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This discussion has been archived.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 @03:33PM (#31861910) Homepage Journal

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

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

      by butterflysrage (1066514) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:39PM (#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 (Score:4, Informative)

        by KahabutDieDrake (1515139) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @07:45PM (#31865720)
        Ecigs don't have SMOKE at all. So there is NO second hand smoke. The "smoke" effect you see from an Ecig is in fact vapor, and not smoke. In fact it is (depending on the source mix) mostly water vapor. It is in fact entirely harmless to any bystander.

        The term personal vaporizor is used a lot. But that tends to make people think of smoke, and there isn't any. Nothing is burned in an Ecig. Instead an element is heated and the liquid nicotine substance is turned to vapor, inhaled and never exhaled significantly. There are almost none of the chemicals found in tobacco, and it's nearly impossible with current ecigs to OD on nicotine (something you probably can't do with tobacco, but could with liquid nicotine substances).

        Frankly this whole thing stinks of a ploy by the tobacco industry to maintain dominance in a field where technology and innovation are about to crush them. That, or keep the tax revenue up... or both.
    • Re:Good article (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lord Ender (156273) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:43PM (#31862084) Homepage

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

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

        by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:48PM (#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.

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

        by sjames (1099) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:57PM (#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 spun (1352) <(moc.oohay) (ta) (yranoituloverevol)> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:15PM (#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 idontgno (624372) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @05:07PM (#31863650) Journal

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

            -- H. L. Mencken

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

        by dekemoose (699264) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:08PM (#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:Good article (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:16PM (#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.

      • Agenda? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DesScorp (410532) <DesScorp.Gmail@com> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:53PM (#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.

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

      by mog007 (677810) <Mog007@gmai l . c om> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:47PM (#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.

    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      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 th

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by PitaBred (632671)

      Same with MADD. That's why the founders quit.

  • by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:35PM (#31861934) Homepage

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

    • by Microlith (54737) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:39PM (#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 MaWeiTao (908546) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:46PM (#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.

    • 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 faste

    • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:53PM (#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.
  • Nicotine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gregben (844056) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:37PM (#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 @03:37PM (#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 @03:37PM (#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?

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

    by Tokolosh (1256448) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:38PM (#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.

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

      by Zorque (894011) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:45PM (#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.

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

        by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:55PM (#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:It's the usual (Score:5, Insightful)

        by corbettw (214229) <corbettw@noSpAm.yahoo.com> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:08PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by theantipop (803016)
          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 @05:56PM (#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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tibman (623933)

        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.

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

        by sjames (1099) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:10PM (#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.

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

    by someone1234 (830754) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:43PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by seebs (15766)

      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".

  • 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 Rantastic (583764) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:46PM (#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?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        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?

        I suspect it is, at least in part, a case of them picking their battles. It is easier to stop a new product than kill an existing one; and if their interest is in lung health they should take action against things that are bad for lung health. They likely realize that there is no chance in hell of pulling off a full bad on regular cigarettes - at least not with a pro-business government - so they might as well put energy into something they might be able to get some traction on.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by L3370 (1421413)
      What is in the inhaled mixture of an e-cig other than the nicotine? Anyone know by chance?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by KlomDark (6370)

      eCigs have about 1/1000th the health risk of a normal cigarette. Somehow moving society forward to a far less harmful way to maintain a nicotine addiction is a bad thing? Sure, addiction is bad, but dying of cancer is a lot worse. This is a way to significantly avoid cancer. It's completely antithetical to the ALA's stated purpose to be against these.

      I think the ALA is just pissed cause they aren't going to be able to continue their free ride where they are funded by a cut of cigarette taxes. Of course they

  • by slimjim8094 (941042) <slashdot3@justconnected . n et> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:46PM (#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>

  • They're decent... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by seebs (15766) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:47PM (#31862156) Homepage

    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.

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:49PM (#31862222)

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

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

  • by nweaver (113078) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:50PM (#31862232) Homepage

    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?

