Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Medicine Technology

American Lung Association Pushes For Ban On Electronic Cigarettes 790

Posted by timothy
from the pursuit-of-absolute-safety-on-paper dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

American Lung Association Pushes For Ban On Electronic Cigarettes

Comments Filter:
  • Good article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:33PM (#31861910) Homepage Journal

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

  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:34PM (#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).

  • by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:35PM (#31861934) Homepage

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

  • Nicotine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gregben (844056) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:37PM (#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.

  • by Last_Available_Usern (756093) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:37PM (#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.
  • by Delusion_ (56114) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:37PM (#31861972) Homepage

    ...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?

  • Same old. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Darth Hamsy (1432187) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:37PM (#31861974)
    The moment drugs are being discussed, logic, sense and reason dissapear. And we're suprised every time.
  • It's the usual (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tokolosh (1256448) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:38PM (#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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:39PM (#31862010)

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

  • by Microlith (54737) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:39PM (#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.)

  • by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:39PM (#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.

  • Answer (Score:2, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:40PM (#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?

  • by stonewallred (1465497) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:40PM (#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:Nicotine (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:41PM (#31862056)

    Nicotine is far from harmless.

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

  • Re:Good article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lorenlal (164133) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:41PM (#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?

  • healthier??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by someone1234 (830754) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:43PM (#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:Good article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord Ender (156273) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:43PM (#31862084) Homepage

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

  • 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:44PM (#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:It's the usual (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zorque (894011) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:45PM (#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.

  • by WinterSolstice (223271) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:45PM (#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.

  • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:46PM (#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.

  • by slimjim8094 (941042) <slashdot3@justco ... et minus painter> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:46PM (#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>

  • Re:Good article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blair1q (305137) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:46PM (#31862132) Journal

    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.

  • by Rantastic (583764) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:46PM (#31862136) Journal

    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?

  • Philip Morris (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:47PM (#31862168)
    Why do I get the feeling Philip Morris USA has already bought and paid for the American Lung Association?
  • Re:Good article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mog007 (677810) <Mog007.gmail@com> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:47PM (#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.

  • Re:Good article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:48PM (#31862194) Journal

    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.

  • by splatter (39844) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:50PM (#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

  • Re:healthier??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by seebs (15766) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:52PM (#31862288) Homepage

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

    by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:55PM (#31862344) Journal

    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.

  • Re:Good article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjames (1099) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:57PM (#31862382) Homepage

    It's hard to say, but considering that they want to eliminate a device which clearly causes less harm (and may cause NO harm) so that people RETURN TO SMOKING, clearly they have abandoned the promotion of lung health. My guess is that their new agenda is "keep the cash coming in". All else is secondary.

  • by quadrox (1174915) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @02:58PM (#31862410)

    I can completely follow your reasoning until right up in the end. I think it's only fair that you are not allowed to bother other people with your smoke. If you want to smoke in private or with only other smokers present, by all means. But don't do it anywhere where I have to inhale it.

  • by codepunk (167897) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:03PM (#31862498)

    Nicotine suspended in Polyproplene Glycol, or Vegetable Glycerine. Checking these two out you will find that not only are they safe but where considered in the past for vaporizing into the air within hospitals to make the environment safer.

  • Re:Good article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dekemoose (699264) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:08PM (#31862582)

    Same as most bureaucracies, their agenda is the continuance of the bureaucracy. Organizations like this have a tendency to take on a life of their own and as their goals become closer to being achieved they need to expand their scope to ensure there is still a reason for their existence.

  • Re:It's the usual (Score:5, Insightful)

    by corbettw (214229) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `wttebroc'> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:08PM (#31862586) Journal

    A rational response to not wanting to pay for other people's mistakes is to set up a system where you don't pay for other people's mistakes, not try to legislate those mistakes out of existence. If smokers were prevented from taking part in public health plans like Medicare I think you'd see a lot less smokers out there...in about a generation or so after the first batch died off.

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

    by tibman (623933) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:09PM (#31862614) Homepage

    Maybe, but i think that's the wrong fix.

    In my mind, if you smoke.. you just ticked the "I don't want lung coverage" option on your health program. Just like if you drink heavy, you just signed a statement saying "I opt out of a replacement liver should mine prematurely fail."

    Is my view ok? If not, i will join you.. but that might be a bad thing. If i see an overweight person in line at McD's i'll feel compelled to smack the sack of burgers out of his hands and yell at them.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:10PM (#31862650)

    That's not flamebait, it's human natue. Like all other self-righteous do-gooders and cause-sellers who want to tell you how to live your life, the ALA wants you to do it THEIR WAY and their way ONLY.

