Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

American Lung Association Pushes For Ban On Electronic Cigarettes

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the pursuit-of-absolute-safety-on-paper dept.

Government 790

Anarki2004 writes "The American Lung Association is jumping on board the ban-E-cigs-train. From the article: 'So, while the ALA admitted that electronic cigarettes contain fewer chemicals than tobacco cigarettes, they refuse to acknowledge the obvious health benefit that lack of the most toxic chemicals provides to the smokers who switch. Are lives and lung health the real issue here or is nicotine addiction? The ALA must know that numerous studies show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine. The American Heart Association acknowledges that nicotine is "safe" in other smoke-free forms such as patches or gum.' For those of you not in the know, electronic cigarettes (also called personal vaporizers) are a nicotine delivery device that resembles a cigarette in shape and size, but does not burn tobacco. It is less a expensive alternative to the traditional tobacco cigarette that is by all appearances (though not thoroughly researched) also healthier."

cancel ×

790 comments

Good article (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31861910)

But the ALA has an agenda to push, and logic and reason be damned.

Re:Good article (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31861980)

Logic and reason being that local governments across the nation have had one helluva hard time pushing an insane sin tax on this alternate drug delivery vehicle. These guys have nothing to lose and everything to gain by banning them.

Re:Good article (2, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862060)

Is the tobacco industry against e-cigs? Wouldn't it be the least bit ironic if the ALA found itself on the same side as them?

Re:Good article (3, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862132)

It would be ironic but not illogical.

If the enemy of my enemy is his enemy for a different reason than mine, then he is still not my friend.

Like the U.S. and the Soviet Union in WW2, we will fight our common enemy from either side, then when we meet in Berlin we will resume fighting each other.

Re:Good article (4, Interesting)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862008)

no kidding. My husband has a serious cigarette allergy (his throat swells shut and he falls over unable to breathe), more smokers people using e-cigs the better. The lack of all that crap in them greatly reduces his symptoms, and the fact that a far higher % is absorbed by the smoker means that there is less in the air per "cig".

E-cigs have far less second hand smoke, and generally only harm the person using them. If anything, the APA should be trying to get more long term smokers to swap to e-cigs if they are not planning on quiting.

Re:Good article (1)

bmk67 (971394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862054)

E-cigs have far less second hand smoke

Considering that they have no smoke whatsoever, I'm not really surprised by this.

Re:Good article (1)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862114)

good point, however I was refering to airborn chemicals.

Re:Good article (1, Informative)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862116)

E-cigs have *no* secondhand smoke at all. They do not burn their content, they vaporize it. The "smoke" you see is water vapor.

Re:Good article (2, Interesting)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862360)

The "smoke" you see is water vapor.

There must be some amount of other chemicals in that "water vapor" or else these devices wouldn't be any different from sticking your head over a humidifier.

Anecdotal only, but I can smell something in the air when one of these devices is around me. Last I checked, water was odorless (no jokes about some river near you, please).

Re:Good article (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862038)

American *Lung* Association - How about you do a study comparing the effects before you make some snap judgement?

Re:Good article (4, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862084)

What is their agenda? (other than to promote lung health, which no reasonable person could criticize)

Re:Good article (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862194)

What is their agenda? (other than to mandate lung health, which many reasonable people who want to control their own bodies could criticize)

Fixed that for you.

Re:Good article (3, Insightful)

mog007 (677810) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862174)

Why isn't the ALA pushing for funding to get a study? If there's no hard evidence one way or the other, it seems stupid to make any statements about these things.

GNAA Confirms Link Between Wal-Mart and The Bilder (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31861918)

Monday, March 22, 2010

GNAA Confirms Link Between Wal-Mart and The Bilderberg Group

The GNAA research division has proved a direct link between the Bilderberg Group and Wal-Mart. This link was confirmed last Saturday night when an attempt to save black shoppers from a terrorist threat was lambasted by Wal-Mart, an attack which was planned by Wal-Mart themselves.

