Slashdot Mirror


Battery-powered Cigarettes?

Roland Piquepaille writes "According to Ananova, a Swiss company has developed a totally new type of smoke-free cigarette. You will be able to use it in non-smoking restaurants, and even in airplanes -- if you care for nicotine. But the PRAVDA, from Russia, adds that the product is far from perfect. It looks like a cigarette, it's used as a cigarette, but it's not a cigarette at all. Each pseudo-cigarette consists of a replaceable 'filter' containing the nicotine, and a heating element working on a battery, recharged by the 'pack' of cigarettes. The company, NicStic, says its product is good for smokers because it doesn't contain any tar, and for non-smokers, because there is obviously not passive smoking effect. It plans to introduce the product in Germany in about a year for a price similar as normal cigarettes. This overview contains more details about this pseudo-cigarette which might be sold in the U.S. in the near future."

608 comments

  1. uhh... by patrick.whitlock · · Score: 5, Informative

    don't they already have a nic. inhaler? called nicotrol, if im not mistaken

    1. Re:uhh... by Viceman001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, it's nicotrol. I tried it when I quit. They were okay, but I think the added 'heating' would give a much better effect, simulating hot smoke. Mmmm, makes me want one now.....

      --
      "It's not the despair, I can take the despair, it's the hope that's killing me!"
    2. Re:uhh... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      don't they already have a nic. inhaler? called nicotrol, if im not mistaken

      Some people find they have to occupy their fingers and mouth when they stop smoking (why some chew gum, I guess.)

      Keep in mind this is in Suisse and Deutschland, where I personally have no idea what's over the counter vs. prescription.

      Nicotine inhalers made cheap and widely available may turn non-smokers into nicotine addicts (which would help move product, right?) Where smoking burning leaves probably has some limiting factor on how much nicotine you get in your blood, you could probably really work yourself over with these things without turning green from too much smoke or passing out from CO and CO2.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:uhh... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Conceivably a non-smoker could pick up a nicotine inhaler, but they're a LOT more expensive than cigarettes, about a buck a dose. Where I live you can get 20 cigarettes for four bucks, or about 20 cents a piece. Even in New York City with its massive taxes it's still less than half what a nic stick would cost.

      That's with the taxes, which are designed partly to keep you from smoking (and to pay for the ugly effects after you do.) I assume that the nicotrol sticks don't suffer from that tax effect. If it weren't for that, cigarettes would cost even less, less than half as much in most places. It's just leaves wrapped up in paper.

      So if you're interested in picking up a nicotine habit I'd recommend just getting over the difficulty of breathing burning leaves. Once you get used to it you can suck down a lot of nicotine-laden smoke very quickly.

      (This is all based on observation. I don't touch the things myself; never have. The last thing I need is an addiction.)

    4. Re:uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last thing I need is an addiction.

      Because once you've got an addiction you don't need anything else. :-)

      It's been 16 months now, and I so miss it. Lovely lovely nicotine.

    5. Re:uhh... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      Some years back the US tobacco companies dumped millions into research on a non-smoke smoke. It was just like this product when they finished. I think it was Brown and Williams that did the final package. It worked just like described except one little problem.... it tasted like sh*t. Literally! It actually tasted like you had rolled up a pasture pastry to puff on. For some reason it never made it to market...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    6. Re:uhh... by krygny · · Score: 4, Funny

      ..."it tasted like sh*t. Literally!"...

      Literally?! And who was qualified to make that evaluation? Flys? Puppies? Oh, of course - tobacco executives.

      --
      Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    7. Re:uhh... by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Nicorette in the UK did something similar - disposable inhalers that looked like something out of a Russian war movie. They had a major problem though - as you did not get any smoke you tried to get more and more and ended up sucking on them like there is no tomorrow. It was well designed so you did not get a nicotine overdose, but quite often you ended up hyperventilating yourself and getting a definite O2 buzz. Not fun, especially if you are trying to work.

      Basically, the smoke in a cigarette has its function. It is a limiting factor that prevents the addict from getting a nicotine overdose. So I do not think that this will succeed. Most likely it will end up in the scrapheap of cigarette replacement products along with the nicorette inhaler. And people will continue to use patches and gum because they work (speaking as an ex-smoker that managed to get off it).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    8. Re:uhh... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Where smoking burning leaves probably has some limiting factor on how much nicotine you get in your blood, you could probably really work yourself over with these things without turning green from too much smoke or passing out from CO and CO2.

      Nicotine is a poison all on its own, so I would think it has its own limiting factor built in.

      You can make a really nice insecticide for household plants by steeping some tobacco in water. Just thinking about that makes me not want to breathe cigarette smoke ever again.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    9. Re:uhh... by Sheep+Sophy · · Score: 1

      Hey... Do you realy think that they spent a cent for this? It would be the same when Microsoft would spent some money for research in Linux ... ;-)

      Phil
      --
      Want to help my son? http://www.nakedsheep.de.tp/

    10. Re:uhh... by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

      inhaler works by making a sray out of liquid, and inhaling the small droplets. it sounds like this new item is a vaporizor. they already have these too (for smoking dope, mainly) but they're much larger than a cigarette.

    11. Re:uhh... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      Living in new england, I've often thought that having something on fire in your mouth during the winter isn't a bad idea. Of course, since smoking is bad for you, smelly, and addictive, I wouldn't want to take it up just to keep warm for a couple of months. On the other hand, "cigarettes" which didn't produce much of anything would be really nice.

    12. Re:uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who was qualified to make that evaluation?

      Oh I know a little lady http://www.tubgirl.com/ who might.

    13. Re:uhh... by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      "Do you realy think that they spent a cent for this?"

      Cigarette companies would love to have a non-smoking nicotine delivery mechanism if they could keep the price similar to that of an actual cigarette. Remember, they are in the nicotine delivery business, not the smoking business.

      Note that Microsoft has a module for interacting with Unix networks so that people can use their MS Windows box on a network with all unix servers.

      Microsoft doesn't invest in Linux and tobacco companies do not invest in the patch because they remove their respective markets. If their business models still worked, they would just adopt the other technology.

    14. Re:uhh... by SacredNaCl · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nicotine is a poison all on its own, so I would think it has its own limiting factor built in.

      You can make a really nice insecticide for household plants by steeping some tobacco in water. Just thinking about that makes me not want to breathe cigarette smoke ever again.


      You can kill yourself by drinking 5 gallons of (or less) of water as well. The dose makes the poison, tylenol is at least as deadly as pure uranium when eaten. (#1 medical cause of liver failure as well) Nicotine is about as "dangerous" as caffeine is, the problems stem from the delivery device.

      Quality smokeless tobacco products do not have the high risks that smoking cigarettes do. Of course, the safety NAZI's don't want you to know that. They also don't want you to know that they pull a number out of the air nearly at random to assess second hand smoke impact - or that a glass of whisky sitting on the table at room temperature is releasing more toxins into the air than a person chain smoking ...

      I'm perfectly willing to say cigarettes are dangerous to the end user, if everyone who smokes switched to smokeless tobacco like copenhagen or ariva we would see deaths from tobacco use drop to less than 9K a year (and probably lower than that). A nicotine inhaler would be a great delivery device, a transmucal sucker would be another great delivery device... The problem is with the regulation, they don't wamt people to have safer alternatives or to know the truth. The people in charge of health policy are largely zealots like Coop. He actually went on record as saying smokeless tobacco was *more dangerous* than smoking. What can I say? Americans are in love with prohibition... They've tried it with booze, opioids, cocaine, MDMA, LSD... We've all seen what a wonderful success releasing fraud as truth about drugs has done for usage. The war on drugs is clearly winning with those tactics by anyones sane measure...>sarcasm off

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    15. Re:uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cigarette companies are not just only nicotine deliveries. They make their money because their customers are made dependent from cigarettes. Cigarettes contains more than nicotine.

      Of course, when they can not more make money with cigarettes, they will find a new market like "battery cigarettes".

      >> Microsoft doesn't invest in Linux and tobacco companies do not invest in the patch because they remove their respective markets. If their business models still worked, they would just adopt the other technology.
      Yes, they are. Sometimes I think, that Microsoft ist doing so at this time. The future form Microsoft is licensing, not longer selling software. Perhaps in 5 years Windows will be free of charge for home users when linux ist more dangerous for Microsoft. Microsowft will make money with licensing WMA/WMV to producers from DVD-Player, for example.

      Best regards

      Sheep

      --
      Give my Son a sheep: http://phil-o-soph.piranho.de/english

    16. Re:uhh... by tcr · · Score: 1

      In the UK, the inhaler was called the Inhalator. It didn't make a spray out of liquid - it used cartidges with small sponges inside, soaked in a nicotine solution.

      It sounds like you are describing the nasal spray, which I am trying at the moment. It bloody hurts, and makes your eyes water... :-)

      --


      Information wants to be beer.
    17. Re:uhh... by randomblast · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they still contain nicotine, which is the addictive substance in cigarettes.
      Of course, you could take the filter out...

      --
      ...these aren't my real teeth.
    18. Re:uhh... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was thinking they could sell filters that don't contain nicotine, but instead contain clove oil or hickory scent or something nice like that.

  2. but by The+Unabageler · · Score: 4, Funny

    one of the great pleasures of being a smoker is pissing off the non-smokers. I guess I'll have to eat more beans.

    oh, and first post or something.

    --
    perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'
    1. Re:but by Ionizer7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do alot more than piss off the non-smokers, you kill them. Please stop.

    2. Re:but by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Must... Annoy... People... At... All... Cost... ... Even... If... It... Risks... Severe... Medical... Problems... In... The... Future...

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:but by The+Unabageler · · Score: 4, Funny

      oh I'm killing them too? excellent! My plan to take over is nearly complete, only 100,000 more cartons and you should all be dead! MUAH HA HA HA HA

      --
      perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'
    4. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so pissed off that you choose to smoke, it is the fact that you are hurting my health and because you are too addicted and lazy to give a damn about others.

      Did I mention the smoke/tar smells like crap too? You probably don't realize this because your olfactory nodes are trashed.

      You want to work on your personal cancer project, fine.

      I don't want to be a volunteer in it and you don't have a right to force it on me.

      One of the great pleasures of being a non-smoker is watching you endure the elements for the sake of a pseudo addiction.

    5. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking about medical problems, what is the worst thing in your opinion: smoking 5 cigarettes a day when you feel "not so good" or comitting suicide at the end of a long depression that could have been avoided with a few cigarettes?

      Thank you very much, but I'll keep my cigarettes...

    6. Re:but by admiral+jackbar · · Score: 1

      That would be a powerful argument if it were true.

    7. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally! The answer to the Iraqi WMD enigma has been solved. Saddam had built a whole bunch of cigarette factories. Damn you Saddam!

      Now... who else has these WMD factories? War on tar-producers!

    8. Re:but by Masami+Eiri · · Score: 1

      If you're that reliant on cigarettes, you need professional help.

    9. Re:but by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      neither suicide nor depression could be avoided with smoking.

      matter of fact everything addictive makes people more nervoes.

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    10. Re:but by metlin · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Speaking about medical problems, what is the worst thing in your opinion: smoking 5 cigarettes a day when you feel "not so good" or comitting suicide at the end of a long depression that could have been avoided with a few cigarettes?

      Thank you very much, but I'll keep my cigarettes...


      Yeah, until the five becomes ten. And the ten becomes twenty.

      And then you realize that you've shaky hands, bad breath, a fucked up lung and black teeth. Not to mention that people will stay a mile away from you.

      That depression is only made worse by your dependance on Nicotine.

      You'd probably have never gotten into that depression in the first place if you had not started smoking.

      But maybe you'd do us all a favour - you'd kill yourself and in the process cause fewer health problems to those around you. Sheesh.

    11. Re:but by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      Not that I have any problem with smoking, but if cigarettes are the only stoping you from killing yourself I think you are in need of help.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    12. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually one of the pleasures of being a smoker is having to endure the elements for the sake an addiction.

    13. Re:but by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Nope. 'Secondary smoke' is no more dangerous than anything else. But tobacco is a politically acceptable substance to hate, and so it is banned and its users persecuted. Why, today in Colorado voters are almost certain to raise the tax on tobacco several fold.

      Now, of course a polite smoker will ask those around him if they mind him smoking; and of course polite non-smokers will reply that they do not. But politeness is an art little-practised in this debased modern world.

    14. Re:but by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      You are using faulty logic. You are comparing a situation wich improves the probility of premature death vs. a situation of near certion premature death. It is also like a guy puts a gun to my head and tells me to smoke a cigarette or Ill shoot you. Well Ill smoke the cigarette because my chances are beter with the cigarette. But Cigaretts are not the best cure of depression. You could replace the cigarettes with less harmful drugs that work on depression W.O. Giving your lungs that lovely Black coating. Take a candel and take a piece of metal say a knife. Put the knife over the flame where the smoke is coming from. Wait about 5 minutes and look at the tar on your knife. Now candles are clean v.s cigaretts. Imagin your lungs.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    15. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so nice to hear from one of you good citizens who doesn't pollute the environment at all... Whiny self righteous prick. Rabid non-smokers are worse than born again christians on the list of smug asswipes.

    16. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great! Cigarettes keep me from killing other people... Maybe we should carpool.

    17. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counter the risks of smoking with the risks of weight gain found with most anti-depressants. I was prescribed anti-depressants by my doctor as a just in case for college, i havn't had to fill the perscription. Over the summer i started smoking, only 2 or 3 a day, and it really levels me out. I'd much rather take the risk with cigarettes (since my great grandma smoked a pack a day until she was put on oxygen at 85 or something) than start poppin pills for my depression which will add pounds that i dont need and kill my sex drive. Possibly the 2 worse options for a college student, and those two facts would probably make me even more depressed... Besides, i've met a ton of cool people hanging out outside smoking. Its quite the social activity.

    18. Re:but by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am a polite non-smoker.

      I'll still tell them that "Yes, I do in fact mind" when its appropriate (restaurants, certain public places where its inappropriate, my home, my car). On the other hand, I don't expect to be asked, nor would I object, to someone smoking in a bar. Nor in their home. Nor in their car.

      Polite != "letting the smoker smoke whenever they want to". Polite == "having a sense of where smoking is appropriate - and where it isn't."

      (And hint - when other people are eating, it is NOT appropriate.)

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    19. Re:but by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to turn on the radio to cover up the smell.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    20. Re:but by stienman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      'Secondary smoke' is no more dangerous than anything else.

      I suppose that's why I get a severe asthma attack from second hand smoke. The only other thing that gives me as bad an attack are sulfites - used to be used to preserve fresh foods. No longer generally recommended as safe. (GRAS)

      But hey, I guess decades of studies could be wrong. Perhaps you know better.

      Or perhaps you are simply in denial. Apply Occam's razor liberally over affected area until delusions subside. If conditions worsen, please see your local FDA representative.

      -Adam

    21. Re:but by shaper · · Score: 1
      a polite smoker will ask those around him if they mind him smoking

      Slightly sarcastic response: "No, do you mind if I fart?"

      of course polite non-smokers will reply that they do not

      Why "of course"? I find tobacco smoke very unpleasant and I can still be polite about it. Indeed, I find your cavalier assumption to be very impolite. It is, after all, the smoker who is imposing on others around him, not the other way around.

    22. Re:but by El · · Score: 1
      Yes, but even polite smokers tend to make a mess by scattering their cigarette butts all over the ground in any place they congregate. As a non-smoker, it sort of pisses me off having to pick up after them!


      More on topic, since a cigarette is just a delivery mechanism for a nicotine fix, shouldn't they be working on cheaper delivery mechanisms, instead of more expensive ones? What's wrong with a good old-fashioned syringe for getting drugs into your bloodstream? Pills? Patches? It seems to me that if you have to stick some phallic-shaped object into your mouth to get your satisfaction, you've obviously got more than just a nicotine addiction...

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    23. Re:but by pjwhite · · Score: 4, Funny

      Smoke faster.

    24. Re:but by goodydot · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree. I am a polite smoker. I do not smoke ANYWHERE INDOORS except smokers' homes, my home, or my car when I am alone in the thing. I won't smoke in my car when others are in it. I don't even bother asking...I just don't do it. Being in Boston means I can't smoke indoors anywhere anyway, so oh well. Where it's a health issue, I'll not smoke and not have a problem with it. The thing that pisses me off is NO SMOKING signs OUTSIDE! i'm outside...it's not a health issue if I'm outside and the smoke is getting blown away. At that point it's a moral issue, and that is not cool. I'll take my cancer-causing smoke outside so others aren't exposed, but to ban smoking outside where it is NOT a health issue is rude, inconsiderate and mean.

    25. Re:but by RandomCoil · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Nope. 'Secondary smoke' is no more dangerous than anything else.
      Nope, no more dangerous than sucking bus exhaust, inhaling sewer gas, or hanging out near the wrong end of a fume hood. You know, the kind of stuff most people try to work into their daily schedule.
      Now, of course a polite smoker will ask those around him if they mind him smoking;
      I'm not familiar with any person like that. Sure, they might ask the people at their table, but they never bother with the groups downwind.
      and of course polite non-smokers will reply that they do not.
      No, the polite non-smoker (who still has a sense of smell) would reply, "I'm sorry, I'm rather sensitive to cigarette smoke; but I'll happily wait here if you'd like to take a break." That the smoker even asked the question acknowledges the fact that smoking is something many people find unpleasant to be around. Saying the non-smoker should accept it is rather like someone saying, "Please, kick me in the head!" just because they were asked politely.

    26. Re:but by djward · · Score: 1

      Good points, but I don't think the tobacco tax increase in CO is a persecution of smokers. It's a tax on a luxury item that is not necessary. I'd much rather they tax that than groceries. (Actually I don't smoke, 'cept a cigar now and then - but the same applies to booze, in which I am known to partake). The point is, tax luxury items. Don't want to pay the tax, then live without the luxury item.

    27. Re:but by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do alot more than piss off the non-smokers, you kill them.

      I don't have a problem with being a courteous smoker, but at the same time non-smokers are getting unreasonable. I don't violate non-smoking areas. If I'm at a non-smoker's house, I'll go outside to smoke. I do my best to make sure that I stay downwind of non-smokers when I smoke outside. Anti-tobacco militants have gone off the deep end.

      For example, passing laws that make it illegal to smoke in a bar. IN A BAR FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!! Next they'll be trying to make it illegal to drink alcohol in a bar. Smoking and drinking is what people go to the bar to do.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    28. Re:but by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      But tobacco is a politically acceptable substance to hate, and so it is banned and its users persecuted.

      You'll have my sympathy when a cop beats the shit out of you and tosses you ina cell with rapists and muggers becuase he found a cigarette in your shoe...

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    29. Re:but by hesiod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > smoke/tar smells like crap too? You probably don't realize this because your olfactory nodes are trashed.

      Did you notice that the world smells like crap too? It's all a matter of scale & personal preference.

      > You want to work on your personal cancer project, fine.

      Thanks for your permission, but I suggest you drop the whole "holier-than-thou" attitude if you ever expect to get anywhere in life. Once you are rich, however, you can afford to regain that trait.

