Anti-smoking regulation and health fascism

[Esaman]

Are you a smoker or have you spesifically tried looking for evidence that smoking would have benefits?

I don't have to. The relaxation is the only benefit ever mentioned by smokers. If there were any health benefits tobacco industry would shine light on them, and now there is nothing positive to find that could possibly outweigh proven negatives. It is also silly to imply that scientists would be biased against tobacco.
Interesting how you only questioned my opinion, not provided anything against it. Addict, why don't you say that there is not only fear of withdrawal but an experience of satisfaction that motivates smoking? That is a fault in my statement, but it doesn't help you, does it.

[Aquagraph]

I don't have to. The relaxation is the only benefit ever mentioned by smokers.

Relaxation, social wapon ("got a light"), makes you less likely to get Parkinson's disease, alleviates the symptoms of schizophrenia..

If there were any health benefits tobacco industry would shine light on them, and now there is nothing positive to find that could possibly outweigh proven negatives.

So it's common knowledge that smoking has the health benefits mentioned above?
Understand that "outweighing" other options is a very much based on the sentimental approximated pros and cons of the use rather than pointing out something tangible and provable. If I'd be a schizophrenic smoker with a high risk of Parkinson's, I wouldn't care to complain about about something very bad happening to my lungs as it would be "outweighed" easily.

It is also silly to imply that scientists would be biased against tobacco.

Why?

Interesting how you only questioned my opinion, not provided anything against it.

I'm the sarcastic ghost of Socrates.

[Esaman]

Researchers in the academia get name for themselves by finding controversial facts. Also they get funding for particular research not particular results, skewing the results endangers their credibility and career. If money was an issue tobacco industry would chip in.
Influence on Parkinson's disease is fairly new discovery and not understood. Positing smoking as beneficial for a random person or general population would be laughable because of crushing evidence in contrary.

Understand that "outweighing" other options is a very much based on the sentimental approximated pros and cons of the use rather than pointing out something tangible and provable.

That is bullshit. Longer and healthier life is of clear value for any person who isn't fucked up and selfdestructive.
If the smoking alleviates schizophrenics condition it is reasonable for him to trade improved quality of life for the amount of it. That rational choice is not available to other people, because there is no benefits to quality of life present for them that could compete with the harm to the quality and length of life.