Yes I do.
By the way, I think your last post violates a basic element of logical argument - attempted conclusion unsupported by any reasons whatsoever.
There's no logical fallacy in attempting to dissuade people from smoking by warning them there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The logical fallacy arises in argumentum ad baculum because there is no necessary inference.
Me - stop smoking because it will or might cause cancer.
Thee - so what?
Me - aren't you worried about getting cancer?
Thee - no
Me - Oh well I guess my argument/reasoning is faulty
Thee - yes, you should reword your argument to say "If you want to avoid cancer you should stop smoking"
The logical error is in thinking that the stick necessarily persuades towards the attempted conclusion. It doesn't.
In fact, as I said earlier, one person's stick might be another person's carrot.