      > I don't want to be a volunteer in it and you don't have a right to force it on me.

      Absolutely. You can choose to go to nonsmoking establishments. However you don't have the right to force smokers to do anything either, unless they are breaking laws/posted rules.

      > One of the great pleasures of being a non-smoker

      One of the greatest pleasures of being a smoker is blowing it into the face of smokers. Freedoms go both ways. I don't blow smoke into peoples' faces, as long as they don't claim I'm killing them, and they don't try to make what I CHOOSE to do illegal. California banning smoking in all public places is an attack on personal freedoms.

      The ultimate test of freedom is standing up for it in the face of that which you don't like.

    30. Re:but by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Yeah, until the five becomes ten. And the ten becomes twenty.

      You speak as though this is a foregone conclusion. There are people who can smoke 5 or fewer cigarettes a day and stay at that level indefinitely. I smoked 1 or 2 a day, three or four days a week for five years before I decided I was wasting my time and just stopped. I tried heroin three or four times and didn't get addicted to that either. Not everyone is a junkie. I'd even go so far as to say most people aren't junkies. The reason we hear about the ones that are is that not getting addicted to something doesn't make a very good story.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    31. Re:but by karmatic · · Score: 1

      I certainly try to be polite, and I am a non-smoker.

      If you ask me if I mind, the answer will always be "yes, I do".

      I am highly sensitive to cigarette smoke (and some perfumes) - even a small amount gives me a massive headache, and makes it hard for me to breathe.

      I, quite frankly, am sick of people smoking right outside the front doors of stores, waiting in line, or walking down the sidewalk in a strip mall. Why should I have to suffer for your habits?

      Do you think it's rude when others blare their music really loudly, right next to you? At least the effects of that only last while you can hear them. At least they don't make it difficult for you to breathe, or expose you to harmful chemicals.

      So yes, I do mind. Do it in your own house, your own car, and away from where pedestrians walk, and I don't care. I'm opposed to the war on drugs. Leave me alone, and I will leave you alone.

    32. Re:but by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative
      Take a candel and take a piece of metal say a knife. Put the knife over the flame where the smoke is coming from. Wait about 5 minutes and look at the tar on your knife.

      That's not tar, that's candle soot from unburned wax. Cigarettes do not deposit candle soot in your lungs. A better thing to have him do is cut open the filter after smoking the cigarette. Then again, that never stopped ME...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    33. Re:but by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1
      oh I'm killing them too? excellent! My plan to take over is nearly complete, only 100,000 more cartons and you should all be dead!

      Dude, you totally just made up your "plan" just now when you found out that cigarettes kill people. Stop trying to sound like you meant to take over the world all along, cuz, like, everybody *knows* better.

    34. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignorance is bliss

    35. Re:but by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      Funny, I was just thinking that these would be the perfect accompaniment to Synthahol in 10 Forward;-)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    36. Re:but by karmatic · · Score: 1

      If there is a "no-smoking" sign outside, it's probably near a door, or pedestrian thouroughfare.

      Guess what, some people have serious physical issues with smoking. In my case, it's not technically an "allergy", but rather an "irritant". All it takes is a rather small of amount of cigarette smoke, and my eyes water, I get a very large headache, and I have difficulty breathing.

      Do you get annoyed when someone comes along blaring loud music? The effects last only a short period of time. Exposure to smoke causes me pain for hours. The fact it's "blown away" doesn't change the fact that it's still there. Smoking outside the front door of a building means I have to walk through your smoke cloud to leave.

      If you are at least 20 feet from where pedestrians walk, it's stupid. However, the signs I see tend to be right outside buildings, and near walkways. You should be free to smoke; however, I should be free to breathe. Your habit does not give you the right to make me miserable.

    37. Re:but by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "You do alot more than piss off the non-smokers, you kill them. Please stop."

      How do you know that he doesn't step outside to smoke?

      Some smokers are actually polite about that.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    38. Re:but by The+Unabageler · · Score: 1

      oh. shit. *runs and hides*

      --
      perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'
    39. Re:but by dedeman · · Score: 1
      Nope, no more dangerous than sucking bus exhaust, inhaling sewer gas, or hanging out near the wrong end of a fume hood. You know, the kind of stuff most people try to work into their daily schedule.

      Well, better go to the medical supply store, buy a rather large 02 tank, and a face mask. Come to think of it, a biohazard suit would work well.


      From what I've seen, many outspoken and staunch anti smokers are subject to several hazardous environmental variables, aside from cigarettes. It is one of the hazards of living in a densly populated and modern society.
    40. Re:but by dedeman · · Score: 1

      Actually, a tax on such goods is rather a "sin tax". Luxury items are usually large ticket items and can be purchased more easily by those with greater wealth. A "sin tax" is placed on items that the individual may see as necessities, and are not big ticket items. A Porche 911 Carerra is a luxury item, cigarettes are not. If you place a "luxury tax" on cigarettes, you may as well tax candy bars, soda, etc. anything which is not an absolute necessity.

    41. Re:but by macthulhu · · Score: 1
      You'll have my sympathy when a cop beats the shit out of you and tosses you in a cell with rapists and muggers becuase he found a cigarette in your shoe...

      I live in New York state... That nightmarish possibility is probably not far off.

      --

      Someday a real rain is gonna come...

    42. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to be come across like a jerk about this, but at what point does your malady become my problem? What happens when you breathe exhaust fumes? Should we not allow cars to drive within twenty feet of you?

      My advice, if smoke bothers you that much? Hold your breath for the ten seconds it will take you walk through the contaminated air.

    43. Re:but by nospmiS+remoH · · Score: 1

      If cigarettes are the only thing keeping you from killing yourself, you've got bigger issues. Moreover, this dilemma is probably not the best one to present to someone who is against smoking in general. Suicide, while not good for you, saves the healthcare system loads of money for the cancer treatment you WILL need in the future. Either way you will end up dead, so the outcome is ultimately the same. Plus, it saves countless non-smokers the unpleasent experience of your habbit.

      --
      !hoD
    44. Re:but by PHPhD2B · · Score: 1
      Yes, but even polite smokers tend to make a mess by scattering their cigarette butts all over the ground in any place they congregate. As a non-smoker, it sort of pisses me off having to pick up after them!

      Why is it that you have to pick up after them? If it's your job to clean up outside areas you might as well bitch about stupid trees with their stupid leaves falling off them.

      It seems to me that if you have to stick some phallic-shaped object into your mouth to get your satisfaction, you've obviously got more than just a nicotine addiction...

      Who is it that has a problem here? You sit there and make ridiculous comparisons, and YOU are the one bringing up all this phallus business.

      --
      --I am Sun Tzu of the Borg. Resistance is feudal.
    45. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. 'Secondary smoke' is no more dangerous than anything else.

      Yeah, right.

      Perhaps you can tell me why they have a filter at the butt of the cigarette? At least YOU are inhaling filtered smoke, but what about the people around you? Inhaling the unfiltered smoke.

    46. Re:but by Dirtside · · Score: 2, Insightful
      California banning smoking in all public places is an attack on personal freedoms.
      And you smoking near me in public isn't an attack on my personal freedoms? Specifically, the freedom to not have to breathe concentrated carcinogens so that someone else can indulge their drug addiction?
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    47. Re:but by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      My advice? Walk 20 feet further away from the damn entrance. While not all places of business provide them, my company was smart enough to provide a (heat-lamped, even) smoker's shelter out front. In exchange for which, they have to stand about 50 feet away from the entrance in order to smoke.

      The effort it'll take your wheezing ass to move 20 more feet is not comparable to the amount of distress you can cause the allergic/susceptible, so perhaps you should volunteer to not be a jackass?

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    48. Re:but by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Then you and I got no beef, minus the (as pointed out) issue of smoking directly in doorways where airflow tends to concentrate, and where non-smokers will be forced to put up with it.

      For the record, when the village I used to live in voted on whether or not to ban smoking in all buildings open to the public, I voted no.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    49. Re:but by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I suppose that's why I get a severe asthma attack from second hand smoke.

      I used to get severe asthma attacks from cut grass, ragweed, and horse dander. Maybe we should create taxes to support incessent PSUs on the dangers of cutting grass and standing near horses.

      p.s. I am a non-smoker. But I guess I haven't been off the nicotine long enough for me to start hating liberty like all the other non-smokers.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    50. Re:but by Sneakabout · · Score: 0

      Shatner! Is that you?

      --
      Sneakabout is a mysterious figure, having done too much mathematics.
    51. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second hand smoke is actually MORE dangerous than first hand smoke. This is simply a result of the temperature of combustion.
      When you are holding a cig. in your hand the temperature is pretty low, thus there is incomlpete combustion and more harmful substances are generated. With normal smoking the air-flow raises the temperature and improves the combustion. Of course you get a much higher concentration of this stuff when you smoke it yourself.

      Claiming that smoke, 1st or 2nd hand, is not dangerous is just plain stupid.

    52. Re:but by RandomCoil · · Score: 1
      Nope, no more dangerous than sucking bus exhaust, inhaling sewer gas, or hanging out near the wrong end of a fume hood. You know, the kind of stuff most people try to work into their daily schedule.
      Well, better go to the medical supply store, buy a rather large 02 tank, and a face mask. Come to think of it, a biohazard suit would work well.
      That would be one approach. Alternatively, we could have closed sewer systems, call for electric and/or natural-gas buses, and force fume hoods to be vented away from where people are breathing.
      From what I've seen, many outspoken and staunch anti smokers are subject to several hazardous environmental variables, aside from cigarettes. It is one of the hazards of living in a densly populated and modern society.
      You'll forgive me if I don't find the "pollution is just part of modern life" argument terribly compelling.
    53. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the great pleasures of having big freaking subwoofers in my car is pissing off everybody not in my car...and I already eat lots of beans.

    54. Re:but by Lucifugue · · Score: 0

      Could you just cease to exist? Everytime you have a kid you are risking my kid's future.
      Everytime you eat you are eating the food that i could have eaten. Everytime you breath you are stealing my AIR!

      Why should your existence be more important than mine?
      Becoz you are polite? Politeness is just a way of stealing without feeling guilty...

      Let's dance the ecosystem dance!!! Malthus rocks!!

    55. Re:but by RandomCoil · · Score: 1
      Thanks for your permission, but I suggest you drop the whole "holier-than-thou" attitude if you ever expect to get anywhere in life.
      Given the research on the topic, you might be confusing "holier-than-thou" with "smarter-than-thou". Of course if you're familiar with the whole lung cancer thing and cool with it, "more-sane-than-thou" might be even more appropriate.

      And California banning smoking in all public places is a bloody enlightened policy. It's great that the state protects the personal freedom of non-smokers not to smoke.
    56. Re:but by JesseL · · Score: 1

      So what do you do for a living? How are you going to feel if I, for no good reason, decide to habitually make your job a little harder. Are you going to complain? After all it your job to deal with it, isn't it?

      Why should a fireman complain about arsonists? If he needs to put out a fire, that's just part of his job.
      Why should a sysadmin complain about hackers? Keeeping them out is just part of doing his job.
      Why should a busboy complain if someone dumps their leftovers all over their table? He's paid to clean up isn't he?

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    57. Re:but by LookSharp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The ultimate test of freedom is standing up for it in the face of that which you don't like.

      What a load of crap.

      The ultimate test of freedom is standing up for it in the face of what is wrong.

      I am a very outspoken Libertarian ideologically (maybe moderate/conservative in a practical sense, but striving toward a gradual implementation of libertarianism in the big picture). But even I cannot stand by and let someone "exercise their personal rights" while I have to walk through a cloud of smoke, which typically gives me headaches and sneezing fits when I get a good whiff. Yes, the rest of the city stinks. But your rights to smoke end where my rights to inhale a "clean" (relatively) breath and enjoy a smoke-free meal begin.

      Having personal liberty does not mean you get to do whatever you want, it means you make your own personal choices without interferring with, or interference from, others. And smoking anywhere other than in a private location with no minors around infringes on other peoples' rights. END OF STORY, CASE CLOSED, NEXT F@CKING CASE!

    58. Re:but by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      No, polite is always giving preference to others. Which is why a smoker should always ask, including in a bar. And why a non-smoker should always say yes. And why a smoker shouldn't smoke around others in the first place unless he's an addict who simply must get his fix.

      That said, I have a certain antipathy towards cigarette smokers: their vice stinks; their cigs almost universally taste foul; they ruin good meals with benumbed taste buds.

      I'm an occasional pipe-smoker (it has the most wonderful taste), and I've friends who don't know I smoke, because I make it a point not to do so around non-smokers.

    59. Re:but by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      It's also impolite to litter. I wouldn't defend ciogarette smokers, the vast majority of whom are addicted slobs, save for the fact that their foes are so much worse, in that they are prigs.

      I smoke a pipe, and given the cost of a good pipe it'd be lunacy to leave it lying around as litter:-)

    60. Re:but by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      My point is that politeness is all about yielding preference to others. Thus smoker should not smoke, save in a smoking lounge or somewhere else where it won't offend others. However, cigarette smokers are addicts and are thus at times compelled by their addiction to smoke where they oughtn't; politeness demands that they ask. But politeness holds just as well for the non-smokers surrounding them, who out of charity for the smoker's lamentable condition should permit him to get his fix.

      I can't stand the odour of 90% of the cigs on the market, but I'll let folks smoke in my car because politeness demands that I yield my interests in favour of others'.

    61. Re:but by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      You do alot more than piss off the non-smokers, you kill them. Please stop.

      Not killing them fast enough, apparently.

      Note: This post not responsible for the reactions of the humor impaired.

    62. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one of the great pleasures of being a smoker is pissing off the non-smokers.

      One of the great pleasures of owning a gun is shooting the non-gun-owners

      Want to kill yourself? Fine, do it in private (your house, bar with landlords permission etc) where it doesn't affect others. Do it outside and dont be surprised if someone "smokes" a .45 in your ass.

    63. Re:but by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      No, a smoker should not always ask. When I say bar, I should clarify - venue that serves drinks and has live bands. In such venues, smoking is (unless posted by the owners of the bar) assumed to be okay, and a smoker should NOT have to ask each and every person standing there watching the band play whether they mind a cigarette being lit.

      And a non-smoker should not always say yes. There are many situations where a smoker shouldn't smoke, even if they ask. For example, in a restaurant at or next to a table with people who are still eating.

      Polite is not being a pushover, which is what your definition seems to be. Polite is having a sense of manners, of what is appropriate and what is not, and acting in that fashion.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    64. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of people have alergies are you going to ban everything that people are allergic to.

      If smokeing is SOOOOOO dangerous and deadly how come there are all these 70-80 year old smokers around that smoke a pack a day? And your worried about a tiny bit of secondary smoke?

      Oh and I remember reading a studdy a little while ago. Just being in a major city "Melbourne Australia" for about 6 hours was the equivelent to smoking 10 actual cigarettes.

    65. Re:but by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      I'd even go so far as to say most people aren't junkies. The reason we hear about the ones that are is that not getting addicted to something doesn't make a very good story. Don't supose you can provide any facts to base the on can you, it would be really inetresting to see.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    66. Re:but by dedeman · · Score: 1

      I'll forgive you, but I'll also assume that you don't live in or around any area that could be construed or defined as urban, metropolitan, city, densly populated, landfill, sewer, sewage treatment facility or roadway, amongst other facilities which deal with large populations.

    67. Re:but by stienman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am allergic to a wide variety of things (cats, mold, ragweed, etc)

      The allergy tests I had years ago (million pricks on the back) did not test for tobacco smoke or sulfites.

      The only asthma attacks I get are from cigarette smoke and when I have a bad illness. The smoke incidents are much more critical. My asthma does not appear to be triggered by any of the other things I'm allergic to.

      Many allergens are not avoidable, but tobacco does not 'naturally' dry out and burn of its own accord. I contend that man made allergens that are not obviously beneficial to society ought to be more thouroughly scrutinized, and that reasonable restrictions should be tolerated.

      The original point of the thread was that second hand smoke does not kill, and I am simply pointing out that it can kill. Just like cancer doesn't kill (it's always "heart failure" or something) second hand smoke doesn't kill - it would simply be labelled "bronchial asthma" or "anaphylactic shock" by the coroner.

      In programming parlance, this is a corner case. Not a frequent occurence. Society can either ignore it as something that needs no attention, or take resonable steps to "program" around it.

      My point is that the corner case exist and the decision to ignore it or fix the problem should be made. Just don't spread the myth that it doesn't exist.

      -Adam

    68. Re:but by Xybot · · Score: 1

      ..don't sweat it I've got at least 50,000 of those cartons being smoked here.

      --
      God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
    69. Re:but by kmcneely · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can tell me why they have a filter at the butt of the cigarette? At least YOU are inhaling filtered smoke, but what about the people around you? Inhaling the unfiltered smoke. ^Are you retarded?

    70. Re:but by RandomCoil · · Score: 1

      We're splitting hairs at this point -- I'd pull my car over to let someone smoke, but there's no way I'd allow them to smoke *in* the car (or befoul my car's ash tray :) ).

      Politeness dictates that we reach a compromise, not that I yield completely

      Cheers!

    71. Re:but by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Well, here's the second subject of this Highly Scientific Study (tm). I smoke rarely, and only when drunk. If I am unable to stop smoking when drunk (which is a possibility) then I can simply stop drinking, which is no problem for me. As it is, I smoke about once every 3 months or so. When not smoking, I dislike being in second-hand smoke. It chokes me up sometimes (not seriously though), since my senses are not dulled by alcohol. Thus I don't think I belong to the group that are labeled "addicts". If I ever try something stronger, I'll let you know whether I get hooked or not.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    72. Re:but by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I won't get worried until they make it illegal to smoke alcohol in bars.

      Seriously though, I've never been a smoker, and frankly I don't like the things. I really don't: I get physically ill if the smoke gets too thick. Honestly, if every smoker in the world decided, on their own, to just quit tomorrow that would be fine by me.

      However, I do object to the anti-smoking witch hunting I see going on right now. Raising taxes, making it illegal to smoke in BARS and so forth. I see this as a sort of neo-Prohibitionist attitude on the part of some lawmakers, and a good number of citizens. While I personally don't like smoking, I do resent it when politicians get it into their collective heads to take punitive action against an otherwise law-abiding sector of the population. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon of Prohibition when it's against a behavior that one personally finds distasteful. It's even easier to find reasonable-sounding justifications for doing so.

      If we let our politicians get in the habit of letting their own morals and prejudices affect their lawmaking to this degree, the next time 'round, the shoe may be on the other foot. The day may come when they try to outlaw the blowjob. When that happens, I'm moving to Canada.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    73. Re:but by fbjon · · Score: 1

      The thing is, smokers are asking for more rights than non-smokers. Non-smokers only need to breathe the air directly around them, and as long as it is clean (enough) it should be ok. Smokers on the other hand require, whether they like it or not, a much larger volume of air for their smoking habit, since the smoke spreads around. Thus if we want, say, a 50/50 split of airspace in a room, the smokers have to squeeze into the corners in order to avoid invading the airspace beyond their limits. Or someone has to pay for hefty airconditioning. And as far as I know, there are more non-smokers than there are smokers.

