Since this is a gun forum (occasionally) possibly an appropriate analogy would be in choosing to shoot damascus barrels, despite the (no doubt well intentioned and with no secondary gain whatsoever
) warnings by gun and ammo makers and their voluntary trade association. Many here have attempted to provide factual data regarding the risks of doing so, and urged due diligence in measuring wall thickness, etc.
So someone, with no attempt to determine the integrity of the Twist barrels on grandpa's tradename gun, goes duck hunting with Remington Nitro-Steel™ High-Velocity Magnum Load and sends shrapnel flying, which pierces his skull (and possibly his friend's) leaving him/them paralyzed, mute, and bedridden the rest of his not-much-of-a life. Who then pays for the life-time care?
In this country it is those purchasing health insurance, and ultimately the taxpayer when he is shifted to Medicaid. How would that work in England? Is there a limit to life-time medical expenses?
Each of picks and chooses his risky behavior; but in our narcissistic and nothing-is-my-fault world we then expect someone else to pay for the consequences; like lung and oral cancers. Which BTW are very bad ways of dying.
So choose to smoke, or chew, or use a pipe, with a full understanding of the best science regarding the risk; just don't ask non-smokers (or a child with cystic fibrosis or asthma) to breath your toxic smoke, or pay for your health care. Indeed some are genetically protected from the risks, many are not.
And yes; somebody else is paying for the cost of the epidemic of obesity related diabetes (and the complications thereof), obstructive sleep apnea, joint replacements, and hypertension.
And it's a glorious sunny day here in the desert so I'll go outside and work on a skin cancer, then cook up a bacon & cheese omelet for dinner
