Mike being Mike. The fact that the dangers involved in both models forced them off the market would be something that I'd expect you to understand. Pretending that you don't suggests that you have no grasp of market economics and voting with your feet, and I really do know better than that. It's one of the foundation points for conservative economic theory. Pretending ignorance is just you being disingenuous in a folksy kind of way.
What I'm seriously puzzled by is why you would possibly say something like "and yet you chastise me for using cigarettes?"
Is there some reason that I'm supposed to have pegged you for being a smoker?
And is there some reason I should chastise you for it?
It already sounds as though you have whatever information you need, and that whatever the decision you've made, you need whatever help you can tolerate in quitting, should you wish to do so, or in enjoying the habit as much as you can now. Whatever I can do in whichever direction, please let me know, unless you think it's none of my business. I certainly never thought about your smoking habits at all. I found dealing with quitting first cigarettes, then cigars and then pipes difficult enough on my own. I wish I could still smoke and feel good about it. I remember it fondly and dream about the habit(s) frequently.
That aside, I wouldn't recommend you start if you weren't smoking already, and both of us know it's seriously unsafe, and that whether or not it delivers lung cancer it certainly screws up breathing capacity for a high proportion of long term smokers.
Guns are different from cigarettes in that guns are at their base, tools, and as such have some social utility.
You may notice that I made no such claim about guns, which do have some utility. It's simply that the way we manage them here in the United States is in some fashion considerably different than the way folks handle them in some other countries, where the numbers of gun fatalities are far lower.
You shouldn't have something around where the very presence of the thing makes the situation worse. With medicines, they'd be taken off the market. With cars they'd have to be sent back to the drawing board. With cigarettes, they can at this point afford to buy the legislators who regulate the industry, and make sure that legislators that are not reasonably pliable are unlikely to be elected.
You also may have missed the section of one of my above posts where I said that I was against outlawing drugs because that put the black market beyond all control. It certainly seems to have worked that way with both alcohol and cigarettes, which we can tax and regulate to some extent, and which we can also sue when needed. These rights bring some sort of control onto these industries which would not otherwise exist. The same situation applies to some extent to the auto industry.
The gun industry has done a pretty good job of evading many of these controls, in my opinion, and has not come under very robust legal control.
What is it you said you were smoking again? What kind of cigarettes were they?