In an attempt to revive the United States economy an attack was planned by the same strategists that successfully executed 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. To minimize collateral damage against voting citizens, which keep Haliburton, the United States controlling body of the Bilderberg Group, in power; black American citizens were targeted. Again.

InfoWars, in conjunction with the GNAA Black Ops Division have been working on project Shield-A-Nigga for the past 2 years. The project has deployed over 2500 operatives that have been recruited from the GNAA Youth League. These operatives have been placed in nearly every Wal-Mart store across America in defense of our black brothers.

On the night of 20th March 2010, a brave operative sacrificed himself in defense of our black citizens. When he was informed of a plot to harm black shoppers at the Wal-Mart he was stationed at, he calmly asked the black shoppers to leave that Wal-Mart.

According to the police, the boy picked up a public-address telephone in the Wal-Mart in Washington Township, one of two dozen accessible to the store's customers, and said, "All black people, leave the store now." This heroic act saved 73 black people that were shopping in store at the time.

Swift retribution was brought upon the brave soul and he was arrested. Media hype was then focused on the boy as to deflect focus from the failed terrorist attempt. This was done by the same media spin group that has minimized the impact of the Full Body Scanner Project, which is funded by Wal-Mart.

About Wal-Mart:

Money Laundering arm of the Bilderberg Group.

About InfoWars:

Righteous.

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.eu, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.eu as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.eu [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_al_punjabi@gnaa.eu [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2010 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.eu]

Re:GNAA Confirms Link Between Wal-Mart and The Bil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862318)

It's over. Accept it. The GNAA trolls' heyday is past, most of the teenagers responsible got girlfriends, grew up and moved on, and attempts to reinvigorate it will never recapture its former "glory".

It's like a pop group that was once really famous and sold shitloads, then went not entirely out of fashion but were no longer the premier flavor du jour. They continue to sell records, and once in a while a single of theirs may graze the top 10, but they'll never ever be as big as they once were.

As intentionally offensive and semi-creative trolls go, this one's actually not too bad. (Though the boilerplate at the end really needs updating. 130MB bittorrent? That's the sort of size/quality we were downloading in 2004. Was this laziness or an acknowledgement of your roots?)

And even if your later material knocked spots off the smash hits of your peak, it'll still only reach #14 for a couple of weeks.

Fair or not, that's life... just accept it.

healthier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31861922)

Of course lets ignore the more "healthier" alternative, quit smoking!!!

The entire concept is mistaken (2, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31861926)

As long as you continue to feed your nicotine addiction, you will never be able to break yourself away from these crutches.

Cold turkey is the only method that actually works short of medication (which has its own problems).

Re:The entire concept is mistaken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862014)

Well, the concept is not to quit.
The concept is to wilfully continue using nicotine without all the damning health consequences.
 
It is this difference that the ALA and you both seem to miss.

Re:The entire concept is mistaken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862018)

No way cold turkey is the hardest way to quit. Getting hyponotized is a really good way to quit smoking permanently and without any craving in the back of your mind.

Re:The entire concept is mistaken (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862022)

But you're missing the point. Breaking away from these "crutches" should be a personal choice. They're wanting to legislate them out of existence.

"Crutch" or not, if someone wants to use that crutch, that's their business. This is PARTICULARLY true when the crutch has been reduced to a mere financial draw, with no serious health consequences.

Re:The entire concept is mistaken (3, Insightful)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862122)

Exactly.

I smoke, on occasion, when I feel like it. A cigar once a month, sometimes a pipe if I'm in the mood. Not exactly a pack a day sort of thing, but I have a real problem with people trying to make this illegal, or tax it unfairly.

What I do in my home is my problem. Don't smoke in yours.

The bar thing drove me nuts too - I ended up having to join a 'club' instead so that I could still have a whiskey and a smoke when I felt like it instead of having to stand outside like dog.

Re:The entire concept is mistaken (1, Insightful)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862042)

I fail to see why I should give up something I enjoy. Is the government or AMA going to outlaw high fructose corn syrup? Big Macs? Motorcycles? Sex outside of a certified monogamous relationship? Cars capable of going over 20mph? Bicycles? Football(American rules)? Electricity? Not to mention such things as alcohol, and many of the drugs prescribed by doctors. Point is that we each make decisions everyday based on risk versus rewards. Just because you dislike my habit does not give you any right to make me stop, regardless of what mindless drones have told you.