    • by sjames (1099) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:25PM (#31862956) Homepage

      For the most part, 'e-cigarette companies' are monNpop operations importing the hardware from China. There ARE no big e-cig companies. The afilliated interests are primarily individuals who have switched from smoking to e-cigs and don't want bans to push them back to burning tobacco.

      The pharmaceutical and tobacco companies are against them because they cut into their profits.

  • by splatter (39844) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:50PM (#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

  • by BobMcD (601576) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @03:52PM (#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.

  • Call them! (Score:5, Informative)

    by spikesahead (111032) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:06PM (#31862558)

    I just called my local branch of the ALA and it turns out this article is mostly scaremongering.

    As it was described to me they are pushing for two things currently;

    Prohibit the sale to those under the age of 18.
    and
    Investigate the safety of the ingredients.

    They're not trying to blindly take away your e-cigs, they're pressing for things that are actually rather reasonable. The person I spoke to stated that they are NOT pushing for a blanket ban, only a request for testing with decisions to be made after official, legitimate research has taken place.

    Seeing as how I want an ingredients list and some sort of quality control on the stuff I'm puffing on right now, this is directly in line with my own interests as an e-cigarette user.

  • Great for Cannabis (Score:4, Informative)

    by future assassin (639396) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:11PM (#31862664) Homepage
    and it produces NO weed smell when you smoke weed with the electronic cigarette but the filament burns out quickly and the device doesn't last long. Haven't tried it with oil yet.
  • by log0n (18224) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:14PM (#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 Pareto Efficient (1622141) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:14PM (#31862742)

    FDA smoke screen on e-cigarettes
    by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan

    Dr. Elizabeth Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/06/fda-smoke-screen-on-e-cigarettes/ [washingtontimes.com]

    "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a press conference late last month to scare Americans about the so-called "e-cigarette" -- claiming it was loaded with harmful "toxins" and "carcinogens." The agency was implicitly saying: Stay away from these newfangled, untested cigarette substitutes -- better to stick with the real ones, the ones that we are more familiar with, the ones that cause over 450,000 deaths annually in the U.S.

    In making its distorted, incomplete and misleading statement, FDA was violating its long-cherished tradition of sticking to sound science as the basis for its policies. And in doing so, it is putting the lives and health of millions of Americans at risk."

    The FDA has shown E-Cigarettes to be less likely to cause cancer than even nicotine gum based on nitrosamine content.

    FDA report on nitrosamine content of cigarettes, Nicotine replacements and E-Cigs
    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf [fda.gov]

    Canadian report on nitrosamine levels in commercial cigarettes
    http://smoke-vs-vapor.webs.com/Canadian%20Cigarette%20Data%202004.ods [webs.com]

    Website that has compiled data and presented a table of the data for quick viewing
    http://smoke-vs-vapor.webs.com/nitrosaminelevels.htm [webs.com]

  • Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rakishi (759894) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:24PM (#31862930)

    The ALA can go fuck itself. E-cigs are from what I've noticed the single best way to quit smoking and apparently the ALA doesn't want people to actually quit smoking. Patches and all that jazz don't work so I wonder how much ALA funding is coming from the makers of those.

    It's quite clear there's more to a cigarette addiction than just a nicotine addiction. Patches and all that crap barely work for that very reason.

    I know a lot of people who have tried to quit for years or decades without much success. Then they tried e-cigs and after a while they don't smoke at all anymore or at most once a week. Quite a few have even stopped smoking e-cigs as well. If I remember studies show the success rate to be absurdly better than any other approach.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MobyDisk (75490)

      The problem is that the e-cig manufacturers are distributing a drug without having gone through the FDA process. They can sell them if they want, but they have to go through the proper channels just like everyone else.

      The manufacturers are taking advantage of the fact that nobody really knows what is inside these things. I can only assume that they figured no one would stop them from selling a nicotine product if they made it look like a novelty and sold it in mall kiosks. But the FDA did notice. If the

  • by bugs2squash (1132591) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @04:47PM (#31863362)
    but you can't replace the battery and the EULA stipulates you have to wear black while smoking it.
  • This is ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dynamo (6127) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @06:26PM (#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.

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure

Working...