    Also, an environmentalist doesn't want you to just pick any old way to reduce carbon (i.e. clean coal, hyrdro-electric, nuclear), they want you to pick THEIR chosen ways of doing it (wind and solar) and those ONLY.

    Also, a bible-thumper doesn't want you to come to Jesus just any old way, they want you to do it through THEIR particular sect or denomination and theirs ONLY.

    etc.

  • Re:It's the usual (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjames (1099) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:10PM (#31862652) Homepage

    That one went out the window years ago. The big tobacco settlements and the exorbitant taxes on cigarettes are supposedly to pay for the health costs associated with smoking. It's not the smoker's fault that 97% of that has been misappropriated for other uses.

    Then there's the lack of an explanation for why the ALA and company wouldn't be pushing for 100% of smokers to switch TO e-cigs given that they avoid exposure to practically everything in cigarettes that has been shown to be harmful if they do so.

  • Demonstrably FALSE (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Heed00 (1473203) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:12PM (#31862690)
    I used an e-cig to quit tobacco completely -- day one. Eight months later I was still using an e-cig but had cut out nicotine completely. Twelve months later I had stopped using an e-cig at all. It's now been four months since I put down the e-cig for the last time.

    There are lots of ways to quit -- the cold turkey argument holds no water. It's just the kind of thing that gets bandied about when cigarette smoking and quitting gets mentioned -- it's a meme.

    Furthermore, harm reduction is a perfectly rational and useful goal to pursue -- if people don't want to or can't quit, then providing them with options which reduce the harm they do to themselves should be promoted and not decried. There's really very little harm is using nicotine responsibly and if people choose to do so it's really nobody else's business. In the same way it's nobody else's business if someone chooses to use caffeine, for example.
  • by zzsmirkzz (974536) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:12PM (#31862692)

    Now, nicotine's not harmless in the slightest - it is, in fact, rat poison.

    No, it is not. In large doses it could kill a rat, just as in large enough doses it could kill a human. But the same goes for salt, so not a good/valid argument.

    Rat poisons are typically anti-coagulants which reduce the rats ability to create blood clots and they eventually bleed out and die.

  • by log0n (18224) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:14PM (#31862726)

    I'm onboard with the bans on public smoking/second hand smoke. SH smoke can't be controlled, it can't be avoided and is largely forced on to other people. While I doubt smokers intend it, forcing SH smoke is really a selfish act that is detrimental to society at large. It's forcing others to accept your choice.

    But if you want to smoke, full speed ahead! You do want you want with my blessing.

    This thinking on banning electronic cigarrettes seems to be similar to a lot of the logic that goes on in pushing for more outlawing of thought crime. Nothing's taking place that is harming anyone whatsoever (even the smoker) but someone somewhere deems it wrong or immoral or whatever. We should have the right to kill ourselves in anyway we desire so long as there is no direct or indirect (to a couple of levels) harm to other people.

    Going on a rant.. but I really hate our backwards false-puritanical society. Religion, god, faith, allah, $other_diety$.. it's all a crock of mind-control horseshit.

  • by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:15PM (#31862750) Journal

    This is a philosophical battle. Some people believe abstinence is the only answer to addiction, while others think addiction isn't the problem, it is the harm addiction causes that is the problem. To the first group, devices like this are insidious evils which corrupt the innocent with the promise of harm free drug use. To which the second group usually responds with something along the lines of, "LOLwhat? Without harm, what's the fucking problem, you tightass sonsabitches?" It is basically a battle between the Puritan ideal that all pleasures of the flesh are bad, wrong, and evil, and the not so crazy idea that harm is bad while pleasure is good.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:15PM (#31862754)
    You cool with me legislating how you can live your life too, or is your way the only right one?
  • Re:Good article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:16PM (#31862780)

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

    Their agenda is to acquire the funding to pay their salaries. Promoting lung health is only their excuse to get people to part with their money. If all the lung problems they currently work against were to be cured tomorrow they would find some other reason to ask for people's money. The ALA has done (and continues to do) a lot of really good work, but as eventually happens to most organizations its primary goal has become self-perpetuation.

  • Re:healthier? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:19PM (#31862844) Journal
    From an epidemiological perspective, the perfect-but-difficult solution almost certainly saves far-fewer man years of life than does the merely-ok-but-easy solution.

    The quit rate for nicotine sucks. Nicotine is just that addictive. It just isn't that harmful, though, so that isn't a huge deal. If you can skip the hard problem of getting somebody off nicotine, and attack the (much easier) problem of just getting them to use a delivery method that won't kill them and piss off everyone around them, you get 80% of the gains for 20% of the effort. A classic good outcome.
  • by Korin43 (881732) * on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:23PM (#31862916) Homepage
    I think it's completely fair to bother people with your smoke if they choose to allow it in their establishment. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. (note: I don't smoke)
  • by Firethorn (177587) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:25PM (#31862958) Homepage Journal

    'Nobody knows what the consumers are actually inhaling,' says Erika Sward, director of national advocacy at the American Lung Association."