Re:The entire concept is mistaken (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862088)

Is the government or AMA going to outlaw high fructose corn syrup? Big Macs?

No, but they should.

Re:The entire concept is mistaken (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862102)

Who said anything about quitting nicotine?

Why do you want to limit people's options artificially? Electronic Cigarettes are a cleaner option for nicotine delivery.

Or is this just about telling other people what to do?

Re:The entire concept is mistaken (1)

lupis42 (1048492) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862358)

Or is this just about telling other people what to do?

It's always about that.

Re:The entire concept is mistaken (1)

thms (1339227) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862312)

nicotine addiction [..] Cold turkey is the only method that actually works [..]

Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties. However, only after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential. (source [wikipedia.org] )

When when the first step is switching to an nicotine administration method which then is easier to quit, I'd say that makes it easier to actually quit. However, since nicotine itself is not that harmful these might become as commonplace as coffee is now as a stimulating drug.

Re:The entire concept is mistaken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862374)

Every single advertisement for eCigs I've ever seen poses them as "healthy smokes for people who like to smoke". They give "all the benefits of smoking, without the health risk".

These things are NOT stop-smoking-aids. They are NOT crutches. They are a hobby.

It's the same as me going out with my friends and having 2 beer. I'm NOT using a crutch for any addiction, because I do NOT have a drinking addiction. I do, however, enjoy having a couple of alcoholic beverages on occasion, especially in a social setting, though I do sometimes have a beer or two when I'm home alone watching a movie or sports too.

Why should anyone have the right to tell me I can't, if I'm not doing anyone else any harm?

I have a better idea (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31861934)

How about we sell cigs that don't contain so much bullshit? I mean honestly...is all that crap really necessary?

Re:I have a better idea (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31861984)

grow your own tobacco and you'll be fine

Re:I have a better idea (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862064)

grow your own tobacco and you'll be fine

There's a little entity called the ATF you have to deal with should you go that route.

Re:I have a better idea (1, Interesting)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862150)

No, not really. If you intend to sell it, yes. If you cultivate it for your own personal use, they can't do shit.

Hell I just ordered a ten pack of albino tobacco seeds.

ATF What?

Re:I have a better idea (4, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862016)

Well, just removing the extra bullshit doesn't solve the fundamental problem of inhaling hot gases produced by the combustion of solid matter. You're still pulling things into your lungs they're capable of handling, but the regularity of it just overwhelms them.

I think the ALA here is seeing a "suggestiveness" due to the cigarette appearance, and it doesn't have anything to do with nicotine (I haven't seen them fuss about nicotine patches.)

Hey retard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862224)

combustion doesn't occur if you vaporize somthing electronically

RTFA

Re:I have a better idea (0, Offtopic)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862340)

Well, just removing the extra bullshit doesn't solve the fundamental problem of inhaling hot gases produced by the combustion of solid matter.

Ahem... it might be helpful if you knew what you were talking about.
E-cigs do not burn any combustible solid matter. They simply vaporize a (liquid) mixture of water and propylene glycol along with a wee bit of flavoring (if you choose) and are available in various nicotine levels, including zero-nicotene. My wife and I have switched to e-cigs and it's one of the best decisions we've made. After 30 years of smoking, I now, for the first time, don't feel addicted since I can smoke my e-cig (with a very low nicotine level) when I choose to. I sometimes going days without it - but I never feel deprived. I'm not sure what the ALAs beef is, but it has nothing to do with health. This is the equivalent of the wing-nuts who fight against distribution of condoms because they think it promotes promiscuity.

Re:I have a better idea (3, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862126)

How about we sell cigs that don't contain so much bullshit? I mean honestly...is all that crap really necessary?

If that were so easy don't you think the tobacco companies would already be offering such a product? The simple fact is that you're setting fire to something and sucking in the fumes; it's inevitable you're inhaling something harmful.