      Let me provide all you people with a real-world legislation example:

      In Finland, a law was passed a number of years ago that prohibits smoking in public places, and limits smoking in bars. Bars must have a non-smoking area, and no smoking is allowed by the counter whatsoever. This naturally caused an outrage when it was proposed. These days, it's just natural. The air in (most) drinking establishments is cleaner and nicer, and I haven't heard anyone complain. So there.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    74. Re:but by djward · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to be "official" with my terminology. So I lumped sin and luxury. One mans luxury is another's sin. Or something.

      But fine: tax candy bars. But not bread, meat, and veggies. The problem lies in the separation of those at the point of sale.

      Logistically it's difficult; in some places, there's tax on prepared food (i.e., you can eat it NOW, e.g. an ice cream sundae) but not on packaged food (i.e., you store it a while at home, THEN eat it, e.g., a bucket of ice cream).

      Cigarettes ARE a luxury. They just happen to be easily separated from necessities, whereas many small-ticket luxuries are not.

    75. Re:but by robfoo · · Score: 1

      > One of the greatest pleasures of being a smoker is blowing it into the face of smokers.

      You blow smoke in my face, I'll spit in your mouth. That's if I'm feeling nice.

    76. Re:but by leon.gandalf · · Score: 0

      As much as I hate smoking...

      Its more Bullshit when it comes to second hand smoke.









    77. Re:but by PHPhD2B · · Score: 1

      Wow, you just have no perspective do you? Arson vs. tossing cigarette butts on the ground? Arson can very easily kill people and cause enormous property damage. I'm not sure cig butts on the ground generally fall in that category of "inconvenience." And yes, keeping hackers out is the sysadmin's job. And yes, the busboy IS paid to clean up, if he doesn't like to clean up he really should not be a busboy.

      --
      --I am Sun Tzu of the Borg. Resistance is feudal.
    78. Re:but by JesseL · · Score: 1

      My point is that just because somenone else is paid to clean up your messes, that doesn't justify you in continuing to make them or nullify their right to be upset at your disrepectfulness. I just used extreme examples just serve to clarify my point.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    79. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be more accurate, polite is always giving preference to the ones who need it most. That usually does mean giving preference to others, but politeness should be a method of negotiating how to do things so as to make it as pleasant as possible for everyone involved.

      Otherwise, you get people like that annoying lady on the bus who started yelling at some guy because he didn't move over to offer a seat to her until (gasp) he was asked to. Several minutes of everyone around glaring at her as she rants "a gentlemen would NOT wait and put the burden of asking on the lady!! How inconsiderate! No I will not accept an apology!!!" Quite a few smokers have a similar mindset, and they've given a bad name to the smokers who do make an effort to be clean and considerate.

    80. Re:but by dasunt · · Score: 1

      And you smoking near me in public isn't an attack on my personal freedoms? Specifically, the freedom to not have to breathe concentrated carcinogens so that someone else can indulge their drug addiction?

      Considering that, on the grand scale of pollution, automobiles contribute a lot and smokers contribute almost nothing, are you also going after the drivers?

      Smog is more dangerous then second-hand smoke, y'know.

    81. Re:but by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I'd even go so far as to say most people aren't junkies. Well that would be a tough call there. Because most of the people who are doing it say they can stop at any time and that is what most addicts says as well, also many addicts will lie (Or don't realize) about how often they may take a drug. They may go I only smoke a couple cigarettes a day. When you keep track of them They will take a smoke in the morning, then at lunch, then midday, then dinner, then the afternoon finally before bed. So while they say a couple (usually meaning 2 or 3) they actually are twice that.

      It happends in any addiction I know some people who are addicited to food and don't realize why they are so fat because they say they don't eat much. But after checking their diet they will skill breakfast then have a normal lunch and a snack between dinner then dinner then snacking threw-out the night.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    82. Re:but by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What's even worse is that there is no compromise in our society anymore. Instead of allowing bars to purchase a "smoking" license or have separate smoking sections, it's just totally illegal outright. I see no problem in allowing a bar (or restaurant, or any other business) to build a separate enclosed smoking area with its own ventilation. If they want to front the cost to build it, they should be able to. There are ways to deal with issues like this instead of simply just banning everything... It just slowly nibbles away at that whole "land of the free" thing.

    83. Re:but by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Considering that, on the grand scale of pollution, automobiles contribute a lot and smokers contribute almost nothing, are you also going after the drivers?
      If I based my entire assessment of something on how polluting it was, I might. But like any rational person, I also take into account what positive effects that thing has on the world. People smoking benefits the smokers (although it also greatly harms them), benefits tobacco companies and the stores that sell cigarettes, and directly harms the health care industry by overloading it with people who would otherwise have many fewer health problems, making it more difficult, expensive, and time-consuming for people with non-self-induced health problems to get health care.

      Automobiles also contribute to health care problems, but they also allow us to have this titanic, powerful economy that we have. No automobiles means trade is much slower (have fun getting goods from sea ports like Los Angeles to places like Colorado without using machine power), people have less mobility, and the economy and everyone's quality of life would greatly suffer. Also note that we continue to make efforts to require automobiles to be less-polluting, with the eventual intention of moving to zero-emission vehicles.

      I don't think cigarettes, tobacco, or nicotine should be illegal (in fact, I think all drugs should be legalized). I do think that using a drug in such a way that other people are necessarily affected by it (like smoking a cigarette in a public place) should be illegal.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    84. Re:but by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Why just not let the free market sort it out?

      If enough people dislike smoke, they won't go to establishments that allow smoking.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  3. no for typical smokers by joormotha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I really don't see an average smoker buying one of these. Many tabaco companies experimented with these years ago and failed. There is not substitute for the 'cancer stick'.

    1. Re:no for typical smokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I built a similar device while in Design School, but due to the size of available components, it looked more like an arts marker and less like the cigarrete. And it was a HUGHE SUCCES with the average smokers at school. Where, of course, the average smoker smoked ten times more hash oil and plain skunk than nicotine. The trick was keeping it just above 80C but below 90C, that way you get most of the alcaloid, but none of the easily-recognized-by-autorithies smell.

    2. Re:no for typical smokers by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Think 11 hour international airplane flight

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    3. Re:no for typical smokers by Three+Headed+Man · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you're talking about plain old vaporizers, then that's different. If you're thinking of just extracting a few cannabinoids into a filter, and allowing people to inhale them, that's more like what the article is on.

      For a while, the cigarette companies experiemnted trying to make a "safer" cigarette. I saw a special on TV about it, and the one I remember involved painting pretty much pure nicotine on the inside of a glass tube along with glycerine or something else that produced harmless smoke when burned. The smoker then would play a lighter underneath the glass tube while inhaling, giving him harmless, high dosages of nicotine. The only real problem with this was you looked like a crackhead.

      --
      I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood :)
    4. Re:no for typical smokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off and die you pessimistic arrogant ignorant shit! When I used to smoke, I used nicorette gums to get through long meetings, long flights and movies. They worked for me and eventually I got so used to them they made quitting a snap when I put my mind to it.

      This stuff DOES work for some. And if it works for some, everybody who's still addicted should at least TRY it. That is, unless they listen to dipshit pompous asses like you.

    5. Re:no for typical smokers by stanmann · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's ok, most smokers look like crackheads if they haven't had a cigarrette in a while.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  4. Interactions? by skraps · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are there any interactions with the nicotine patch and gum that I use?
    Is it ok to smoke regular cigarettes and this at the same time?

    --
    Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
    1. Re:Interactions? by garcia · · Score: 1

      I realize you were trying to be funny but you would not believe how many people I know smoke, chew, and use several patches all at the same time. It's like they just can't get enough.

      It's a sad state of affairs when Big Tobacco can legally sell such an addictive substance while only having to pay the measly price of some recent legal action and anti-smoking ads targeted towards those they used to target all their ads at...

    2. Re:Interactions? by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      It's a sad sate of affairs when you think you have the right to dictate to me what I consume.

      Here's the clue; I am a grownup. If I want to smoke cigarettes (or stick them up my ass for that matter) that's none of your fucking business.

      -Peter

    3. Re:Interactions? by jokell82 · · Score: 2

      That's totally cool and I completely agree. Just make sure I don't have to breathe in any of your smoke. Agreed?

      --
      I dunno who it is
      but it prolly is fhqwhgads.
    4. Re:Interactions? by garcia · · Score: 1

      Here's the clue; I am a grownup. If I want to smoke cigarettes (or stick them up my ass for that matter) that's none of your fucking business.

      You are assuming that I want to get into your personal business. What I wanted to bring light to is that Big Tobacco is fighting a financial war to keep their interests afloat when it is an addictive drug.

    5. Re:Interactions? by krilli · · Score: 1

      He wasn't talking about control of smokers - he was talking about the corporations who profit from being evil and the law that lets them do so.

      --
      Jag pratar lite svenska.
    6. Re:Interactions? by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Stay off my back deck and out of the smoking section in bars I freqent and we won't have a problem.

      -Peter

    7. Re:Interactions? by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Dude, back off.
      Most of us are adults.

    8. Re:Interactions? by pete-classic · · Score: 1
      What I wanted to bring light to is that Big Tobacco is fighting a financial war to keep their interests afloat when it is an addictive drug.


      Okay class, would everyone who is not aware of the fact that cigarettes contain nicotine, an addictive drug, please raise his or her hand. Anyone?

      Anyone?

      Okay, now, all of those who think it is wrong for a business to protect its financial interest raise his or her hand.

      Thank you, Karl.

      So, garcia, just what is it that you are saying? Selling drugs invalidates one's right to protect one's interests? That I should be allowed to smoke, but no one should be allowed to sell me cigarettes?

      Or is it just that you are mad that some people are very successful doing something that you think is a bad idea? Or just that they are successful?

      I'm really having trouble getting your point here, so, please, give it to me straight.

      -Peter
    9. Re:Interactions? by FLEB · · Score: 1

      If a smoker can't smoke because the company can't sell them cigarettes... that's controlling the smoker. If you have the mental ability to procure cigarettes, then you undoubtably have the ability and foreknowledge to make the concious decision to smoke.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    10. Re:Interactions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem with stop smoking aids - They allow you to skip those times when previously nicotine was unavailable - at work, and asleep, thereby strengthening one's addiction.

    11. Re:Interactions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The fact is, these very well monied corporations spend huge amounts of money to legally keep you addicts hooked.

      But were're all adults and it is legal, so the debate should stop there, no?

      Yes -- conditionally. If you pay higher health insurance premiums than your non-smoking peers. If you pay more into whatever tax taken from your paycheck for medicare, 'cause your health statistically will reap tomorrow what you're sowing today. If you're denied free health care for related illnesses. If you go into such bad habbit with your eyes wideopen, then own up to it be prepared to die a painful death rather than beg for health care if you cannot afford it.

      So, yes, do whatever the hell you want to yourself. You may even beat the odds and live to some ripe old age like Bette Davis or George Burns, smoking and drinking every day. But pay your dues like a man if the shit hits the fan.

      That's all us non-smokers ask. Don't burden us personally or as a society -- at all -- for your choices.

      I'm not taking this out on you because I hate smokers. Do whatever the fuck you want, but keep it to yourself. I'm about as libertarian as people get. You're presumably intelligent enought to decide what' best for you. Ditto for companies. The the sword cuts both ways, though. Neither companies or individuals should be given any leniency if their actions adversely affect people or society.

    12. Re:Interactions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selling drugs invalidates one's right to protect one's interests? That I should be allowed to smoke, but no one should be allowed to sell me cigarettes?

      Correct. The public should not have to directly pay you for the consequences that your addiction will likely bring later. Unfortunately, for you, you do not have a leg to stand on here. You do look like the bad guy. You likely will die of some smoking related disease and if that's the case your treatment WILL be footed by the rest of the public. All for something you did on YOUR OWN free choice. I certainly didn't make you start and I certainly shouldn't have to pay for it.

      Or is it just that you are mad that some people are very successful doing something that you think is a bad idea? Or just that they are successful?

      That was a really pointless statement. I'll ignore your blatant troll.

      I'm really having trouble getting your point here, so, please, give it to me straight.

      It pisses me of that smokers like to get their cake when they smoke and also get to eat it too when they claim disability, get insurance claims, and court settlements because they were "tricked" into smoking.

      I seriously hope you die this instant and save us all the trouble of your soon to be miserable existence.

    13. Re:Interactions? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      some advice, if you smoke, make your own smokes. they don't contain all the "bonus" chemicals in factory made ones (cyinide, ammonnia, etc.) and it's cheaper even.

      then light up all you want. just do it far away from me.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    14. Re:Interactions? by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      1. I'm not addicted. I am extremely careful in my consumption of both alcohol and cigarettes. I rarely smoke on two consecutive days. I often stop smoking for weeks or months at a time to let my body purge itself of nicotine.

      2. I don't believe in socialized medicine.

      I agree with you 100% that the sword cuts both ways. I also consider myself to be libertarian.

      I guess we are in complete agreement!

      -Peter

    15. Re:Interactions? by pete-classic · · Score: 1
      You likely will die of some smoking related disease and if that's the case your treatment WILL be footed by the rest of the public. All for something you did on YOUR OWN free choice. I certainly didn't make you start and I certainly shouldn't have to pay for it.


      Unlikely. I rarely smoke.

      I agree you shouldn't have to pay (in that sense) for my choices. I fight tooth and nail against socialized medicine. There's no inconsistency in my positions, just in your assumptions.

      Anyway, this is a foolish statement to make. We all live and die by our choices, don't we?

      Does society pay a price if you choose to get around in a little electric car, for the benefit of the environment, and you are crushed by an SUV? Yes. Does society pay a price if you choose to get around in an SUV and you (we suppose) increase global warming and depletion of fossil fuel reserves? Yes.

      Skydiving is dangerous. I have a buddy that bikes to work for his health. If he's hit by a car while on his bike that's an expense to society.

      So we all have to make our choices. I'll happily stay out of yours. I request that you respond in kind.

      Or is it just that you are mad that some people are very successful doing something that you think is a bad idea? Or just that they are successful?

      That was a really pointless statement. I'll ignore your blatant troll.


      Nope, just trying to cover all the bases.

      Someone, somewhere thinks that any given thing is bad. Why do you or garcia get to decide?

      By the way, you failed miserably at ignoring my statement.

      It pisses me of that smokers like to get their cake when they smoke and also get to eat it too when they claim disability, get insurance claims, and court settlements because they were "tricked" into smoking.


      That pisses me off too. I never claimed to have been tricked into smoking. Please do not lump me in with those jerk-offs.

      I seriously hope you die this instant and save us all the trouble of your soon to be miserable existence.


      I have to admit that I don't share this sentiment. I hope I burden you with my miserable existence for years to come.

      -Peter
    16. Re:Interactions? by FLEB · · Score: 1

      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time

      Nor a cig, at the advice of your doctor.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    17. Re:Interactions? by pete-classic · · Score: 1
      I seriously hope you die this instant and save us all the trouble of your soon to be miserable existence.


      I have to admit that I don't share this sentiment. I hope I burden you with my miserable existence for years to come.


      I now regret saying this. I read Frank Miller's "300" last night (which was brilliant, by the way). Toward the end the hero addresses himself to a turncoat and curses him "May you live forever."

      While your little spat of vitriol wasn't exactly the biggest issue on my mind, it immediately struck me that your little curse of death would have been best met with a curse of life.

      Well, life goes on.

      -Peter
  5. where do i get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    the marijuana flavored ones?

    1. Re:where do i get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you could easily whip up a THC filter.

      That sounds like a venture man.

    2. Re:where do i get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amsterdam, of course......

    3. Re:where do i get by swervyjervy · · Score: 1

      Maybe Alaska?

  6. Michael Shilling for RR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Is there a reason why michael is constantly posting stories from Roland Piquepaille?

    Roland is just using slashdot to direct traffic to his shitty weblog, and now he even has his own domain!

    How much is michael getting on the side to plug this guy?

    1. Re:Michael Shilling for RR by HBPiper · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe Michael IS RR.......
      Oh, and the Walrus is Paul.

      --
      "I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
    2. Re:Michael Shilling for RR by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1

      coo coo ca-choo!

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Michael Shilling for RR by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      I think that's between michael and roland isn't it? Although it horrifies me to think about michael and roland 'plugging away'

      Please don't mention something like that again.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    4. Re:Michael Shilling for RR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up, Donny.

    5. Re:Michael Shilling for RR by SmokeHalo · · Score: 0

      ...Roland the Headless Slashdot Poster?

      Ouch, that almost hurt to say. If Warren Zevon were alive right now, he'd be spinning in his grave.

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
    6. Re:Michael Shilling for RR by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Goo goo ga joob =)

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    7. Re:Michael Shilling for RR by T.Hobbes · · Score: 1

      If michael would just strip the last sentence of each of Piquepaille's articles (when he invariably puts the link to his own weblog), it would be alright by me. Unless that happens, Piquepaille should be banned from submitting articles.

    8. Re:Michael Shilling for RR by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 2

      That Roland guy seems to have a pretty well put together site/blog for new technology. Is it so wrong to use the information from someone who has obviously spent a lot more time and effort bringing it into presentable form?

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    9. Re:Michael Shilling for RR by mungeh · · Score: 1

      The walrus *was* Paul.

    10. Re:Michael Shilling for RR by lannocc · · Score: 1

      I just had to comment on your sig... very good advice. That's what I did, at least (Montana/Libertarian).

    11. Re:Michael Shilling for RR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it so wrong to use the information from someone who has obviously spent a lot more time and effort bringing it into presentable form?

      Time and effort? Slashdot quotes a sentence, at most two, from the source articles. This Roland guy quotes the majority of the article - or at least, he used to - I don't give him ad impressions since he proved himself to be a copyright infringer.

  7. Not as cool by arhar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think it'll find much success, because it won't be as 'cool' as a regular cigarette. Much of th e reason people start to smoke (at the young age) is the ability to flip the ligher (in a cool way), light the cigarette (in a cool way), and exhale the smoke - in a cool way, looking like a suave motherfucker.

    1. Re:Not as cool by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is not for the punk kid who is trying to be cool. It is for the adult addict. So he can get his fix while not making the non-smokers sick, or asked to stop or they need to leave the building.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Not as cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah man, nothing cooler then smokers hack

    3. Re:Not as cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that sucking on something filthy is cool, then I have a proposition for you...

    4. Re:Not as cool by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      I think you will find it has nothing to do with cool. The tax on cigarettes has driven their price to the point where there is massively lucrative market for a substitute. This is more to do with getting addicts to fork out for a replacement fix.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    5. Re:Not as cool by CrazyGringo · · Score: 1

      There's another good reason. You can't be a hacker if you don't hack.

    6. Re:Not as cool by arhar · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ people, it was a JOKE. I'd think the 'suave motherfucker' part would give it away.

    7. Re:Not as cool by starman97 · · Score: 1

      Probably not popular for nicotine addicts,
      but I'll bet it'll be a real hit with crack and ice smokers.

      Nice and stealthy, smoke your drugs right out in public without the stigma of that nasty old crackpipe.