    Wouldn't it take the mythbusters around 5 minutes to come up with a gadget to get you an air sample? Feed it to a mass spectrometer and you have your list.

    I'd push for testing before pushing for a ban, personally.

    But does that argument has any legal basis? People are assuming these are safe; if it turns out otherwise, there could be a lot of upset. We could blame individuals for assuming they're safe without proof, but did you feel like you were going out on a limb when you asserted "no serious health consequences"?

    Given the circumstances, all I personally ask for is that it's settled that they're statistically safer than cigarettes. The next step would be to make sure they're as safe as such a nicotine delivery method can realistically be. If they're a couple orders of magnitude safer, why the heck wouldn't we allow them?

  • Re:Hey retard (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Microlith (54737) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:31PM (#31863070)

    Hey retard,

    Read the post I was replying to, which was pretty obviously referring to cigarettes themselves.

  • Re:Good article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:35PM (#31863132)

    Actually, many of us don't like the idea of ANY interest group, corporation, religious zealot, etc. forcing their lifestyle on us. There is always some causenik out there that wants the government to force everyone to do this or that, whether it's a Mormon telling me what kind of beer I can drink, to some environmentalist who wants to force me to use a crappy low-flow toilet (no pun intended), to some corporation who wants my tax dollars going into a sweetheart deal for them. Everyone thinks they've got it right, and that gives them to right to make me do it their way too.

    It's like grandpappy used to say "Kid, if you ever want to see everyone in the world all at once, just yell out 'Will everyone who thinks they're doing it better than I am please come here'."

  • Re:Good article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:39PM (#31863230) Journal

    And that is a problem, how, exactly? It's not like people are becoming addicted to nicotine through second hand inhalation, even with regular cigarettes.

  • by zzsmirkzz (974536) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:44PM (#31863322)
    I didn't say he should leave or be shot for saying it. I said that he should be for believing it ;). This belief goes against the very grain of freedom this country was founded and based on and for that fact alone, this person would be better suited in place that doesn't believe in freedom. One bad apple spoils the bunch and this country has lots of them (enemies of freedom) lying around....
  • Re:Good article (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:45PM (#31863338)

    "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
    of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
    under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
    The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
    at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
    will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
    of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis

  • Re:Good article (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:46PM (#31863346)

    but take offense at mere suggestions from people trying to look out for them

    The summary uses the word "ban," instead of talking about people giving "suggestions" or people "looking out" for others. As soon as you hold a gun to someone's head, it's kind of silly to say you're trying to help them.

  • Re:Good article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:48PM (#31863380) Journal

    Living in a society requires compromise. Freedom, in fact, is always a trade off. We trade a freedom we don't desire, like the freedom to punch someone in the nose, for a freedom we do desire, like freedom from being punched.

    A Mormon telling you what beer to drink is not, in fact, impacted by your decision. But I am impacted by your decision to waste a scarce natural resource, or to pollute. I should have a say when people's actions impact me, and people should take responsibility for their actions, such as polluting, or wasting water.

    Freedom is far more complicated than asserting "You're not the boss of me!" We have an interdependent society. We aren't hunter-gatherers anymore, we require society in order to function. Living with others in an interdependent relationship is complicated, as any married person knows, but it is necessary these days, and so it is necessary to let others tell us what to do. In exchange, we get a say in what they do.

    If you don't want people telling you what to do, there is a simple solution: don't live in a society. Go be a hermit somewhere. That's the only legitimate way to not be told what to do. Otherwise, you are essentially saying that you want to make demands on others, but refuse to let them make demands on you.

  • Agenda? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DesScorp (410532) <.DesScorp. .at. .Gmail.com.> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:53PM (#31863450) Homepage Journal

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

    When their agenda includes banning a legal product because they think it sends the wrong message, then they've crossed the line. They've done noble work over the years, but they're becoming as bad as those fools from the Center For Science In The Public Interest. If you want to convince someone to change habits, more power to them. If you're trying to ban a legal product because, well, you just know what's good for them, then ALA can go pound sand.

    Note: I don't even smoke. Never have. But ALA is just being a nannying busybody here.

  • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:53PM (#31863462) Journal
    I don't smoke, BUT I do advocate smoking LESS if you do smoke. Wind down with a pipe at the end of the day, on GOOD tobacco. It's less toxic and it's less of it. Or roll your own cigarettes... your choice of rolling paper, but be aware that burns and a pipe doesn't.
  • Re:Good article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by profplump (309017) <zach-slashjunk@kotlarek.com> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:03PM (#31863590)

    And obviously the road to improvement is to ban the progress we've made so far and hold out for the yet-to-come perfect solution in the future.