You can buy them, doesn't matter. (2, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862200)

It isn't hard to find chemical free cigarettes. Most of the convenience stores around here stock at least one variety, like this brand [nascigs.com] . They aren't really any healthier though. The health problems with cigarettes have far less to do with the chemicals, and more to do with partially combusted hydrocarbons (tar) sticking to the most sensitive parts of your lungs.

The chemicals are put into cigarettes for various reasons - some to make the smoke "smoother", some for flavor, some to make the cigarette burn faster, and others actually increase the combustion of the leaves, decreasing some of the more harmful naturally occurring components of tar.

Re:I have a better idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862296)

You are free to sell your own brand of cigarettes without so much 'bullshit'.

As it stands now, you are free to do either, while your tone suggests your wish for big brother to step in to dictate what proprietors may or may not sell and what consumers may or may not purchase.

Nicotine (5, Insightful)

gregben (844056) | more than 4 years ago | (#31861956)

Nicotine is far from harmless. Best to keep people away from it if at all possible.
Not by force of law necessarily, but by education and social support.

Re:Nicotine (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31861992)

And alcohol? Pot? LSD? Other "soft drugs". Do we need to keep people away from all of that too?

Re:Nicotine (2, Funny)

Stradenko (160417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862032)

Wait...LSD is a "soft drug?"

Re:Nicotine (1)

Orga (1720130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862076)

Funny, I'd comment alcohol is a soft drug? LSD and pot are not addictive. LSD unlike alcohol enhances mental capacity unlike alcohol that horribly hinders higher thinking.

Re:Nicotine (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862142)

Pot is definitely addictive. But still a "soft drug" in that it won't kill you, same with LSD.

Re:Nicotine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862280)

Pot is definitely non-addictive

Re:Nicotine (1, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862302)

Pot is definitely addictive.

Citation needed.

Re:Nicotine (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862202)

A moderate amount of alcohol causes no significant problems.

A moderate amount of LSD can cause psychosis.

The difference is in volume. Eating a nutmeg will kill you, that doesn't mean that it's a problem to put a small quantity of nutmeg on your food.

Alcohol also has a variety of industrial and household uses, including as a disinfectant and flavoring (like nutmeg.) LSD is only useful as a recreational drug, and possibly for psychotherapy (though there are more targeted drugs that achieve the same effect with fewer side effects.)

Re:Nicotine (1)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862104)

In that it is non-addictive, and just about impossible to die from an overdose of, yes.

Re:Nicotine (1)

BKX (5066) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862162)

Yes, generally. It has no known LD50 (ie, a dosage where 50% of people who take that dose die), and has never killed anyone by overdose (same as with pot). It has very few long term effects. The only studies which state opinions opposing what I just said have been thoroughly debunked by science. LSD is mostly illegal because some people don't like it when other people have fun.

Re:Nicotine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862170)

Sort of. It's not addictive, it's not too likely to kill you(directly), and you build up a tolerance almost instantly.(You can't take it every day and get a trip, have to wait at least a day or two)

Re:Nicotine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862328)

Yes, I would call LSD a soft drug, no addiction.

Re:Nicotine (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862062)

Yes. Think of the children!

Re:Nicotine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862138)

Yes.

Re:Nicotine (1, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862056)

Nicotine is far from harmless.

Citation needed. And remember, we're discussing nicotine only. Don't link me an article about cigarettes.

Re:Nicotine (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862210)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Toxicology

Yes I know it's wikipedia, but it matches all the things I've read in chemistry and health books.

Re:Nicotine (2, Informative)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862304)

"The currently available literature indicates that nicotine, on its own, does not promote the development of cancer in healthy tissue and has no mutagenic properties"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine [wikipedia.org]

Re:Nicotine (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862380)

Nicotine is far from harmless.

Citation needed. And remember, we're discussing nicotine only. Don't link me an article about cigarettes.