      --
      Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
    8. Re:Not as cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a pack-a-day smoker for almost 20 years, I gotta say to any young folks reading this: for the love of $deity, don't fucking smoke! Ever! I've made a lot of stupid mistakes in my life (hint: I've been married/divorced twice), but the single biggest regret is picking up smoking while I was in the Marines because I wanted to try and look "cool."

      Trust me, there's absolutely nothing cool about not even being able to laugh really hard at a good joke without bursting into a coughing fit. It's quite embarrassing actually. And in spite of what the tobacco execs told congress, quitting is unbelievably difficult once you're totally addicted.

    9. Re:Not as cool by sydb · · Score: 1

      So tell us all, how are crack and ice smokers going to use this device to smoke crack and ice?

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    10. Re:Not as cool by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Heh, it's interesting to see how much excise taxes actually push up the price of something. I'm not a smoker, but if you go to enough convience stores, you can soon figure out how expensive they are just by listening to the totals of the people in front of you in line. They are what, about $4.50-$5.00 a pack. But in Japan(where everything is more expensive cept healthcare, alchohol and cigarretes), you can buy AMERICAN cigarretes for about $2 from a vending machine. Amazing, it's obviously more expensive to ship them to Tokyo than it is to New York, but it's cheaper in Tokyo. Same with alchohol. You can get a decent size Beefeater Gin for about $5 too.
      However, rice also costs $15 for about 5 pounds(because of a 490% tariff on foriegn rice), so it's not all good :P

    11. Re:Not as cool by macthulhu · · Score: 1
      Jesus Christ people, it was a JOKE. I'd think the 'suave motherfucker' part would give it away.

      Geez, I smoke, and I've always considered myself a suave motherfucker whether I'm lit up or not...

      --

      Someday a real rain is gonna come...

    12. Re:Not as cool by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Like many things, the packaging costs more than the product.

      Cigs probably cost about 50 cents a pack or less to make...

    13. Re:Not as cool by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Nice and stealthy, smoke your drugs right out in public without the stigma of that nasty old crackpipe.

      Ignoring the obvious problems with your point (posted by AC), there are already "stealthy" smoking devices. To smoke crack, all you need is a glass tube. If it's too short, it'll burn like hell, but for a crack addict, I don't think that's much of an issue.

      (I've never smoked crack or meth, but I like learning about all kinds of wierd topics)

    14. Re:Not as cool by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Heh, esp. when you consider that the government gives subsidys to tobacco farmers while at the same time sues cigarrette companies........

    15. Re:Not as cool by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Where *DID* you think they got the money to give the farmers?

    16. Re:Not as cool by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      I like to ask people to step outside if they want to smoke, especially on the plane.

    17. Re:Not as cool by starman97 · · Score: 1

      Sitting in public with a glass tube and a lighter is going to attract some unwelcome attention, no?

      Pulling on a battery powered heating coil unit that
      is the same size and coloration as a conventional cigarette is not going to stand out.

      How it works..
      You dont really burn crack, you vaporize it.
      This heating unit is perfect for that.
      Just replace the nicotine in the unit with whatever you're interested in vaporizing and inhaling. Pretty simple really.

      --
      Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
  8. news? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    hardly.

    such smokeless-'smokes' have been around for years..

    (along with gum and whatever..)

    why it's better than gum or patches? you still get to suck something tiny between your lips.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:news? by SuDZ · · Score: 1

      "you still get to suck something tiny between your lips."

      Oh man... you just set yourself up for some abuse.

      SuDZ

    2. Re:news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you still get to suck something tiny between your lips.

      Oh COME ON! You're just asking for it!

    3. Re:news? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      **you still get to suck something tiny between your lips.

      Oh COME ON! You're just asking for it!**

      yes i was.

      but smokers are kinda cocksuckers...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:news? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a cigarette or even a cigar that size...

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  9. May not work by metlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're forgetting one of the fundamental problems - most smokers like smoking because it's more habitual. They're used to the act of having a cigarette in their hand and the act of blowing smoke.

    This cannot provide that - maybe people will use this when they fly or in places where they cannot use normal cigarettes, but is definitely not going to be a popular substitue for cigarettes.

    Besides, cigarettes have an illusion of being "cheap" and easily available. Not to mention the perceived (albeit ill-placed) "coolness factor".

    1. Re:May not work by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      Illusion...hey..simulation, you got something! Combine this product with a VR headset and augmented reality system, so they can blow their virtual smoke all over the place and no one is the wiser.

    2. Re:May not work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cigarette smoke does objectively taste horrible, just like any other smoke. But the nicotine provides a kind of pleasure that the smoker's brain associates with all the nuances and subtleties of the horrible tasting vapor. Pine needle smoke has it's own nuances and subtleties that are equally worthy of appreciation, but the lack of nicotine in pine needle smoke means that people do not ever become pine needle smoke gourmands.

    3. Re:May not work by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      They're forgetting one of the fundamental problems - most smokers like smoking because it's more habitual. They're used to the act of having a cigarette in their hand and the act of blowing smoke.

      I think this has a lot to do with why people start. They want to look like they're in a movie. But it's not why they keep doing it.

      Few people realize how much more addictive tobacco is when it comes in the form of a cigarette (as opposed to chewing tobacco, or gum, or even a cigar). There is a real reason people smoke cigarettes as opposed to other forms of nicotine. It isn't all about looking cool. Patches would be so much more convenient, less smelly, easy to hide, and they work on airplanes- why don't smokers switch to patches?

      Cigarettes allow easy titration of the dose. The physiological response to nicotine is extremely dose responsive- small doses have a stimulant effect, while larger doses have a paradoxical relaxing effect. When you smoke a cigarette you are able to subconsciously control the amount of nicotine absorbed by the body, until you get the effect that you want. Once you get into the target zone, you can take an occasional puff that is subconsciously timed to maintain the desired chemical disequilibrium (your body is making adjustments to correct for the presence of the nicotine- you have to stay a little ahead of it).

      Try doing that with a patch, which releases nicotine at a fixed rate. Or chewing tobacco- which supplies a massive dose of nicotine that is very hard to control (but is less habit forming). Tobacco is at its most addictive when it's been rolled into cigarettes. That's partly why you see cigarettes more than any other form of nicotine.

  10. New moochers by OneBigWord · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dude, can I bum a AA?

  11. So when you exhale what comes out? by John+Harrison · · Score: 0

    I really doubt that I would want to sit next to someone on a long flight that is smoking one of these. If it is worth smoking (to a smoker that is) then it will annoy non-smokers in the vicinity.

  12. What about AC power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to save on battery costs and plug this into a wall outlet - is this possible?

  13. Won't stick around by Ironsides · · Score: 1

    If this ever starts to take off the Anti-Smoking loby will grind it into the ground.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    1. Re:Won't stick around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bastards. Let's get them back by donating money to the Pro-Smoking lobby.

    2. Re:Won't stick around by SnprBoB86 · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that this only hurts those smoking (no 2nd hand smoke) and supposibly it hurts them less (no tar).

      Also, if these packs/cigarrets are battery powered and refillable or something like that, they maybe less likely to become litter.

      --
      http://brandonbloom.name
    3. Re:Won't stick around by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter that they won't cause 2nd hand smoke or litter. A lot anti-smoking lobby essentially wants a ban on nicotine period. Basically they say its bad for you and therefore no one should be allowed to do it. Even if you know the risks to yourself and what not. Think somewhere along the lines of "If you're smoking this you obviously aren't smart enough to make your own decisions and protect yourself so I will have to make your decisions for you.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  14. Bad idea by jb.hl.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anything which reduces the health barrier to nicotine addiction is a bad thing. Period.

    --
    By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    1. Re:Bad idea by Iamthewalrus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anything which reduces the health barrier to nicotine addiction is a bad thing. Period.

      That's a terrible position to take, unless you think that smokers somehow morally "deserve" the health problems they end up with. Obviously, if we could reduce the health effects of nicotine addiction to insignficant levels, then smoking wouldn't have to be a big deal. Even reducing them slightly might mean that those who are addicted have a better chance of living longer and more happy lives.
      How on earth could that be a bad thing?

      --
      Help prevent the slashdot effect; stop reading the articles.
    2. Re:Bad idea by raider_red · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anything which reduces the health barrier to nicotine addiction is a bad thing. Period.

      Why? If nicotine isn't harmful in and of itself, what's wrong with someone voluntarily using it? Nobody seems to complain about caffeine addiction after all.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    3. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! The reduced health barrier to beginning the use of nicotine should be weighed against the health benefit to existing nicotine addicts.

    4. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck yeah! If these addicts can't quit cold-turkey, they don't deserve to live. The sooner they die of cancer the sooner we'll be rid of the sad lot of 'em!

    5. Re:Bad idea by Flabby+Boohoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course they deserve the health problems. No one held them down and forced them to smoke.

    6. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, it's a bad thing. How on earth then will evolution be able to do its job and get us rid of them!?!

    7. Re:Bad idea by goodydot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I smoke. I have NO DOUBTS that it's bad for me and could cause an early demise. Anybody 25 and older has known this their whole lives. Same goes for eating really fatty foods, not excercising, and drinking too much. There is no secret here, and I have never lamented that the tobacco companies have 'done this' to me. I've done it to myself, and I CHOOSE to continue. I know many people who have quit...tough as it is it can be done IF YOU WANT TO. I don't, so I smoke. So yes, in fact, I think I DESERVE what I get as a result. There is NO excuse for me to not quit, except that I don't want to, and there is NO excuse for anybody else who is still smoking. We're doing it to ourselves. I know it's addicting, but that just means it's more difficult to quit, not impossible. I don't feel sorry for myself or anybody else who smokes, and neither should you. I, and many others, would not like it if the gov't forced alcohol companies to start selling alcohol-free products only...drinkers WANT it, so they should have it. I WANT my nicotine, and if I choose to buy smokeless cigarettes so that I won't be inconvenienced by a desire to smoke, that's a terrific option. If I CHOOSE to smoke regular cigarettes outside in the snow, then I have to live with my choice. I think it sucks, but then I think GW sucks, and look where we are.

    8. Re:Bad idea by deacon · · Score: 1
      Absolutely.

      What the State *should* be doing is make safe nicotine available for those who are addicted, so that society can save the wasted health care $ that are expended on those who have become addicted, and who have only tabacco to satisfy the addiction. Not to mention the household fires, bed fires, etc.

      Citizens spend a huge amount of money, like 5 or 7 $ a pack.

      As the State allows, yet controls, the sale of tobacco and alcohol, and collects tax off the same, the State should be responsible for the consequences, and has a duty to provide less harmful alternatives.

    9. Re:Bad idea by magefile · · Score: 1

      Nicotine is bad for you. Lethal, too, at relatively small doses - it's used in some Roach Motels. The idea behind this is that at least you're getting rid of the tar.

    10. Re:Bad idea by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      Oh I do worry about caffeine addiction, possibly since my girlfriend is addicted to it. Addiction is one of the creepiest fucking things to me. But seriously, tobacco and nicotine is a far more serious problem than someone having a few too many cups of joe.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    11. Re:Bad idea by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point.

      Tobacco smoking brings with it deleterious effects on the lungs, mouth and everyone in the immediate vicinity. Nicotine alone brings with it low blood pressure and other nastinesses, which a lot of people are unaware of. If you remove the lung cancer aspect, a lot of people will be still doing themselves damage, and people might take up just taking nicotine for the high without realising they're letting themselves in for impotence and other goodies.

      This is not to mention that the tobacco industry will be all over this, claiming it's healthier, when they're really just slimy fucks.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    12. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they do deserver it at least most people today do. Sure there are some people in there 40's plus who have never managed to quit and started and became addicted when there was limited information on the harmful effects. Everyone younger though started when the would have had to be a cave with their eyes shut and thier fingers in their ears not to know. I am not saying I wish them bad health but if they end up with it the responsibility is entierly their own and I certly don't feel sorry for them at all.

    13. Re:Bad idea by raider_red · · Score: 1

      The same could be said for alcohol. Although it takes relatively large quantities before it becomes lethal.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
  15. Tobacco companies. by Kazrath · · Score: 0

    I will not be supprised if we start seeing statistics/polls manufactured by the tobacco monopolies trying to make this tech out to be "Bad news". This could really cut into their profits if it hits the american market. Next up will be spitless chewing tobacco

    1. Re:Tobacco companies. by Digz · · Score: 1
      Already here.. of a sort..

      http://www.revel.com/

      --
      SYS 64738
  16. Cheap as a normal cigarette? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can somebody explain to me how a battery, heating element, plastic case, and filter can POSSIBLY be as cheap to manufacture as dried leaves, paper, and a filter? Am I missing something here?

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:Cheap as a normal cigarette? by erlorad · · Score: 1

      Tax. Shitloads of it.

    2. Re:Cheap as a normal cigarette? by jabber-admin · · Score: 1

      http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html

    3. Re:Cheap as a normal cigarette? by Fr05t · · Score: 1

      A pack in Canada will run you around $10. Governments tax the crap out of tabacco and make a fortune doing it. In fact that's probably the only reason it's still legal in Canada and the US. Oh and of course the big donations the companies make to political causes.

    4. Re:Cheap as a normal cigarette? by BeCre8iv · · Score: 1

      "Can somebody explain to me how a battery, heating element, plastic case, and filter can POSSIBLY be as cheap to manufacture as dried leaves, paper, and a filter? Am I missing something here?"

      Try paying £5 for 20 here in the UK.

      Its about time we could deliver NIC without combustion.

      --
      This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
    5. Re:Cheap as a normal cigarette? by multiOSfreak · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're forgetting that it will probably be manufactured in Southeast Asia by the elderly and toddlers that make 2 cents a day. That kind of operating really cuts down on overhead.

      Interestingly enough, that's the method Nike uses to make its shoes (only they contract the production to a 3rd party and then claim they can't control the working conditions), and the shoes still cost $100+ a pair. Pure profit.

    6. Re:Cheap as a normal cigarette? by mko · · Score: 1

      This is an omission in the writeup, according to Ananova "filters will cost about as much as a cigarette". The battery, heating element etc. are reused.

    7. Re:Cheap as a normal cigarette? by saider · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Think razors. The battery, heater, etc are bought once. The nicotene "filters" are the bulk, cheap item. Combined, a "pack" will cost about the same.

      My question is "Can teenagers buy this?" Remember, smoking bans are almost always based on the fact that smoking causes cancer and not the morality of chemical addictions.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    8. Re:Cheap as a normal cigarette? by anothergene · · Score: 1

      Can somebody explain to me how a battery, heating element, plastic case, and filter can POSSIBLY be as cheap to manufacture as dried leaves, paper, and a filter? Am I missing something here?

      Doesn't matter if it's as cheap as a regular cigarette. Right now anyway. How was it put in "The Insider"? All cigarettes are is a nicotine delivery vehicle. If they can find a way to "safely" sell nicotine to people they'll be all over it and make it cheaper!

      The majority of the bad health affects from smoking are from the biproducts of the combustion. You can get the same nicotine from the tobaco just by heating. If they can perfect this they'll have a whole new generaion of addicts to support them.

      --
      Who's leg do I have to hump to get a dry martini around here?
    9. Re:Cheap as a normal cigarette? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Sin Tax.

      As this item wouldn't be a "cigarette" per the law, it wouldn't be taxed the same as a pack. Add in that it's reusable and supposably safer and it doesn't matter if it even costs a little more.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:Cheap as a normal cigarette? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > In fact that's probably the only reason it's still legal in Canada and the US.

      That and the hundred million smokers that still want it legal...

    11. Re:Cheap as a normal cigarette? by Fr05t · · Score: 1

      Interesting question.. but, also to go with that I believe Tobacco is a government regulated substance, not nicoteen. So this might not matter either way.

  17. ObSimp. by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
    It looks like a cigarette, it's used as a cigarette, but it's not a cigarette at all.

    Kinda like the sauce with cocktail weenies. "It looks like ketchup, it tastes like ketchup, but brother, it aint ketchup."

    But seriously, isn't this just a cigarette-sized version of the old vaporizers?

    1. Re:ObSimp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cow: Tooomaaaccooooo!!!

  18. Its been tried? by Malachi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wasn't their a Discovery Health show on tobacco and all the amazing ways they have tried to fix what a smoke is to make it less bad for you and have yet to succeed in making something palatable?

    This is a bomb. People smoke because its a habitual ticking nerosis.. They like the way smoke feels entering and leaving them, ritual. Not necessarily the direct effect.

    Course its all open for debate.

    --
    "Life is all about strategy, mathematics and psychological perceptiveness."
    1. Re:Its been tried? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't their a Discovery Health show on tobacco...

      No...no I don't think there was.

    2. Re:Its been tried? by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 1

      The study that should be done on this subject would be to get a non-smoker addicted to these things and see what happens when they quit. I suspect you'd be right. They'd be all like "fucking headache" for a few days and that would be about the end of it.

      --
      Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
    3. Re:Its been tried? by arth1 · · Score: 1
      Wasn't their a Discovery Health show on tobacco and all the amazing ways they have tried to fix what a smoke is to make it less bad for you and have yet to succeed in making something palatable?


      There's exceptions.
      Do a search for "The Swedish Effect".

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    4. Re:Its been tried? by jaden · · Score: 0


      not discovery health... least not that I saw. you're probably thinking of the Nova special, "Search for a Safe Cigarette".

      There were similar products discussed in there... including the failed smokeless brand Premier and the current reduced smoke Eclipse.

    5. Re:Its been tried? by mikael_j · · Score: 1
      Google, MSN Search and Altavista all return nothing related to tobacco, closest I found was a report on antibiotics use...

      But I suspect that you meant for us to find something like this?

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  19. Ebay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My wife and I spent the money for one of these things and it has really saved our lungs from the poundings they used to get after every harvest. I see no reason why it wouldn't work for tobacco as well.

    1. Re:Ebay by XoloX · · Score: 1

      I used to smoke quite a lot of marihuana. But once I realised I was smoking another one just to get some nicotine, I bought a vaporiser. And since then, well, I'm just very glad I did, :D. Saves me from tearing up my lungs. I'd recommend it to anyone, who's already into Mary Jane anyways of course.

      And yes, I live in the Netherlands aswell.

    2. Re:Ebay by evilmousse · · Score: 1


      do not, repeat, do NOT use a vaporizer to smoke tobacco. you'll only disagree with me once.

    3. Re:Ebay by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      I have been trying to come up with a working design for a pocket vaproriser for years.

      Damn if this thing doesn't have potential.

      It's the heat that's the problem. An electrical heating element would be best, but electrical heat needs a lot of power.

      No or minimal smell would be nice too.

    4. Re:Ebay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheap pocket vaporizers:

      ubie
      cheap vaporizer
      dominizer

      ah, the wonders of pyrex

  20. Old news... by dfn_deux · · Score: 5, Informative

    RJ Reynolds developed a system similar to this in the late 80's and was shot down by the FDA. It seems that the FDA considered this a drug and drug delivery device and not a cigarette. Which of course means lots and lots and lots of expensive "drug" testing. However there is a japanese company that makes an electrical heating element device for normal cigarettes which supposedly "vaporizes" the nicotine for inhaltion without smoke, I wish I had a link. IIRC there was some mention of this in a PBS special many years back called "the search for a safe cigarette"...