  • by idontgno (624372) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:07PM (#31863650) Journal

    Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

    -- H. L. Mencken

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:35PM (#31864066)

    Now, nicotine's not harmless in the slightest - it is, in fact, rat poison.

    News flash: anything with a very low LD50 makes a great poison. That doesn't make it harmful in small amounts.

  • Re:Good article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:45PM (#31864216) Journal

    We do make social decisions about the nose, that's exactly my point. Without the social decision, we do not have rights. We either have, or lack, power. We either have the power to stop our nose form being hit, or we don't. To speak of rights without society is meaningless. Rights derive from contracts agreed to by individuals who collectively form society. Interdependence does not mean one person giving another orders. That is called dependence, and is a childish way to look at relationships. Society, and relationships are about acceptable compromises. Your reductio ad absurdum is actually a poorly constructed straw man that has nothing to do with my original argument, but thanks for trying.

    I'll say it again: freedom is more complicated than "you're not the boss of me." See my sig.

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

    by theantipop (803016) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:54PM (#31864358)
    Right after fast food and pre-packaged food eaters are also prevented from taking part in public health care plans. Heart disease and complications from a life of eating crap food cost our society magnitudes more than smoking.

    Point is, do you really believe you can run around punishing everyone who does something unhealthy or undesirable?
  • Re:It's the usual (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Smauler (915644) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:56PM (#31864378)

    Yep, that'd be fair. Well, that is unless smokers weren't already taxed on their habit. Wait, how many billions do smokers contribute again? Way more than they use on healthcare?

    Go look at the figures and one you realise how much smokers are actually subsidising plans like medicare you may have a different opinion.

  • This is ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dynamo (6127) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @05:26PM (#31864788) Journal

    Vaporizers are a whole lot healthier when comparing with smoking for medical marijuana, there's no reason they shouldn't be much healthier with tobacco also. The ALA looks pretty stupid here, a couple more moves like this and they'll seem as intelligent as those 'birthers' who refuse to believe Hawaii officials about who was born there.

  • by zzsmirkzz (974536) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @05:29PM (#31864812)

    So, in the world regarding to zzsmirkzz, people ought to be shot for *believing* something.

    No, in the world regarding to zzsmirkzz, people ought to be shot for trying to foist their beliefs onto others. If he does not want HFCS that is his choice, and he has the tools necessary to make that choice for himself. He can even get on a podium and convince others that they should also go along with his choice. But this isn't good enough for him, he wants to make the choice for you and deny you your right to choose for yourself. People who are intolerant of the right of others to make their own choices are enemies of freedom. I, for one, will fight to the death to protect my freedom from these enemies.

    or, the smiley face could of meant I was joking.... ;)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 15, 2010 @05:37PM (#31864900)

    People like the GP poster are the reason progressives are allowed to remain in power.

    We need more people like him, then.

  • Re:Good article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KiloByte (825081) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @06:42PM (#31865668)

    Rule 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.
    -- "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates"

  • by Alcoholist (160427) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @07:46PM (#31866288) Homepage

    You only need to look at my nic to know what side of the fence I'm going to come down on. Still:

    "They will then proceed to abuse their prescriptions (people do this already with prescription meds) to get high... well, higher." As you said, this is happening now. Good luck in trying to reverse it. I remember reading somewhere that 15% of the adult Western World is talking some form of anti-depressant. So that means that 15% of the adult Western World are legal drug addicts. But doctors prescribe those drugs, don't they?

    "In wine there is truth," the old Roman proverb says. For some, it might actually be a healthy activity. People like getting out of their heads sometimes. It has been happening for thousands of years and the world hasn't been destroyed yet.

  • Re:Good article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geminidomino (614729) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @07:53PM (#31866370) Journal

    That people can ingest things harmful to themselves is hardly unusual or worth the government's time to stop.

    The War on Drugs sees what you did there...

  • by Anarki2004 (1652007) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @10:34PM (#31867586) Homepage Journal
    because that works so well for pot, crack, cocaine, ecstacy, etc, ad infinitum
  • Re:Good article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mikael_j (106439) on Friday April 16, 2010 @01:23AM (#31868432)

    If I were you I'd be more worried about other sources of "secondhand vapors", like car exhaust, than I would be of accidentally inhaling a little nicotine.

  • Re:Good article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday April 16, 2010 @03:36PM (#31876812) Homepage Journal

    The March of Dimes was started to eradicate polio, and polio is now gone. But the March of Dimes isn't.

Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.

Working...