Go and look it up in the wiki. It is well known that nicotine is a deadly toxin with an LD50 as low as 50mg. Even in the lower doses found in nicotine patches, it causes birth defects for pregnant women and inhibits aptoposis.

Re:Nicotine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862206)

Nicotine IS COMPLETELY harmless. You are an idiot, muddying the waters of this discussion.

Their real motive.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31861958)

    'HEY! THOSE PEOPLE ARE ENJOYING SOMETHING WE DONT APPROVE OF! STOP THEM!'

They always came off that way anyways with the attitude of their messages.

Misuse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31861962)

Perhaps it has something to do with their potential misuse for the delivery of other, less harmless, substances...

One has to wonder... (2, Insightful)

Last_Available_Usern (756093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31861970)

One has to wonder why they would even do this. Why push for a ban on something that is so obviously better for you than actual cigarettes? You have to think Big Tobacco is stuffing money in their pocket to strengthen the legitmacy of this ban request, but why make such an obvious move? It only weakens what credibility they might have had before this.

I dislike second-hand smoke, and... (4, Insightful)

Delusion_ (56114) | more than 4 years ago | (#31861972)

...give me a seat next to an electric cigarette smoker over a cigarette smoker any day.

There's a lot of FUD about nicotine, when it is not apparent that nicotine is dangerous, compared to all the other chemicals that get delivered with the traditional nicotine cigarette.

I've never seen the need for treating nicotine like a controlled substance outside cigarettes. If I want Nicorette for uses other than smoking-cessation, how is that any more dangerous than my ability to buy aspirin, acetaminophen, or caffeine tablets, all of which can be used to a harmful degree?

Re:I dislike second-hand smoke, and... (2, Interesting)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862052)

addiction... while nicotine is not that dangerous on its own, it is still hellishly addictive.

Re:I dislike second-hand smoke, and... (4, Funny)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862090)

addiction... while nicotine is not that dangerous on its own, it is still hellishly addictive.

And slashdot isn't?

Re:I dislike second-hand smoke, and... (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862364)

so what? addiction is only a problem if it affects other parts of your life negatively.

Re:I dislike second-hand smoke, and... (1)

BKX (5066) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862218)

Exactly. In fact, I rather enjoy nicotine gum, and buy it occasionally just for the enjoyment. (I'm being serious.) Although nowadays I do tend to use snus instead, as it's cheaper and tastes better.

Same old. (1, Insightful)

Darth Hamsy (1432187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31861974)

The moment drugs are being discussed, logic, sense and reason dissapear. And we're suprised every time.

It's the usual (3, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862000)

People who derive gratification from telling others what to do and what is good for them. They always have a convoluted explanation, but it always comes down to others having to adapt to busybody's choices.

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
John Stuart Mill

I am not a smoker.

Re:It's the usual (3, Insightful)

Zorque (894011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862118)

Or maybe it's people who are fed up with an unhealthy society and having to pay for the mistakes of idiots who ruin their bodies with no regards to the larger picture.

Re:It's the usual (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862244)

And there you go...

You are making the choice to pay for the mistakes of idiots, now you want someone else to be compelled by your decision.

Re:It's the usual (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862344)

Or maybe it's people who are fed up with an unhealthy society and having to pay for the mistakes of idiots who ruin their bodies with no regards to the larger picture.

So get rid of the nanny/welfare state that tries to take care of us from cradle to grave and force people to live with the consequences of their choices. Problem solved.

howzabout a ban on stupidity instead? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862004)

through sterilization

Not to be a grammar Nazi (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862010)

Wouldn't that be "electrical cigarettes"? Those things don't have transistors in them, do they?

Answer (1, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862026)

Are lives and lung health the real issue here or is nicotine addiction?

Who said it's rational and not just a "I don't like cigarette smoke, therefore anything related to that is bad" reaction?

healthier??? (4, Insightful)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862080)

No, it isn't. It is just less harmful.
If you don't know the difference, probably you say a gunshot wound is healthier than stepping on a landmine.

Re:healthier??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862272)

A gunshot wound is healthier than stepping on a land mine. If you don't know the difference, perhaps you should try them out.