    --
    -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    1. Re:Old news... by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      Transcript from the ad. It

      Tv Ad Announcer: The American Medical Association said, "these are not cigarettes, but a sophisticated drug delivery system which gives smokers strong hits of nicotine, a drug the AMA says is so addictive it wants smokeless cigarettes banned."

      Narration: Consumers were equally unenthusiastic with what was dubbed a smokeless cigarette.

      Smoker 1: Nothing. Zero. It's like smoking blackboard chalk.

      Smoker 2: What kind of cigarette is this?

      Smoker 3: Another first for American technology. No wonder the Japanese are trembling.

      Tv Ad Announcer: R.J. Reynolds has announced it is bailing out of its smokeless cigarette project, but then those smokers who tried Premier apparently didn't like it anyway.

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    2. Re:Old news... by Opalima · · Score: 1

      Waaaaait a minute - if a cigarette isn't a drug delivery instrument then I don't know what is.

      Why doesn't the FDA ban cigarettes based on the same premise they used to deny the smokeless cigaratte back in the 80's?

      I call shinnanigans :-) (even if I can't spell it properly)

    3. Re:Old news... by jridley · · Score: 1

      politics. Truth and right doesn't matter, money and influence does.

    4. Re:Old news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me of an idea I had for a cannabis delivery system - bascially you'd heat it up and vaporize it without burning it (some products already exist to do this), then dissolve it in something like CFC-11 for use in a metered-dose inhaler.

      Oddly enough, I can't find any information on whether THC might be soluble in CFC-11. And aside from that, the stuff doesn't agree with me anyway. Last time I smoked pot it was 15 minutes before I started breathing again without concious effort, so I haven't really pursued the matter.

    5. Re:Old news... by karlowfwb · · Score: 1

      They currently have a very similar product on the market called Eclipse. Sounds like basically the same idea, except no battery, you 'light' a heating element at the end which in turn draws hot air over the tobacco, releasing the nicotine, but not much of the tar.

    6. Re:Old news... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 2, Informative

      The smokeless Premier cigarette played a small part in the movie Barbarians at the Gate in which James Garner plays wily, crude RJR CEO F. Scott Johnson, who said I think has some of the most priceless movie quotes ever.

      At the beginning of the film, Johnson first tries the premier, which was receiving poor reviews and which was described as "tastes like shit, smells like a fart." When Johnson noted that the draw on the cigarette was wrong (difficult) and the RJR scientist said that was the "hernia effect" Johnson said something like "that's fucking great! Buy Premier cigarettes, they'll rip your balls off!"

      A highly recommend movie.

    7. Re:Old news... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Oh great! Now you're going to rot away my ozone layer while you rot away your mind.

    8. Re:Old news... by Barrakketh · · Score: 1

      Cruise over to GrassCity and look under the category "vaporizers :)

  21. Nothing new. by Suburbanpride · · Score: 2
    Marijuana vaporizers, which heat up the pot enough to realse thc but not enough to produce much tar or smoke, have been around for a while.

    THe exciting thing about this product is that it is small enough and inconspicuous enough to use like a normal cig, but without the smoke.

    The current nictone subsitutes (gums and patches) are really expensive, so this could be a much more afordable way to help addicts stop putting gunk in their lungs.

    --
    sorry 'bout the mess...
    1. Re:Nothing new. by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Most of the smaller, more convenient ones are glass pipes. Frankly, I don't want to look like I have a crack problem. The others are either large and bulky or extremely expensive ($200CAN for a pipe is a little much).

    2. Re:Nothing new. by bonius_rex · · Score: 1
      The current nictone subsitutes (gums and patches) are really expensive, so this could be a much more afordable way to help addicts stop putting gunk in their lungs.

      This isn't so much the case anymore. I was smoking 1.5 packs/day (at about $4.50/pack). I am now using the patch, which is about $50.00 for a 2 week supply.

      Buying smokes cost me $6.75/day. The patch costs me $3.57/day.

      The outrageous taxation on tobacco has actually made it cheaper to use the patch.

  22. Not new? by balster+neb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not sure about the details, but I remember watching something on TV several years ago about cigarette companies in the US coming up with such a thing.

    A cigarette with no tobacco, and with this red glowing thing at the end. Looked like a real cigarette too.

    They had high hopes for it, but guess what happened? They weren't allowed to sell it, on the grounds that it was essentially a device to administer dosages of a strong drug.

    I don't remember the details, but i'm sure someone could google around and find some.

    1. Re:Not new? by balster+neb · · Score: 1

      OK, decided to google around myself and reply to my own post. Here's what I found about the "Premier" cigarettes:

      http://www.fact-index.com/p/pr/premier_cigarette.h tml
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_cigarette

      I'm not entirely sure if this is the same thing. And apparently, they have tried a similar concept more recently, calling it "Eclipse".

  23. Diet Cigarettes by ottergoose · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess it was only a matter of time before fake beer and diet pop/soda got a companion.

    This sounds like a pretty cool product. I wonder how sales would be regulated here in the US... could you sell something like this to minors?

  24. Geeks unite by Locdonan · · Score: 0

    Finally, a cigarette that geeks can enjoy! You could mod it out with a multi-filter system, and smoke a pack all at once!

    Next thing you know, they'll have see though cigs and MP3 packs.

    But man! That battery acid is hard on the lungs.

    --
    If I wrote something witty, you would say I stole it from somewhere.
  25. My 2 cents by contagious_d · · Score: 1

    I started smoking at 15 (7 years ago), and it had nothing to do with looking cool. My friends and I all started because it feels REALLY good.

    --
    - /home is where the food is.
    1. Re:My 2 cents by eln · · Score: 1

      "my friends and I all started" because it felt really good. uh huh.

      More likely, one of your friends tried it because they wanted to look cool to an older sibling, or maybe even because they liked the buzz (which to me was always the worst part about smoking...i was a much happier smoker when the buzz stopped), but everyone else did it because they wanted to fit in. This is the same reason kids that age do almost everything they do.

    2. Re:My 2 cents by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah like totally for sure. I mean all you have todo is hide your smokes in your prodda then jett with your nikes when the fuzz comes around to bust ya.

      Mind if I swig some $CHEAP_BEER cuz I'm totally needing to fake being drunk off 37mL of 2.5% alcohol. Like you know, "independent".

      "Punkagers" as I call them [and I'm only 22 so you can figure out how much I hate conformity] like to be totally rebellious doing the stupidest shit.

      Sure I had a beer [one] when I was 17 [before the legal age of 19]. But I wasn't particularly proud of it [to the point of bragging]. I was at an office party and had a beer. Whoopy-fucking-doo. Did I then turn into a lush because it was "cool" to drink? No. See I have the ability to reason that being a total fucking sheep isn't exactly how I'm going to spend my short life span on Earth.

      You know how I "rebelled" in school? I read TAOCP [re: Knuth] during finite math classes [statistics] to the point where I got a detention for missing work. Then in detention I decided I was going to keep reading it.

      While perhaps "nerdy" in my way of rebellion [cuz not many 18 yr olds read TAOCP] it did help out. I just finished my second contract consulting gig and I'm not even finished College yet. I've had a speaking appearance already too, etc...

      It's all too easy to conform with your buddies and do the $POPULAR_EVENT_OF_WEEK. It's more meaningful and character defining to have your own path.

      You smoked not because of the buzz but because you wanted to fit in with your buddies. I'm sure you were apprehensive of smoking at first and your friends all grew "mob mentality". I'm sure if you were a loner you probably wouldn't have started.

      Before anyone mentions that loners have social tendencies like drinking/etc it's usually to act like others too [or some misguided goal of obtaining the allusive high]

      Point is.... I hope you die of lung cancer in a car fire you fucking piece of shit smoker. Smokers are the rudest mean small little people who care shit all for the people around them because they think it's their "right" to pollute your lungs with the hate of some greedy monopolistic company trying to leverage a synergy between your wallet and their bank accounts.

      So smoke up you vile smoking filth. You'll die painfully some day.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    3. Re:My 2 cents by sydb · · Score: 1

      Take a copy of your post and read it again in 7 more years time when you spend the first five minutes after waking coughing up sputum. Then tell us how good it feels.

      Having started and stopped smoking several times over 15 years, I can tell you this: nothing feels better than not smoking.

      Nicotine is an addictive drug. It works by creating a need in your body. Every time you smoke, you fill the need created by the last does of nicotine. This is not pleasure, it is drug dependence. Don't kid yourself.

      The "buzz" created by nicotine is actually very similar to that created by hyperventilating. Why don't you give that a try instead if it's that feeling your after? By the way, the buzz has nothing to do with the addiction. The addiction is simply the relief of that "I need a smoke" itch.

      I know you will scoff at my post. I would too, if I was still smoking, but as an ex-smoker I KNOW I'm right! I am in a position to know the truth, because I have experienced it first hand!

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    4. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you missed your nicotine fix.

    5. Re:My 2 cents by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      I'm addicted to the sweet sweet love of caffeine.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    6. Re:My 2 cents by contagious_d · · Score: 1

      Dang, I got flamed...

      --
      - /home is where the food is.
    7. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point is.... I hope you die of lung cancer in a car fire you fucking piece of shit smoker

      I was with you up until then. You almost made it through your whole post without acting like an immature kid. Give it a couple of years and you'll be able to write an entire post without a tantrum. Then you'll have a respected point of view. Won't that be cool?

    8. Re:My 2 cents by bhsurfer · · Score: 1
      I have to second your sentiment. I haven't had a cigarette for almost 2 months, off the patches, totally nicotine free and it feels great. It's amazing to me not only how much better it feels to not smoke, but also how willing I used to be to feel shitty constantly and tell myself that it was "normal." It's not normal, it sucks.

      I too have quit multiple times, for multiple months at a time, which is a testament to both my lack of willpower and the suicidally strong pull of addiction. I'm just glad I never got addicted to something that actually feels good -> that would be REALLY hard to quit. My sympathies to those poor bastards...

      But seriously, you youngsters out there, save yourself a fortune & feel better by quitting that shit now. You won't regret it later. It's cool to quit smoking, hell, even Tom Waits did it.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
      Groucho Marx
    9. Re:My 2 cents by contagious_d · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you are right. These people that will do anything to be cool are retarded. Know which ones bother me the most? The ones that sit at their parents houses and proclaim their awesomeness on "teh intrawebs" by flaming people for stating simple facts like "cigarettes feel good". I mean, that is obviously a lie, because if they felt good, people would smoke them... especially kids. That never happens. You are teh awesums!!1

      --
      - /home is where the food is.
    10. Re:My 2 cents by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah cuz holes in your lungs and a retarded year-long cough is what "feels good".

      Smokers claim it feels good as an excuse. Just like people who drink pop like the taste [which is hard to believe considering what it actually is].

      I may live with my parents but that's because I didn't drop out of school to find any burger joint job so I can be "teh awesomes" while I live in a shitty apartment with my teenage pregnant wife.

      I decided to attend college and build up my talents as a software developer and cryptographer. Oh for fucking shame.

      Who said the way you're implying to live [e.g. move out quick, find *any* job and live with it] is the best? I know many people who did that and they're basically struggling to get both classes and $$$ work done on time. They'll finish College without any discernable talents because they will be one of 600 other grads.

      I pay rent to my parents, I pay my own bills. Just I don't pay as much [I pay about 600$/month in bills]. The extra time I have I spend on my projects like the LibTom series of consulting which further set me apart from the "diploma mill" grads I'll be graduating with.

      Of course maybe that's because I can tolerate my parents and not act like a little prissy punkager who must "hate his parents" cuz it's uncool to think otherwise.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    11. Re:My 2 cents by contagious_d · · Score: 1

      I am afraid that in your eagerness to get all huffy, you have still missed my entire point. People think kids are trying to be cool when they start smoking, but much of the time the actual reason is that they smoke one, get this awesome rush, and decide that they like the way it feels. Kinda like the rush you personally get from flaming people on /. - After awhile, you dont get the rush, but by then you are an addict.
      I can be "teh awesomes" while I live in a shitty apartment with my teenage pregnant wife -tomstdenis

      --
      - /home is where the food is.
    12. Re:My 2 cents by sydb · · Score: 1

      how willing I used to be to feel shitty constantly and tell myself that it was "normal."

      It's insane, isn't it? There have been times I have sat chain-smoking until I could hardly breath. Those times I have always felt like I was trying to achieve some kind of satisfaction that never comes, but the chain smoking gave me a sense of progress!

      Drinking always makes it worse too, because it dulls the pain in your lungs and makes it easier to smoke more.

      I find drink and cigarettes form a really vicious circle when combined. I would drink because it made smoking more bearable. Therefore I smoked more. Therefore I needed to smoke more. So I drank more.

      I'm clean for a week now and I feel much better already, though I have loads more goodness to come. In that same time I've only had a couple of alcoholic drinks.

      All the best in staying off the weed. I find Allen Carr's book "EasyWay to Stop Smoking" a godsend. I stopped for one year immediately after reading it over a weekend. I started again when my best friend died (idiot (me not him)) and I've been on and off since then. I only had to read two pages of that book a week ago on Sunday and I quit on the Monday morning. No cravings, no irritability, no regrets.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    13. Re:My 2 cents by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And why the sudden urge to smoke? My parents smoked. My babysitters [when I was 7] smoked. None of my friends smoke [by design] and even if they did I wouldn't follow their footsteps.

      Maybe they continue to smoke [at first] because of the rush but I can't imagine they continue to smoke [after a year] or even start because of the rush. It's the same thing with drinking.

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    14. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I may live with my parents but that's because I didn't drop out of school to find any burger joint job so I can be "teh awesomes" while I live in a shitty apartment with my teenage pregnant wife.

      Ah, the angst comes wafing over.

      Well at least you'll never get hooked on nicotine by smoking after sex... <heh>

    15. Re:My 2 cents by tcr · · Score: 1

      Wow, that really rings a bell with me...

      I always found it hardest when socialising in bars. A few beers, and the diminished responsiblity sets in, and it's so easy to say "what the Hell" and grab one. Then, of course, finish the pack... :-)

      I tried the book too, but there is also a good online reference here in much the same style.

      I seem to be giving up nearly every week, but sneaking in a smoke now and again, which blows it. I suppose the hardest thing is the 100% mental commitment that you are never going to smoke again; I don't think I'm there yet, but I'm working on it.

      --


      Information wants to be beer.
  26. This is so cool... by mekkab · · Score: 3, Funny

    That I'm gonna take up smoking again!

    Don't get me wrong; I'm not addicted to nicotine. I've quit hundreds of times!

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    1. Re:This is so cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joke I always used when I was smoking:

      non-smoking jackass: smoking's not good for you [duh!], have you thought of quitting?

      me: bah, quitting's easy, I've done it dozens of times!

  27. Already Done by clinko · · Score: 2, Informative

    Already Done, part of the reason Nabisco/RJR collapsed in the 80's

    Google
    Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco

    1. Re:Already Done by not_bio · · Score: 1

      It is still being done (in a bit of a different way) by RJRT with their near-smokeless cigarettes. From the site http://www.eclipse.rjrt.com , it appears that they are still actively looking at less smokey alternatives. From the eclipse site:

      " Eclipse is for smokers who have decided not to quit, but who are interested in a cigarette that responds to concerns about certain smoking-related illnesses, including cancer. For many smokers, it may well be a better way to smoke".

  28. No passive smoking effect? by Avian+visitor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...because there is obviously no passive smoking effect.

    1) User of this new contraption breathes a lung-full of nicotine-air mixture.

    2) Some of the nicotine from the air is deposited in user's lungs, providing whatever pleasures smokers get from it.

    3) The rest of the nicotine-air mixture (although a bit less concentrated) is expelled from user's lungs and into the surrounding atmosphere.

    4) An anonymous non-smoking bystander breathes some of the remaining nicotine that the user expelled a few moments.

    5) Some of the nicotine is deposited in his lungs against his will.

    No passive smoking effect? Yeah right...

    (I don't smoke if you haven't figured that out yet)

    1. Re:No passive smoking effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You whining baby!
      Like the SUV you drive doesn't force toxic gasses into my lungs!
      If you want it to stop, either help private space companies get us the hell out of here, or move to boulder, co.

    2. Re:No passive smoking effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You drive your big SUV (to compensate for a small dick) past me, I breathe in SOx compounds against my will. Do I complain? no.

      Shut the fuck up.

    3. Re:No passive smoking effect? by manifest37 · · Score: 1

      Obviously you don't smoke because you would understand that it's not nicotine that is harmful in the second smoke but the smoke from burning the tobacco and other chemicals in ciggarettes.

    4. Re:No passive smoking effect? by DJCF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IAMAS (I Am Not A Smoker). AFAIK, it's not (just) the nicotine that cases problems. Nicotine is the adictive but the stuff that really causes problems are substances such as the tar and the smoke. With this device, the nicotine is heated, not burnt, so no tar, smoke, etc. Secondly, the real danger effect of passive smoking (and what makes passive so much worse than active) is that the passive smoker smokes the cigerrette while the active smoker is not inhaling and the cigerette is just burning into the air. So while it is true there is a small amount of nicotine to be inhaled from the active smoker, almost all of the dangers of passive smoking will be eliminated. I don't smoke either, BTW.

    5. Re:No passive smoking effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or move to boulder, co...

      Yeah, with all the other whining pussies up there.

    6. Re:No passive smoking effect? by legirons · · Score: 1

      "4) An anonymous non-smoking bystander breathes some of the remaining nicotine that the user expelled a few moments.

      5) Some of the nicotine is deposited in his lungs against his will.
      "

      6) Both people leave and drive home, poisoning hundreds of cyclists against their will.

    7. Re:No passive smoking effect? by enjo13 · · Score: 1

      Uhm, your saying passive (second hand) smoking is worse than being the actual smoker? In your argument you are basically saying that the active smoker never breathes when they are not inhaling. That is..silly. It is MUCH worse to be an active participant than taking in the smoke second hand.

      Doesn't mean second hand smoke isn't a problem.. it's just not the problem you made it out to be:)

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    8. Re:No passive smoking effect? by superstick58 · · Score: 1

      The majority of nicotine from the little NicStic is absorbed by the smoker. The amount that is exhaled will be most likely so minute that it would have absolutely no effect to anyone who passes by except perhaps if you were shotgunning it from the smoker themself. Besides this, it's not the nicotine that poses the problem, but the tar and carcinogens contained in the smoke.

    9. Re:No passive smoking effect? by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 1

      So... if I started "smoking" these things around girls... would they evetnually become addicted to my presence?

      "I don't know what it is, but I feel calm around you, and all anxious when I am not..."

      Finally, an equalizer for the geeks!

      --

      "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
    10. Re:No passive smoking effect? by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      No passive smoking effect? Yeah right...

      On the other hand, as far as the rest of us non-smokers are concerned, nicotine is one of the less harmful components of cigarette smoke. For second-hand smokers, the nasty stuff (most likely to cause cancer or lung problems) are the small particulates (smoke) and the aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)--both are products of combustion. The carbon monoxide from incomplete combustion isn't good for anybody, either. To add insult to injury, passive smokers get a worse dose of PAHs and particulates because they don't get to inhale the smoke through a filter.

