American Lung Association Pushes For Ban On Electronic Cigarettes

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."

Re:Nicotine

[Stradenko]

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

Re:I dislike second-hand smoke, and...

[BobMcD]

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

And slashdot isn't?

Do Androids Dream of Electric Spliff?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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

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

Ban this!

[mswhippingboy]

How about we ban organizations that propose bans!

Apple launches iCig

[bugs2squash]

but you can't replace the battery and the EULA stipulates you have to wear black while smoking it.

Re:Good article

[Anonymous Coward]

it's negligible. You'd get more toxins from your friend's fart

Re:The entire concept is mistaken

[Hatta]

You can shove that standard straight up your ass, because it's none of your damn business what these people choose to put in their bodies.

Something about that statement strikes me as contradictory.