Re:healthier??? (2, Insightful)

seebs (15766) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862288)

Uh, yeah, yeah it is.

Less harmful and healthier do in fact mean the same thing, in the context of harm to human bodies.

You're more likely to survive a gunshot wound than a landmine, in general. That's pretty much what "healthier" means. It doesn't mean "overall makes you live longer than you would without it", it means "overall makes you live longer than you would with the specific alternative being compared".

Re:healthier??? (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862378)

^^^^^^^^^^^^
citation needed

The E-cigs aren't exactly GOOD for your lungs... (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862086)

While they may be less bad than traditional smoked tobacco, they still aren't good for your lungs. Our lungs are, after all, living tissue that is tasked with gas exchange. That is a fairly complicated job to begin with, and if you start intoducting airborne solids into the mixture you are only making the job that much more difficult.

So while the rest of the toxic crap that is added to cigarettes (much of it to keep them burning) might not be present, the inhaled mixture itself isn't good for your lungs regardless. So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.

Re:The E-cigs aren't exactly GOOD for your lungs.. (4, Insightful)

Rantastic (583764) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862136)

So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.

So we should ban E-Cigs, but not the "more" bad regular kind?

Re:The E-cigs aren't exactly GOOD for your lungs.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862324)

The regular kind has powerful lobbies behind it...

Think of this as an invasion of evil robot cigarettes, and it should be obvious that you must fight.

Re:The E-cigs aren't exactly GOOD for your lungs.. (1)

seebs (15766) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862208)

So they shouldn't be banned unless cigarettes are banned too.

It's ridiculous to say that a less-harmful thing can't be allowed while the more-harmful thing is allowed. These things exist only to let cigarette smokers stop inhaling smoke. They're a step forwards.

Re:The E-cigs aren't exactly GOOD for your lungs.. (2, Interesting)

L3370 (1421413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862310)

What is in the inhaled mixture of an e-cig other than the nicotine? Anyone know by chance?

Re:The E-cigs aren't exactly GOOD for your lungs.. (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862362)

While they may be less bad than traditional smoked tobacco, they still aren't good for your lungs

Citation please.

Infernal devices (0, Troll)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862092)

If they were not the delivery devices for addictive drugs then they would be illegal.

Many states have laws against carrying "infernal devices" in public that belch smoke, stink, and otherwise create unpleasantness.

I gotta say those e-cigs smell pretty darned nasty. Have you ever smelled one?

Re:Infernal devices (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862186)

Many states have laws against carrying "infernal devices" in public that belch smoke, stink, and otherwise create unpleasantness.

No real reason to ban the carrying of them; Harleys are too heavy for most people to even lift on their own.

Re:Infernal devices (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862256)

What? You can't even smell the vapor that comes out.

Or do you mean you stuck your nose in the nicotine fluid chamber?

Re:Infernal devices (0, Troll)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862356)

I saw a demonstration at the local shopping mall. You could smell the stink everywhere in the whole mall. It was borderline intolerable on the balcony right above the kiosk where the demonstration was going on.

ALA is being a fool (2, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862128)

I occasionally smoke cigarettes (we're talking a few times a month). They're horrible for your lungs, full of tar, and your lungs work like a sponge. Ask a smoking friend to see their cigarette when they're done and look at the filter.

The less people who smoke cigarettes, the better. It's terrible for them, but it's also bad for people around them inhaling the smoke. Good riddance.

But these e-cigarettes are nicotine and some flavoring, with a battery vaporizer. Now, nicotine's not harmless in the slightest - it is, in fact, rat poison. But nicotine alone vs. nicotine, tar, formaldehyde, etc... all in one package - it doesn't take a genius to figure out which you should be encouraging people to use.

Most smokers I know are acutely aware of how bad it is for them (actually, most are medical professionals of some sort). Some of them want to stop and can't, and some of them just don't care. But they know it's bad, they're not in denial about it. The people I hang out tend to be well educated about this sort of stuff, but many aren't. If the ALA were to come out and say "hey guys, smoke this instead! same great effects, no tar, woohoo... vastly vastly reduced risk of cancer" well they'd probably switch.