      Nicotine is a highly toxic substance--it's sold over the counter as an insecticide--but it has a pretty low vapour pressure at room temperature. That's probably one of the reasons these nicotine sticks need to have a heater in them--cool air won't pick up enough nicotine in the time it spends passing through the filter. Nicotine is also highly water soluble. Consequently, I would expect that as soon as the nicotine vapour leaves the hot "cigarette" and enters a (relatively) cool, wet mouth, it should immediately condense out of the inhaled air and be deposited in the mouth, throat, and lungs.

      Sure, it's not all going to be removed by the victim, but I expect it will be a pretty efficient process. Bystanders likely have more to worry about from the nasties in "new car smell".

      For the record, I work in cancer research (molecular biology) though not specifically studying toxicology.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    11. Re:No passive smoking effect? by DJCF · · Score: 1

      your saying passive (second hand) smoking is worse than being the actual smoker? That's what I heard, yes. The active smoker has a filter between him and the burning element, while the passive smoker has nothing. Note: I could be completely wrong about this and are prepared to be persuaded otherwise.

    12. Re:No passive smoking effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, you force both toxic gasses from your car into MY lungs, and from smoking. (I take it you do smoke from your strong reaction.)

      I DO NOT drive a car, EVER. I bike, and get forced evil exhaust gasses (I do get frustrated to see in a day 95% of the cars frustrating about me cause I'm on the road as well with my bike with just a single driver in a car able to transport at least 5 persons with high comfort. Not talking about how they're the first one's to bitch about trafficjams.) AND, the times I decide to walk around people blow smoke into my face.


      So what's your point? Anonymous Coward? He who has to put up with most wins the argument?

      Smoking is both a physical addiction, as wel the root of disfunction;
      If you go into a stress situation, your stress is elevated by the craving as well. You smoke, your craving stopped, but the problem which caused your stress situation ISNT. Still Existing, but you stopped caring, cause alas, your stresslevel is reduced and you feel relief...
      Taking it further; You cannot function without the idea your nicotine fix solves all stress. Where it just leaves you with piling up your problems being unable to cope certain situation (cause you've been avoiding them with your only known means to stop discomfort).


      I don't care if someone does choose to smoke, but as there's been said many of times: "not if I have to suffer under it.[nor others]"
      I DO NOT want to have my clothes, hair, ... smell like smoke.
      I DO NOT want to be exposed to risks of second hand smoking. (wherever debated it wouldn't be as much of a risk. I believe it is, so I shouldn't be forced that view. In the past, DDT wasn't considered as a health risk either.)

  29. Cigars? by krunchyfrog · · Score: 1
    Can't wait to see cigar-flavored cigs of those...

    Also, Bender will have to change his habits!

    --
    printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
    -- myself
  30. Nicoteen haters by Fr05t · · Score: 1

    I've seen a couple people bashing this. I bet they would feel different if it was battery powered caffine. Personally I can't wait for the battery powered Alcohol.

    1. Re:Nicoteen haters by rvw14 · · Score: 1

      I am not an addict. I just need to have my pot of coffee in the morning to wake up, my 64oz of Soda at lunch to stay awake, and my diet Dr. Pepper in the afternoon to make it till 5.

  31. I'll say this anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    My mother has lung cancer and unlike other cancers, remission is very hard thing. She will never be cured. She has a 50% chance to live 5 years.
    She smoked for 30 years, usually a pack or two a day.

    You smoke, you die.

    Don't smoke.

    1. Re:I'll say this anonymously by geomon · · Score: 4, Informative

      You smoke, you die.

      Don't smoke.....


      You still die.

      It is just a matter of time and place.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    2. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean if you don't smoke you will live forever? I can't wait to sit around and watch the sun burn out!

    3. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You both know what I ment- the non-sequitor not withstanding.

      I like to say that we all have life sentences- some are just longer than others.

    4. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You better stop skiing, riding in cars/planes/trains, going to school (where someone might go on a shooting rampage), etc, etc. Just stay home. But then watch out, the roof might collapse on you.

      BTW, where I come from, one doesn't draw general conclusions based on a SINGLE story. Dumbass!

    5. Re:I'll say this anonymously by geomon · · Score: 1

      You both know what I ment- the non-sequitor not withstanding.

      Yes, I was being pedantic. But there is something more to my comment than just a poor attempt at humor.

      I can't speak for other countries, but Americans in particular have a warped sense of risk. They are constantly in court fighting each other over the fact that a loved one has died and that it must be someone's fault.

      The fact is, no one is born with a guarantee tattoed to their foot. We all live in a risk-filled world. Things have gotten better in the last 10,000 years for humans, but they still die. We have managed to extend the lifespan by about two times, but there are risks that are just unmanageable.

      I had a dream the other night that Yellowstone's plumbing blew out (again) and sent a nuée ardente ripping across the Snake River plain engulfing the communities of Southern Idaho. I watched as whole towns were burnt to a cinder. Nothing could stop it. Although the probability of this event happening in my lifetime is slight, the possibility is quite high. The geologic record contains evidence of two other eruptions of similar makeup in the last 800,000 years.

      Considering what nature can dish up, there isn't any way to stop death. It is just a matter of time and place.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    6. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are claiming the smoking does not cause cancer? Or that cancer was caused by something else, and that my mother's 30 years of smoking is a red herring, and that it was my mother's love of fresh air that really caused her cancer?

      Listen up you stupid kcuf, when every single doctor tells us that lung cancer is (1) not genetic (no one else in the family has it, and natural lung cancer is rare), and (2) is 99.999% of the time a side effect of smoking or abestoes, I tend to believe the people with a PhD and not some moron AC here on /.

      And the last time I checked I didn't see a Surgeon General's Warning on a pair of skiis saying that skiing is a leading cause of death (Warning: skiing off of a cliff can cause bodily damage or even death- ski responsibly). Eh

      Jesus what an idiot.

    7. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree that we live in a risk filled world. But risks can be managed and high risk events can be contained.

      Smoking will kill you. It will cause you to die earlier and younger if you didn't smoke. That was her choice and while I did everything to make her stop. She finally gave up 14 years ago and while she did become a royal bitch for a while, I wholely supported her as a family should.

      The only person that I blame is my mother- for smoking. I do not hold Newport cigerettes responisble, but my mother's free will.
      I've always known that she would have some sort of lung issue in her older years, but not this soon.

    8. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You never mentioned any scientific studies in your original post. You just said your mother got cancer after smoking for many years and used that story to preach your ways to others, expecting people to stop smoking because of your little anecdote. That's absolutely idiotic!

      More idiotic is if you think some things (like skiing or driving) aren't dangerous just because they don't have a fucking warning label on them. Fuck you're a moron!

    9. Re:I'll say this anonymously by arose · · Score: 1

      You live, you die.

      Don't live.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    10. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Lunchy · · Score: 1

      That sounds clever till it's really time to die, then you'd wish you took that advice. :)

    11. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I suggest this little experiment- I'll be the control and you be the subject.

      You smoke two packs a day for 30 years and I'll try not to be around you at all. We'll check back in then to see who is in better health.

      Deal?

      As for skiing and driving- I do both. Heck I even SCUBA dive a bit too. These things are risky indeed, but are DESIGNED to be safer. Skiis have releases if you fall down, which help avoid broken bones, and cars are built to protect the driver and passengers. Granted it is possible to injure, mame, and kill yourself doing these things, but you have to be either way out of control or so kcufed up to be out of control to mange it. Smoking kills with every draw- no other product is designed to do that.

      Preaching- you betcha.
      Smoking kills. Don't smoke.

    12. Re:I'll say this anonymously by geomon · · Score: 1

      That sounds clever till it's really time to die, then you'd wish you took that advice. :)

      I'm a former smoker myself.

      30+ years.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    13. Re:I'll say this anonymously by geomon · · Score: 1

      Smoking will kill you.

      No doubt about it. That is why I quit in 2002 after 30+ years of thrashing my lungs.

      Sorry that your mom had to go fighting an addiction. My mom is headed down that same road.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    14. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Lunchy · · Score: 1

      And? I didn't mean YOU per se'. But someone who'd really use that as an arguement to continue smoking.

    15. Re:I'll say this anonymously by renoX · · Score: 1

      True, but I don't care about smokers dying early: everyone is entitled to choose his own death, what I care is that: they *stink*!

      The smoke's odor is really annoying for non-smokers..

      PS: I don't think that "addicted people who can't quit" are really "choosing" their death.
      How many smokers have never tried to quit?
      I bet only a small percentage!

    16. Re:I'll say this anonymously by geomon · · Score: 1

      But someone who'd really use that as an arguement to continue smoking.

      I think only someone who is experiencing serious self-delusion would argue that it is safe to continue smoking.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    17. Re:I'll say this anonymously by geomon · · Score: 1

      True, but I don't care about smokers dying early:

      One can only hope that someone in your family rates that level of concern. ...everyone is entitled to choose his own death,..

      Not according to the US Attorney General. ...what I care is that: they *stink*!

      So do people who are dead.

      Some day you will join the ranks of the dead and you too will stink.

      How many smokers have never tried to quit?
      I bet only a small percentage!


      In my case the percentage is 100%.

      I quit two years ago.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    18. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obnoxious, self-righteous, whining little fucks. My biggest fear is that if I quit smoking, I'll become on of you. I have something to tell you non-smokers that I know for a fact that you don't know, and I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times. Ready? Non-smokers die every day...Enjoy your evening. See, I know that you entertain this eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke, but let me be the 1st to POP that bubble and bring you hurtling back to reality....You're dead too.

    19. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm preaching to you: Driving kills. Not only does driving kill you, but it kills others and it destroys the world. Every time you drive a car you pollute, you put others around you at risk (maybe you and your passengers are protected, but what about pedestrians you selfish bastard?), and you kill more of nature. Hell, the whole fucking driving requires so much polluting infrastructure like oil fields, roads, and huge factories, that it's not even funny.

      Driving kills. Don't drive.

      How come you want to preach, but you get all bent out of shape when I preach? You fucking hypocrite!

      Oh and yeah, I've already seen that experiment done: my grandfather smoked since he was a young man and lived to 87, my uncle never smoked and lived to 45.

    20. Re:I'll say this anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People tend to get bent out of shape when they are faced with direct rudeness.
      Add an ad hominem argument for the sake of trying to shore up weak point and you end up looking really, really dumb.

      Or maybe you really hate people who hold a point of view very strongly and think that everyone aught to be just like you.
      I don't know and I really don't care at this point. I've got other things to deal with, and trying to converse with a total fuckwad isn't very high on my list.

  32. One word by Digz · · Score: 1

    Taxes

    --
    SYS 64738
  33. Eclipse by Takehiko · · Score: 2, Informative

    R.J. Reynolds tried this back in 1996 with a product called Eclipse.

    http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9606/03/cigarette/

    1. Re:Eclipse by netsavior · · Score: 1

      eclipse still included fire, so it was not airplane-able.

    2. Re:Eclipse by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      the smoke that is produced is odorless (smells like burnt paper)
      If something smells like something, even something non-offensive or pleasant, then it has an odor, and is not odorless... perhaps you could clarify?
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    3. Re:Eclipse by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      "...the smoke that is produced is odorless (smells like burnt paper)..."

      I suppose the smoke is invisible (like white cloudy stuff) too?!!

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    4. Re:Eclipse by Kethinov · · Score: 1
      With 80% less additives, I think I'll stick to these unless the new battery-powered cigarettes actually end up cheaper.
      Or you could stop smoking. As a result of this seemingly obvious course of action, you pay even less (nothing actually), live longer, stop annoying people around you, stop fueling an immoral industry, and stop contributing in your own small way to why our species is still largely primitive as a whole.
      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    5. Re:Eclipse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Not!

    6. Re:Eclipse by greenegg77 · · Score: 1

      Or you could stop smoking. As a result of this seemingly obvious course of action, you pay even less (nothing actually), live longer, stop annoying people around you, stop fueling an immoral industry, and stop contributing in your own small way to why our species is still largely primitive as a whole.

      You make it sound so easy. You actually sound like someone who has never been addicted to nicotine.
      In case you are not aware, Nicotine is as addictive as heroin. http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/nicaddct.html Not many people tell a heroin addict to just quit - they get him treatment. Nicotine works by activitating the pleasure centers of your brain, the reward centers. It increases the level of dopamine in your brain, making you feel good, relaxed, just like heroin. Take the drug away, and the addict begins to crave it. True, we don't lay in our vomit doing the herky-jerky like heroin addicts do, but it does feel like crap. Try this little experiment - breathe out all the way. Now don't breathe back in. See how long you go without breathing in. That's what it's like when you try to quit, except you know that if you give in and take a "breath," you've lost.

      "Immoral industry" - wow. You do realize, of course, that without the "sin taxes" placed on tobacco, federal and state governments will have to raise taxes across the board to recoup that loss, right? Would you rather I pay those taxes for you, or do you want to chip in (if you want to help out on my sin taxes, send you check to...)? I don't have numbers, but I'm going to guess that the tobacco industry employs at least a couple thousand people. Where do their jobs go when we stop feuling this immoral industry? After we kill the immoral tobacco industry, who are we going after next? The immoral alcohol industry? The immoral oil companies? The immoral porn industry? The immoral gun industry? Give me a break.

      By the way, I don't think you speak for all of us when you talk of how primitive we are. I, for one, have this newfangled invention called "fire" in my cave. Come over sometime, I'll show it to you. We can talk about my collection of cave art, too.

      --
      --- This .sig for sale - $500 OBO.
    7. Re:Eclipse by dfn_deux · · Score: 1

      That "eclipse" website is crazy, you have to certify that you are a smoker before it will allow you to the main page! I tried just putting in my birthdate to affirm that I am at least 21 years of age, but it wouldn't let me in until I clicked the check box that says "I am a smoker".

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    8. Re:Eclipse by Kethinov · · Score: 1
      Try this little experiment - breathe out all the way. Now don't breathe back in. See how long you go without breathing in. That's what it's like when you try to quit, except you know that if you give in and take a "breath," you've lost.
      I don't deny the addiction. It is the very reason I encourage quitting. I know people who have quit and I know apologists like you. Quitting smoking is not deprivation of air. It will not kill you.
      You do realize, of course, that without the "sin taxes" placed on tobacco, federal and state governments will have to raise taxes across the board to recoup that loss, right?
      Uh huh. Because this of course justifies ALL the problems with smoking. Right. I don't think smoking should be illegal, but I do think that nicotine cigarettes should be illegal. Addictive drugs should not be sold over the counter in an unregulated fashion. FWI I support the legalization (and heavy taxation) of marijuana despite my strong opposition of its use as well. What's the difference? Nicotine is addictive. Marijuana is not. And no matter what you smoke, I think it should be kept in your own home. Besides, if you're not addicted to it (such as a non-nicotine cigarette, or marijuana) why should you care if it's restricted to your home?
      After we kill the immoral tobacco industry, who are we going after next? The immoral alcohol industry?
      Alcohol is a severe problem in this country. Again, I'm not opposed to getting drunk, but I am opposed to alcoholism. Until we can find a way to get drunk without ending up with hundreds of thousands of addicts, there's a problem and it needs a solution.
      The immoral oil companies?
      Sure, they're not fun either. Did you know methanol can be refined from marijuana many times more efficiently than from corn husks? Did you know that it's a renewable combustible fuel? Gasoline has been obsolete for a long time. Nascar uses methanol you know. The only reason most vehicles use gasoline is due to lobbying and suppression of renewable alternatives. But I digress.
      The immoral porn industry?
      What's immoral about that? We're all adults here...
      The immoral gun industry?
      It's not the tool. It's how it's used. People shouldn't be allowed to possess weapons that are severe overkill, such as automatic weapons or nuclear weapons. But the right to possess arms for a reasonable purpose (such as hunting and self defense) is a basic [American || God Given || $DIETY || human] right.
      Give me a break.
      Give me a rational argument first.
      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    9. Re:Eclipse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should I give a fuck if someone is 'annoyed'?

      You seriously think that *this* issue makes us 'primitive as a whole'? And not the whole fact that religion is holding back science?

      You've got some priority issues. If I knew who you were, I'd teach them to you through a good strong beating.

    10. Re:Eclipse by RichDiesal · · Score: 1
      stop fueling an immoral industry
      You pay your taxes, don't you?
    11. Re:Eclipse by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      Actually they do that because they don't want to be seen as advertising cigarettes to non-smokers. I know it sounds insane, but if you got slapped with a couple billion dollar lawsuits from state governments, you'd probably decide that it was in your best interest to try to cover every angle.

    12. Re:Eclipse by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      Yikes!

      I didn't mean to start a smoker vs. nonsmoker debate here. I'm sorry if it offends you, someone who lives probably hundreds or thousands of miles away, that I smoke.

      I suppose it probably bothers you that I'm a quiet Christian that occasionally will try to witness to friends and family?

    13. Re:Eclipse by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      It is actually kind of weird. Even if you don't smoke you might want to watch someone smoke one sometime. There's no visible smoke that comes off the tip. Only when the smoker exhales, and it dissapates rapidly.

      When I say odorless, I'm talking about that moist grainy dirty smell. It doesn't smell like burning, it smells like old man, or your grandfather's house. That's what I attribute most cigarette smells to.

      It's not like this is the perfect cigarette. In fact, it is still best to quit, I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm just saying that if someone thought they battery powered smoke simply to get nicotine was a good idea, they might like Eclipse better. :/

    14. Re:Eclipse by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      I did a bit on the post above but I'll try to go into more details because I agree that was very confusing. :)

      When I say odorless, I mean in the traditional sense. You can tell when you are in a smoker's house, but not an Eclipse smoker's house. Smoker's clothes have that grainy cigarette stench. Eclipse smokers don't have to worry about it.

      The only odor (again, the burnt paper odor) that I notice is on my fingertips still for a few minutes after I'm done smoking. The smoke dissipates so fast after exhaling, and it's so dry, that I can't imagine it would actually attach to anything. I've actually found that after two packs of Eclipses, I could not go back to regular smokes. They were too grainy and stunk horribly.

      If you have a loved one that absolutely refuses to smoke, but you know can afford an extra 30 cents per pack or so, they should at least try Eclipse cigarettes. Maybe these cigarettes kill faster or something though. I find that I can actually do strenous activity while smoking though, whereas I couldn't before. And regular cigarettes would make me tired, while these do not.

      Another oddity is that after smoking these now for four months or so, I actually feel like quitting wouldn't be hard at all. But then again, I've tried to quit before, and that was so horrible and stressful I don't know if I could attempt something like that again.

    15. Re:Eclipse by dfn_deux · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. It sucks that our society is so litigous.... I did my part and voted Libertarian.

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    16. Re:Eclipse by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      I did too.

      When people I know ask why I waste my vote, I tell them because when I used to waste it before, there weren't as many people wasting it with me. Now I'm part of a community of wasted voters, so the more I "waste" it, the "cooler" I am with the other "wasters" I hang out with.

