This comparison is flawed in several respects. The most obvious is that cigarette companies spent decades intentionally misleading the public about the dangers of their product. This is not the same as just selling a potentially dangerous product, especially one where the dangers are so viscerally obvious as with a parachute.
If you use a parachute one time in case of emergency, yes, it is a life saving device that still has a high level of risk. However, I believe they were referring to the people that choose to parachute for sport/recreation rather than emergency situations.
But in the case of parachutes, it's not the device, it's the activity. I know it's splitting hairs, but it's important, especially when it comes to assigning moral responsibility to manufacturers.