In fact, straight nicotine basically doesn't affect the lungs - it'll mess up your arteries and brain, but largely ignore your lungs. <conspiracy_theory>Maybe they're worried about being put out of business</conspiracy_theory>

They're decent... (2, Interesting)

seebs (15766) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862156)

Beloved Spouse has been using these. They smell less bad, they're not as bad for you, and they make it a lot easier to taper down nicotine to get rid of it -- without taking away the fidget. Seems like a great idea, and I am pretty sure the only reason to ban them is that they could result in many people ceasing to use the pure-cancer form of nicotine delivery.

One caveat, though, the cartridges don't seem to last NEARLY as long as advertised. Still cheaper that traditional cigs.

Philip Morris (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862168)

Why do I get the feeling Philip Morris USA has already bought and paid for the American Lung Association?

Delivery method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862198)

Patches, I assume, provide nicotine via dermal penetration. Gum provides it via absorption in the GI tract. Wouldn't vaporized nicotine basically hit the throat and be swallowed?

Do Androids Dream of Electric Spliff? (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862222)

Rachel: "Do you mind if I smoke electronic cigarettes?"

Decker: "It won't affect the test. Give me a hit."

What's the author's agenda? (4, Interesting)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862232)

The author is attacking the American Lung Association for their agenda. But what's the author's agenda?

Quoting from her bio on the site: Kristin Noll-Marsh is a charter member of the board of directors of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA), Vapers International and a member of the Vaper's Coalition, a cooperation of organizations working to encourage the use and understanding of smoke-free alternatives. She receives no funding (directly or indirectly) from tobacco, drug or e-cigarette companies or trade assocations.

Do you honestly believe that those organizations listed do not receive substantial sponsorshipf from e-cigarette companies and affiliated interests?

Re:What's the author's agenda? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862384)

The author is attacking the American Lung Association for their agenda. But what's the author's agenda?

The author is attacking the ALA's stupid push to ban a healthier, workable alternative that would save countless lives.

The author is citing the ALA's agenda (i.e., $ SOURCES) as an obvious reason why.

a question to ask slashdot smokers (2, Insightful)

splatter (39844) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862234)

I'm an ex-smoker (yeah yeah I know reformed whore), & have switched to using a vaporizer for my fine herbals. I rarely smoke anymore, but now have realized I have no means of partaking outside my home without going back to old ways.

What electronic cigs have you used for a mid priced unit & what if any manufacturer would you recommend or stay away from?

Thanks

'Anti-nicotine' is simple 'competition' (3, Interesting)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#31862286)

We're witnessing, in our own time, a version of the 'Edison DC'/'Tesla AC' debate. Except there's more law and fewer dead elephants.

In the one corner, tobacco. Long-known, home-grown, proven mood-adjuster. People can self-medicate throughout their normal day by taking what's known as a 'smoke break', as little or as often as necessary. There are no debilitating effects, like with alcohol or marijuana, that otherwise interfere with your daily life. It is messy, yes, but quite effective and relatively cheap (before taxes).

In the other corner, prescription drugs. Little pills exist for every problem. Your doctor tells you how many to take, and your pharmacy tells you how much it costs. When they don't work quite well enough, go back to the doc and get some more. Eventually you'll need a box with seven compartments to keep it all straight, but you might just wind up feeling exactly the way you want, all the time. Look at Chantix, for example. One-for-one transition with that one: nicotine to prescriptions.

Now ask yourself, who staffs the ALA? Who makes their policy decisions? Lay persons, or medical industry types?

Occam's Razor applies here. Unless you really think that it makes MORE sense that the ALA has collectively taken leave of its senses.

Nicotine is NOT safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862338)

Nicotine causes significant circulatory problems.

And nicotine addiction is far, far stronger than caffeine addiction--comparable cocaine addiction.

YOaU FAIL IT?! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31862354)

morning. Now I have Play area Try not Take a llok at the the problems That suuports fear the reaper to have to decide if you don't achievements that officers. Others
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...