  34. Not really by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    most smokers smoke because Nicotine is an adictive depressant. You'll find that the bulk of smokers are in high stress jobs, especially poorly paying ones. People generally don't smoke because they want to. It's something they tried as a kid, and now that they're an adult, with all the stress and misery that comes with adulthood, they can't stop.

    A better solution would be to force the tobacco companies to sell Nicotine free cigarettes. Not that they ever will. I remember a story in Wired where the only people who would grow them were the Amish. After all, what multi-national corp in its right mind would take out what makes its product popular? The funny thing is Nicotine is odorless and tasteless, so taking it out wouldn't hurt the 'cool, crisp' taste of your smokes one bit, but you might just loose your reason for smoking along the way...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not really by metlin · · Score: 1

      No, the reason I said that was because I know a lot of smokers who're nicotine-dependent who could not switch to an alternative such as chewing a nicotine gum or something like that. The reason is because they are quite used to having a cigarette in their hands and the habit of smoking, that it's quite hard for them to let go of that, even if they do find alternatives for the nicotine intake.

      Your solution will never come to fruition, not just for the reasons that you mentioned but because even if the tobacco companies in this country agree, a company in China will make them instead and Philip Morris will raise a hue and a cry.

      Most smokers I know are almost militant about their right to smoke anywhere, absolutely ignoring the irritation and harm that they cause others.

    2. Re:Not really by t0qer · · Score: 1

      You're wrong about it being tasteless.

      Nicotine has a flavor I would akin to 10000 tiny little needles hitting your tounge. It may sound like shit, but when you're addicted it's like 10000 little syringes of herion going into you.

    3. Re:Not really by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Most smokers I know are almost militant about their right to smoke anywhere, absolutely ignoring the irritation and harm that they cause others.

      You mean, like a right to smoke in an establishment whose owner permits it? Many localities now have stolen that right from property-owners. It's the non-smokers who legislate away rights; I know of no smokers who seriously advocate forcing property owners to permit smoking.

      Or perhaps you mean the itty-bitty, shabby and out-back designated smoking zones which some non-smokers deign to provide? Yes, that's an example of smokers forcing themselves on non-smokers...not.

      Smokers cause no harm to others, and non-smokers are just as irritating to smokers as vice versa.

      Interestingly, none of my friends are smokers, but neither are any non-smokers. That is, none of us smokes on even a weekly basis--but each of us smokes every once in awhile (some monthly, some only a few times a year).

      For my own part, I've no use for a man who neither smokes nor drinks: he's obviously untrustworthy.

    4. Re:Not really by arnie_apesacrappin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Most smokers I know are almost militant about their right to smoke anywhere, absolutely ignoring the irritation and harm that they cause others

      Take that sentence and do the following things:

      1. sed s/smokers/parents/
      2. sed s/smoke/bring children/
      3. sed s/harm/annoyance/
      and it's still true.

      With all the public smoking bans going up around the country, I came up with a great idea that would help non-smokers and smokers alike. Here's the idea:

      1. Smoking areas must be walled off from non-smoking areas (perhaps even at a negative pressure to non-smoking areas)
      2. One must be of legal age to enter a smoking area (no kids allowed, even with mom and dad).

      That would solve the non-smoker "won't someone please think of the children" argument, and I can finally eat a meal without hearing a small child scream.

      I've always wondered if there are so many people that want non-smoking environments, why doesn't a business owner start non-smoking restaurants and bars? If there are that many people that want it, doesn't it seem like a good idea?

      --

      Still, with a plan, you only get the best you can imagine. I'd always hoped for something better than that. -CP

    5. Re:Not really by thealmightyegg · · Score: 1

      most smokers smoke because Nicotine is an adictive depressant

      I'll agree that nicotine is highly addictive, but, being water soluble, once nicotine intake is ceased, all of the nicotine is completely flushed out of your system in 3-5 days. Then, in about another week, all of the chemicals in your brain and body that where changed by all the nicotine mucking about have returned completely back to normal. So the physical addiction of cigarettes is gone after a maximum of two weeks of not smoking. However, when you're sitting around watching TV, or hanging out with friends, or anything else not requiring huge ammounts of concentration, what do you do? You do what you have always done for the past [however long you smoked], you light up a cigarette, and you do it almost automatically.

      Smoking is a physical habbit, like chewing your lip or biting your nails, and it really isn't any harder to get over than any other physical habbit, save for the two weeks that your body is adjusting back to normal.

      --


      -----
      120 chairs?! What the hell am I supposed to do with 120 chairs...?
    6. Re:Not really by Kainaw · · Score: 1

      A better solution would be to force the tobacco companies to sell Nicotine free cigarettes.

      That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is to completely deregulate cigarettes. Allow the makers to put more and more addictive toxins in them. If they can get them as addictive as crack, you'd have a sure money-maker, even if they kill off the users at a much faster rate. It all depends on the relative value of human life and money.

      --
      The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
    7. Re:Not really by AntiPasto · · Score: 1

      Right on! I agree with this. Second-hand smoke research, also, has been discredited outside of the US. Most in the world equate it to being near a running car.

      But the capitalization of anti-smoking is, for now, gaining on smoking.

    8. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "cool crisp taste"

      Ciggarette smoke tastes like crap. It is only nicotine's pleasurable effects that have fooled the brains of smokers into associating the foul taste with goodness. Your nic-free cigarrettes would appear to taste bad even if the actual taste were identical to that of other ciggarettes.

    9. Re:Not really by radio_babylon · · Score: 0

      A better solution would be to force the tobacco companies to sell Nicotine free cigarettes. Not that they ever will.

      well, until that day comes (and monkeys fly out my ass) i highly recommend smokers who want to quit give zyban a try... im sure it doesnt work for everyone, biochemistry being what it is, but it seems to be working for me where nothing else did... i dont really understand how it works, but it does... i just dont ENJOY cigarettes like i used to, and i enjoy them less every day (only been on the stuff for about a week and half, and i understand it takes two weeks to really kick in)...

      definitely a better option than replacing one addiction with another (slightly more healthy) addiction...

    10. Re:Not really by metlin · · Score: 1

      You analogy is quite flawed.

      You can substitute noise in the place of smoke, and I'll agree with you.

      Not all children are annoying, and nor are they noisy -- almost any argument that can be used on children can be extended to adults, too.

      If children are noisy, troublesome and messy, so are several grownups -- by your logic, these adults should be shunned, too.

      Besides, you're forgetting the fact that children can't quite help how they are -- it's natural, and it's inevitable.

      A smoker _has_ a choice of not smoking at a place.

      Btw, in a lot of places in Asia, you're not allowed to smoke unless it _explicitly_ says that you can.

      It's a cultural thing. Business owners in those countries do realize that smoking affects the business, and don't allow smokers.

      That is a rarity, because businesses in this country seldom swing towards any one section of the populace.

    11. Re:Not really by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > A better solution would be to force the tobacco companies to sell Nicotine free cigarettes.

      If your solution is to force a few million people to convert, it's not a viable solution.

    12. Re:Not really by arnie_apesacrappin · · Score: 1
      Not all children are annoying, and nor are they noisy -- almost any argument that can be used on children can be extended to adults, too.

      If children are noisy, troublesome and messy, so are several grownups -- by your logic, these adults should be shunned, too.

      I don't know about the types of places you frequent, so I'll tell you my experience. If there is an adult (legally speaking) that is noisy, troublesome or messy in the bars and restaurants that person is asked to leave. If they don't, they're forced to leave. I've never seen a parent be asked to leave because of the behavior of a child. I've seen drunks making less noise and doing less damage be removed from several establishments.

      Besides, you're forgetting the fact that children can't quite help how they are -- it's natural, and it's inevitable.

      You say above that not all children are annoying and noisy. You are correct. What's the difference between these children and the ones that are annoying and noisy? Are you implying that some children can't (physically, genetically) behave?

      A smoker _has_ a choice of not smoking at a place.

      Just like a parent has a choice of not bringing his/her kids to a place.

      Btw, in a lot of places in Asia, you're not allowed to smoke unless it _explicitly_ says that you can.

      It's a cultural thing. Business owners in those countries do realize that smoking affects the business, and don't allow smokers.

      That is a rarity, because businesses in this country seldom swing towards any one section of the populace.

      Again, if it's such a great idea, why don't I see American businesses doing the same thing? I'd like to see someone open a non-smoking bar in a community that hasn't banned public smoking. It would be interesting.

      --

      Still, with a plan, you only get the best you can imagine. I'd always hoped for something better than that. -CP

    13. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nicotine is actually an addictive stimulant. But whatever.

    14. Re:Not really by magefile · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen that discredited, but for the sake of argument ... even if 2-hand isn't carcinogenic, it gives me (and tons of other people) horrible allergic reactions (ok, technically it's an "irritant", not an "allergen", but it's the same thing). And I don't even have asthma.

    15. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAD (I am not a doctor...) but

      Nicotine is not a depressant, it is a stimulant. (-ine versus -ate)

      Webster's defines it as:
      nicotine: A colorless, poisonous alkaloid, C10H14N2, derived from the tobacco plant and used as an insecticide. It is the substance in tobacco to which smokers can become addicted.

      The feeling of euphoria is a result of being chemically hyped up from the stimulant. Addiction is a result of becoming dependant on being hyped up to function.

      Nicotine free cigarettes would never be profitable. If you want to stop people smoking, take away all goverment and insurance funded health care from those who choose to smoke. Why should I support someone elses destructive habit?

    16. Re:Not really by jackrd · · Score: 1

      "With all the public smoking bans going up around the country, I came up with a great idea that would help non-smokers and smokers alike. Here's the idea:

      1. Smoking areas must be walled off from non-smoking areas (perhaps even at a negative pressure to non-smoking areas)
      2. One must be of legal age to enter a smoking area (no kids allowed, even with mom and dad)."

      That's an absolutely amazing idea. I always wondered why people didn't legislate something like this instead of actually banning smoking. The added expense of installing a smoking room would additionally prevent all but the most smoker-friendly places from putting them in. The only downside is that workers would still be exposed to smoke, of course, they could choose to work at non-smoking establishments if that bothered them.

      "I've always wondered if there are so many people that want non-smoking environments, why doesn't a business owner start non-smoking restaurants and bars? If there are that many people that want it, doesn't it seem like a good idea?"

      It does seem like a good idea, and I've seen places like this. Where I live (Milwaukee) it's pretty smoker-friendly. Some places don't even have non-smoking sections and you can still smoke in some smaller retail stores like cigarette stores and gas stations (obviously not at the pumps). Even though it's accepted and legal, there's a lot of places that still ban smoking. Almost all of the fast-food resturants and many resturants and coffee shops have banned it. If you required a special smoking room, I'm sure even more would join in, and you'd get less complaints from smokers about not being able to smoke indoors while simultaneously resolving health issues.

    17. Re:Not really by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      most smokers smoke because Nicotine is an adictive depressant

      Nicotine is a wierd drug that is in some respects like a depressant, but in other respects it acts like a stimulant. Apparently its been found recently in animal models that nicotine acts as an anti-depressant. In my experience, many, if not most, psychiatrically ill people smoke.

      A better solution would be to force the tobacco companies to sell Nicotine free cigarettes.

      Better than what? Also, I don't like the government forcing an industry to produce certain products. There are already low nicotine cigarettes. Even if there were nicotine free cigarattes, I doubt they would sell very well. Alcohol free beer does not sell that well. Virgin "girly drinks" do not sell that well. Decafeinated coffee and softdrinks don't sell that well, but the best of any of my other examples.

    18. Re:Not really by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Business owners in those countries do realize that smoking affects the business, and don't allow smokers.

      That is a rarity, because businesses in this country seldom swing towards any one section of the populace.


      You must not go drinking at bars much.

    19. Re:Not really by spacefrog · · Score: 1

      Only in a slashdot medical discussion can crap like this earn a '5'.

      Nicotine is a stimulant.

      According to WebMD, "Aside from the obvious health risks of cigarettes, nicotine acts as a stimulant and brings on more stress symptoms."

      Nicotine is anything but tasteless.

      "It is a colorless, transparent, oily liquid, having an acrid odor, and an acrid burning taste. It is intensely poisonous" That is from Websters.

    20. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, while I agree on most of your points, this one is completely off:

      > The funny thing is Nicotine is odorless and tasteless

      I've isolated nicotine in a lab at school, and believe me the stuff smells very foul!

    21. Re:Not really by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      Great idea!

      I'd also love to have areas walled off from screaming kids, focing the parents to actually keep their kids under control, rather then let them run around in a ritallin deficient state.

    22. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "[...] Nicotine is an adictive depressant."

      Minor nit--nicotine is a stimulant. That was always one of the oddities about smoking. Smokers talk about having a cigarette "calms them down" when, in fact, it stimulates them. However, the act of having a cigarette (eg, leaving the source of the irritation and the ritual of smoking) calms them down.

      By the way, this is one of the reasons why people like to smoke when they drink--because alcohol is a depressant. So you take uppers with your downer.

    23. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're confusing nicotine and tobacco.

    24. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um... nicotine is not a depressant it's a stimulantant the only reason you get a relaxing feeling from it is that your body requires more oxygen when stimulated but the carbon monoxide chokes you out

    25. Re:Not really by Genda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In response to a whole bunch of replies to this post and the post itself;

      Nicotine is a peculiar drug/poison. It's toxicity is extremely high. A single drop of pure nicotine place in the palm of an average adult will cause convulsions and death in minutes (the amount absorbed through the skin is more than sufficient to kill.)

      Nicotine acts as others have said, in some ways like a stimulant and in other ways like a depressant. It has been noted by neurochemists and brain physiologist to "Tune" certain brain functions and increase mental productivity (improving mood and mental agility.) These are among the more subtle, long lasting. and addictive effects that are strongly compelling even after the direct chemical effects wear off.

      The reason one becomes calm after taking any substance one is addicted to (including stimulants) is that the hunger for the substance is being fed. This has nothing to do with the physiological nature of the substance itself.

      A recent study suggests the combination of coffee and cigarettes is particularly bad, because they both cause increases in blood pressure and ultimatly damage the small blood vessels that feed the heart. People who consume both, significantly increase their probablity of having heart desease.

      The physical habit is also a major problem in quitting. People associate behavior and lifestyle with their smoking and as these behaviors become ritualized, removing the smoking has the effect of destabalizing the normality of their routines and habits. This is as hard a habituation to break as the smoking itself.

      A truly sucessful nicotine delivery would have as close to zero impact on the smoker as possible. It would allow them to consume a heated, smoke flavored, fog containing nicotine but no tar. It would look and feel like a cigarette. It could also contain other drugs to improve health and vitality. Making it a positive behavior as opposed to a negative one.

      It seems to me that a cigarette company that noticed the HUGE potential for a health giving product, that allowed smokers to migrate to a new habit that replaced the old, while extending and improving the quality of their lives, could effectively CLEAN UP. There would have to be billions of dollars in such a product. Anybody want to go in for a new startup with a virtually guaranteed customer base???

      Genda

    26. Re:Not really by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      "why doesn't a business owner start non-smoking restaurants and bars?"

      Your boss smokes and offers to have lunch with you. You don't smoke and normally only go to non-smoking establishments. What do you do? Substitute potential girlfriend for boss. Substitute friend for boss. Remember that both the boss and potential girlfriend have other candidates they can ask (some of whom may smoke).

      Non-smokers will sometimes go to a smoking restaurant. Smokers can't go to a non-smoking restaurant. Expand out to friends and do the math. Establishments can not generally afford to give up on that many customers.

      Bars also don't ban smoking because they can sell smokes (good profit) and because smokers drink more when they can smoke at the same time.

    27. Re:Not really by BooRolla · · Score: 1

      Nictone is a stimulant, not a depressant! Why do you think you have to poop right afterwards?

      Whatever happened to the Snowdens of yesteryear?

    28. Re:Not really by bakawally · · Score: 1

      They do make nicotine free cigarettes. They're called Quest 3s. They are the worst cigs I've ever had. Instead of the usual paper filter they have a charcoal filter.

  35. Time to give up your vice... by Ravensign · · Score: 1

    ...when they have to make a plastic, artifical version of it that is battery powered and so far removed from the orignial.

    What's next, a plastic, battery powered BigMacBall, that you put to your face, and squeeze, releasing a rush of special sauce scented air into your face?

    --
    "Sig free in '03!"
    1. Re:Time to give up your vice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [i]...when they have to make a plastic, artifical version of it that is battery powered and so far removed from the orignial.[/i]

      Guess we know why you gave up sex.

  36. Smokeless... by GypC · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ... cigarettes are great, if you can get over the fact that they taste like hot snake piss.

    1. Re:Smokeless... by winkydink · · Score: 3, Funny

      I guess there's no real substitute for the voice of experience, is there?

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:Smokeless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... cigarettes are great, if you can get over the fact that they taste like hot snake piss.

      As if regular cigarettes taste great as they are now. Mmmmmm, carbon particulate, anyone?

    3. Re:Smokeless... by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Ah, Slashdot. I can't think of anywhere else I can get into a legitimate argument about the taste of snake urine amidst a conversation about cigarettes.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  37. spliff by demon4 · · Score: 1

    when is the weed version coming out? also be careful not to flush down the toilet, batteries could cause electrocution

    1. Re:spliff by RalphBinaca · · Score: 1

      when is the weed version coming out? also be careful not to flush down the toilet, batteries could cause electrocution

      What? Are you bathing in the toilet?

      Freaking potheads... ;-)

  38. Still not a safe cigarette by gpinzone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While it's true that many of the carcinogens are part of the combustion process, this is still NOT a "safe" cigarette. Tobacco has LOTS and LOTS of carcinogens that are passed to the smoker. It's been so far impossible to eliminate them all.

    Tobacco's toxic properties have been well known. How does Marijuana compare?

    1. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by zboy · · Score: 1
      The smoke and tobacco-free NicStic consists of a heating element and a changeable filter that contains nicotine. It doesn't contain any tobacco but the company claims dragging on it releases a similar taste to cigarettes.

      There's no tobacco in it to pass any carcinogens to the smoker..

    2. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, if you RTFA, you'll see it doesn't contain any tobacco. It has a nicotine insert that gets heated by a coil. No tobacco, so none of those LOTS and LOTS of carcinogens you are talking about.

    3. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by fubar1971 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's been so far impossible to eliminate them all.

      That is why they completely elimanated the tobacco. RTFA next time before you post!!

    4. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's been a while, but if I recall correctly, the last time I heard a study on it, it turned out that Marijuana smoke is much harder on your lungs than a comparable amount of cigarette smoke. However, habitual users of Marijuana don't inhale anywhere near the same amount of smoke per day that a cigarette smoker gets. So I'd say that if you're addicted to both then you're pretty well boned.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    5. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by gpinzone · · Score: 1

      Take a guess where the nicotine came from, genius.

    6. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Take a guess where the nicotine came from, genius.

      Take a guess where the carcinogens stayed after they extracted the nicotine from the tobacco.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    7. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by gpinzone · · Score: 1

      It stayed in the nicotine, because nicotine IS A CARCINOGEN.

    8. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Take a guess where the nicotine came from, genius.

      Let's see, in this case, it's probably made synthetically. It's funny, after your ignorant post, you sarcastically calling someone "genius." Do you think before posting, or just assume that if it is remotely related to a bad idea that it's automatically bad itself?

    9. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      Actually, smoking a single bowl of pot is rougly equivilent to an entire pack of cigarettes. While the smoke itself may be healthier for you (depending on your definition of "healthy"), there's no doubt that it pounds your lungs much harder than tobacco.

      Also, chronic pot smokers inhale differently than cigarette smokers, usually holding their hits in for several seconds to absorb more THC. This also increases the amount of tar absorbed by your lungs in no insignificant way.

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    10. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by fubar1971 · · Score: 1

      Probably the same place that the nicotine comes from for the gum, patches, and inhalers. A laboratory! It's man made genius

    11. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Take a guess where the carcinogens stayed after they extracted the nicotine from the tobacco.

      Cancer is not the only risk associated with smoking. There is also risk to the heart. Nicotine is active in the brain and the autonomic nervous system, which control such things as heart rate and blood flow to the heart, so nicotine is a reasonable suspect.

    12. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by fubar1971 · · Score: 1

      From your own link:

      "Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) are found only in tobacco products, and are highly carcinogenic."

      and

      "Nitrosamines contain the organic functional group N-N=O, and are formed by the nitrosation(addition of an N=O group) of secondary and tertiary amines. In tobacco, these amines are nicotine, nornicotine, anabasine, and anatabine,..."

      and

      "TSNA are created during fermentation, curing and burning of the tobacco leaf."

      So according to the information that you linked to, nicotine is not carcinogenic, only the process of fermenting and burning tobacco causes nicotine to change into a nitrosamine. This nitrosamine is carcinogenic. As I stateted earlier, if you remove the tobacco from the equation, and only injest nicotine, how is that carcinogenic?

    13. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by fubar1971 · · Score: 1

      Replace the word nicotine with caffine in your post, and your statement is still a valid one.

      Just something to ponder....

    14. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      t's been a while, but if I recall correctly, the last time I heard a study on it, it turned out that Marijuana smoke is much harder on your lungs than a comparable amount of cigarette smoke.

      To the best of my knowledge, this is true--marijuana smoke tends to contain more particulates. Part of this is probably just due to different preparation. Also, joints tend not to be filter tipped. Marijuana users also tend to inhale more deeply (politicians excepted, of course) and hold the smoke in their lungs longer, allowing the maximum quantity of nasty stuff to settle deep in the lungs.

      On the other hand, much of this can be offset through the use of a bong. Cooling the smoke also helps to reduce the harm that would otherwise be caused by repeated inhalation of hot gases. Some of the unpleasant chemicals and many of the particulates are removed by filtration through the water. The primary active ingredient (THC) is not water soluble, so it passes through unabsorbed. (Note that a similar filtration process will not work with tobacco smoke, because nicotine is highly soluble in water.)

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    15. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Replace the word nicotine with caffine in your post, and your statement is still a valid one.

      Absolutely. While caffeine is not directly comparable to nicotine, as it works in a completely different manner, it does affect the heart, and was therefore at one time considered a reasonable suspect for cardiac risk. However, based on quite a few studies, it does not appear to pose much of a cardiac risk in practice.

    16. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Take a guess where the carcinogens stayed after they extracted the nicotine from the tobacco.

      Cancer is not the only risk associated with smoking.

      Didn't say it was. I was only countering a smartass comment that was, in fact, incorrect. I wouldn't characterize nicotine as harmless, but I do characterize wiseguys who don't know what they're talking about as dumbasses.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    17. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      It stayed in the nicotine, because nicotine IS A CARCINOGEN.

      Hey dumbass, read the title of the paper you link: "How Nicotine Becomes A Carcinogen" (emphasis mine)
      TSNA, the carcinogen the paper talks about, is produced via fermentation, curing, and/or burning of tobacco-- none of which takes place in the case of these "electric cigarettes".

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    18. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by fubar1971 · · Score: 1

      ...it does affect the heart...

      From my understanding, nicotine has almost the same affect on the heart as caffine. What makes nicotine seem harmful, is the way smokers injest it. Take nicotine, and then combine it's affects with the fact that you are starving your heart muscles of oxygen every time you inhale smoke. On top of that you are then adding all of the other toxins and carcinogens. IMHO, nicotine alone is not any more physically harmful than caffine. I could be wrong though. It just seems that if nicotine was as harmful as people seem to suggest, you would see and hear alot more warning (and IMO lawsuits) against the producers of quit smoking aids. The last box of patches I bought, I did not notice a warning on them that nicotine could cause heart problems.

    19. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      From my understanding, nicotine has almost the same affect on the heart as caffine.

      Nope. It's a completely different class of drug with a very different mechanism of action. Caffeine is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor, acting by increasing phosphorylation of proteins. Nicotine first activates then depresses a class of acetylcholine receptors that mediate nerve transmission at autonomic ganglia and in the brain by controlling electrical currents across the cell membrane. Both compounds have a wide range of effects on end organs that only partially overlap, and one certainly cannot conclude that their risks will be similar.

      It just seems that if nicotine was as harmful as people seem to suggest, you would see and hear alot more warning (and IMO lawsuits) against the producers of quit smoking aids.

      Such aids are sold for short-term use to help people reduce their nicotine consumption. The package instructions includes appropriate warnings of potential cardiac risk from nicotine, so it would be hard to succeed in such a lawsuit.

    20. Re:Still not a safe cigarette by fubar1971 · · Score: 1

      Wow, thanks. YOu learn something new everyday.

  39. Haven't they learned... by ObjectiveGiant · · Score: 1

    ... from the millions that RJ Reynolds wasted on it's smokeless cigarette (Premier) that bombed in the 80's, sending millions of dollars in research down the drain?

    --
    ::signature space for rent::
  40. Yeah you are missing the taxes by Delta-9 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The taxes that are imposed on the Tobacco which are used to create those nasty smoke sticks.

    1. Re:Yeah you are missing the taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > nasty smoke sticks.

      where I live we just call them cancer sticks..

  41. It's all synthetic now by LordCybrid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing is safe. Fake cigarettes, near (0.05%) beer, diet soda, processed meats, fake boobs, fake politicians... Oh wait, they weren't real anyway. The politicians, I mean.

    --
    RLU 180035, get yourself counted at http://counter.li.org
  42. This was done in 1988. by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 3, Informative
    Called the Premeir, by RJ Reynolds.

    http://www.fact-index.com/p/pr/premier_cigarette.h tml

    It failed badly. For one, consumers didn't like it. Two, it was deemed a drug delivery system and not a cigarette. That not only complicated sales from a legal distribution POV, but it meant the tobacco companies were admitting that nicotine was addictive and that they were addicting their clients, thus opening them up for lawsuits.

    --
    Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
    1. Re:This was done in 1988. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Didn't they also have a problem where if you lit it with a match rather than a lighter, it smelled like a turd?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  43. Smoking is actually nice... by DroopyStonx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I used to smoke, and I miss it.

    Seriously. It was nice and relaxing. The only reason I stopped was because, obviously, it's not that great for you.

    But at least something like this makes it so that if you want the effect of nicotine, you don't have to shell out $40 for a pack of nicotine gum.

    Yeah, nicotine isn't GOOD for you, but neither is alcohol and people still do that. At least this isn't nearly as bad as inhaling all that tar and smoke!

    There will always be a passive effect... you exhale the nicotine, surely someone near you would inhale a part of it, but still, better than cigarettes themselves.

    Good improvement!

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    1. Re:Smoking is actually nice... by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yeah, nicotine isn't GOOD for you, but neither is alcohol and people still do that. At least this isn't nearly as bad as inhaling all that tar and smoke!

      I agree wholeheartedly--getting rid of the tar, particulates, and carcinogens produced by combustion definitely goes a long way towards harm reduction.

      On the other hand, it should be noted that moderate consumption of alcohol isn't bad for most people. There is significant epidemiological data that indicates consumption of up to about one to two drinks per day is harmless and possibly beneficial. This is mostly due to reduced risk of cardiovascular problems, but moderate alcohol consumption is also associated with a reduced risk of some neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Consumption to excess, or doing stupid things after drinking (driving, swimming, becoming President) obviously are demonstrably bad for your health.

      To my knowledge, there aren't any similar large-scale studies on the consumption of pure nicotine (in the absence of tobacco smoke). I'd be interested to know if long-term consumption of nicotine alone (again, in moderate doses) has any health effects, negative or positive.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Smoking is actually nice... by soliptic · · Score: 1
      $40 for a pack of nicotine gum?????!!

      Holy shit, do the tobacco firms have the USA on lockdown, or what? Over here nicotine gum is ~$10.

    3. Re:Smoking is actually nice... by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about Nicorette, there may be other cheaper brands, but I'm not sure. I thought about buying some just because every now and then I like to enjoy the temporary calming effects of nicotine, but no way in hell I'm gonna pay $40!

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    4. Re:Smoking is actually nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      doing stupid things after drinking (driving, swimming, becoming President)

      That's the funniest thing I've read on /. all day. I'd mod you up if I had any points. :)

    5. Re:Smoking is actually nice... by Epona · · Score: 1
      you don't have to shell out $40 for a pack of nicotine gum.


      Yes, and I won't have to shell out $45 for nicotine patches everytime I take a 4 hour flight somewhere....

      (Not a chain-smoker or anything heh heh)

      -K

      --
      No heaven can heaven be, if my horse isn't there to welcome me.
    6. Re:Smoking is actually nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was nice and relaxing.

      You know what? When I tried smoking (~13yo), I thought it was vile. Most of my friends thought it was vile too, but a lot of them thought it was "cool" as well. So they did it, and got hooked. Right now, all of my friends are trying to give up. They still think it's vile.

      To this day, I haven't met anybody who actually enjoyed smoking. The Alan Carr book, that absolutely every ex-smoker I have met swears by, is based around the simple premise of saying "you don't actually like doing this, so stop."

      Smoking isn't nice.

    7. Re:Smoking is actually nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to do the $40 Nicorette thing and it was costing me a small fortune. Then I discovered you can buy (if in the U.S.) Nicotrol 4mg for like $0.12 per piece from New Zealand if you "shop" around via Google. I buy like $300 worth for 2400 pieces at a time, that seems to last forever. The last place I bought from was discountnicotrol.com but I just checked and their web site doesn't respond, so I'll have to start my search over when I run out... But I haven't been ripped off so far. Anyway, yes, I'm addicted to nicotine and will probably chew these things for the rest of my life, but I swear when you start chewing these you can write code like the devil himself. Combined with caffeine it's all you'll ever need.

    8. Re:Smoking is actually nice... by F13 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yeah, nicotine isn't GOOD for you, but neither is alcohol and people still do that

      But alcohol can be good for you.

      also see:
      1
      2
      3

    9. Re:Smoking is actually nice... by dasunt · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge, there aren't any similar large-scale studies on the consumption of pure nicotine (in the absence of tobacco smoke). I'd be interested to know if long-term consumption of nicotine alone (again, in moderate doses) has any health effects, negative or positive.

      Nicotine does improve memory (google for the studies).

  44. The obvious fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like Roland, there's an obvious fix:

    STOP READING SLASHDOT!

    1. Re:The obvious fix by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Shut up, Roland. We know it's you.

    2. Re:The obvious fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think Roland makes a lot of money from slashdot, he'll be really stupid if he told people to stop reading this site. But he's not that stupid. You on the other hand, since you think Roland would say something like that, that makes you... a moron!

    3. Re:The obvious fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grandparent was telling people who don't like Piquepaille to stop reading slashdot, which wouldn't hurt his earnings at all. You are the moron, Piquepaille.

  45. Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by gpinzone · · Score: 4, Informative

    > You do alot more than piss off the non-smokers, you kill them. Please stop.

    Bullshit.

    1. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by ptlis · · Score: 1
      "sorry

      We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States." Care to explain what that article says; I can't be arsed to find an annonymous american proxy just for this.

      --
      There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.
    2. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Adlopa · · Score: 1

      What a pity -- it seems that Penn & Teller's irrefutable scientific proof that shows passive smoking to be a fanciful sham doesn't merit a viewing by the rest of the world: "sorry We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States." Probably to prevent DDOS attacks. Or something.

    3. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a video clip of a bunch of people saying that there is insufficient studies to conclusively state that second hand smoking kills and that the study most often referred to was faked.

    4. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by dlakelan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bullshit Bullshit

      There is good scientific evidence that secondhand smoke exposure increases the risk of heart attack in the general population.

      --
      ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
    5. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by seestheday · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      maybe it doesn't kill me, but it sure makes me feel like a bag of shit when I'm forced to drive in a car with a smoker.

      regular smoke, e.g. sitting around a campfire or those left handed cigarettes don't make me feel nauseous, but cigarettes sure do.

    6. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      That's ok, there's no good summary at the site anyway. I saw this on DVD a while ago. Basically, Penn & Teller were pointing out that there are no studies that prove second hand smoke is bad for you. The anti-smoking people who point out a famous FDA (?) study to support their cause are actually citing a study that says the data is inconclusive.

      Of course, second hand smoke *still* makes everyone's clothing stink, but you can chose to go elsewhere if that's a problem.

    7. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's bullshit. If second hand smoke kills, then so do farts.

    8. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by gpinzone · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the graph of cases (in white) where the ordinance did not apply. There's a reduction in 2003. Just because there's a drop doesn't mean it's not coincidental.

    9. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Second hand smoke increases heart attacks in a certain segment of the population that deserve to get heart attacks. Basically intolerant twits that get their panties in such a tight knot that they compress their Vagus Nerve causing them to die of heart attacks.

      All in all, the world is better off without such intolerant twits.

    10. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Jethro · · Score: 1

      If you light a cigarette near me (and by 'near' I mean, not that near. I can get hit by them from yards away) I start choking and gagging. If I'm in a very smoky place, like a bar or a smoking section in a restauraunt for over a minute, I will be coughing up phlem for a few days (which is why that doens't happen anymore).

      It wouldn't take too much of that to kill me. So, yes, you ARE killing some of us.

      I'm not trying to get you to quit smoking. Smoke in your own hose. But don't mess up my air, thankyou.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    11. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by gpinzone · · Score: 1, Informative

      To whatever morons labeled the parent as flamebait and troll, "Bullshit" is the name of a TV show on Showtime. The link points to the episode description on Showtime's website. Apparently, Showtime is blocking access from outside the USA. Sad. Here's another link with some facts: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

    12. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by another_henry · · Score: 1

      Question from the ignorant: what is a left handed cigarette? A cannabis joint?

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    13. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by mtoal · · Score: 1

      Bullshit bullshit bullshit...

      http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000421.html

      First-rate bilge on secondhand smoke

      Jacob Sullum eviscerates an embarrassingly bad op-ed that the New York Times chose to run yesterday (Rosemary Ellis, "The Secondhand Smoking Gun", Oct. 15) on the issue of smoking in public places, based on the supposed "Helena miracle" -- heart attacks in the Montana capital (population 26,000) are said to have dropped suddenly by 58 percent when smoking in public buildings was banned. The claim, he says, is based on a single unpublished study "involving tiny, highly volatile numbers". Had the Times been interested in whether the asserted result would hold up as a matter of epidemiology, it could easily have checked out the experience of other jurisdictions which could offer much, much larger sample sizes than wee Helena: "why have we not heard about a dramatic drop in heart attacks [in New York City itself] since the city's smoking ban took effect in April"? A few phone calls to Columbia-Presbyterian, St. Lukes-Roosevelt and the city's other big hospitals should suffice to establish whether there had been any massive effect of this sort on New Yorkers' proneness to cardiac arrest. (Reason Hit & Run, Oct. 16; Jacob Sullum, "Heartstopping Discovery", Reason, Apr. 4). More: Cato's Steven Milloy weighs in ("Secondhand smoke scam", FoxNews.com, Oct. 17).

      Even more (posted May 29, 2004): Sally Satel, "Where There's Smoke", Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2004; Michael Fumento, "Debate Rages Over Second-Hand Smoke", Heartland Institute Health Care News, Jun. 1, 2004; Jacob Sullum, Reason "Hit and Run", Apr. 9, 2004.

    14. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by dlakelan · · Score: 1

      A) There is no drop in the graph that you suggest. admissions from outside Helena *increased* in 2002.

      B) You're right about the possibility of coincidence, which is why the additional associated biochemical studies which show an increase in platelet coagulation and soforth for those exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke is also important. There is a known observed biochemical mechanism at work and it is referenced in the article.

      C) The 95% Confidence interval for the change is -31.7 to -0.3. There is only a small chance that the result is coincidental.

      D) They discuss the statistical issues, and claim that their evaluation is conservative (that is it doesn't try to account for effects which would be expected to weaken their analysis, ie. a model which took into account the trend towards more and more heart attacks through time would predict an even STRONGER reduction effect for the smoking ban)

      --
      ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
    15. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by jotok · · Score: 1

      Funny. I thought confidence intervals were a pretty weak method of testing a hypothesis.

    16. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Reducer2001 · · Score: 1
      Do you scream when you get on an airplane or behind the wheel of a car?


      Airplanes and cars kill SOME of us as well.

      --
      When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
    17. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do have a hard time breathing in airplanes, yeah. But at least they're non-smoking now.

      I'm a little better with car exauhst, but that can get overwhelming pretty easily, too.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    18. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by gmack · · Score: 1, Informative

      No .. we can't.

      I can tell you that cigarette smoke makes me very sick as I am asthmatic. I go out of my way to avoid places I know there will be a lot of smokers but that doesn't help when smokers wander or the wind changes direction.

      I'm hoping this product takes off. Personally I don't care if smokers want to harm themselves with that stuff.. *I* just don't want to have to be affected by *their* choices.

      My need to breath trumps your freedom to harm yourself.

    19. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Funny. I thought confidence intervals were a pretty weak method of testing a hypothesis.

      You are mistaken. Showing that the 95% confidence limits excludes the null hypothesis is equivalent to showing that the result is statistically significant at the P 0.05 level.

    20. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Jacob Sullum eviscerates an embarrassingly bad op-ed that the New York Times chose to run yesterday (Rosemary Ellis, "The Secondhand Smoking Gun", Oct. 15) on the issue of smoking in public places, based on the supposed "Helena miracle" -- heart attacks in the Montana capital (population 26,000) are said to have dropped suddenly by 58 percent when smoking in public buildings was banned. The claim, he says, is based on a single unpublished study

      However, the original poster provided the citation of published study from the British Medical Journal, with publication date of 5 April 2004.

    21. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      Actually there is bad scientific evidence of this.

      The largest study to date on the effects of secondhand smoke has concluded that there is no evidence to support the claim that it is deadly.

    22. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Qacker · · Score: 0

      A "Cannabis Joint" is a joint filled with weed

      --
      Learn lisp today!
    23. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by 3terrabyte · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You should return to your bubble, bubble-boy.

      I'm not even on the side of the smokers, but I'm definately not on your side. I have a young relative with Cystic Fibrosis, and if we're in a situation where her breathing might become impaired, she'll don a mask. We've either asked people to politely quit smoking, or leave if it was at the end of our meal. When we're sick ourselves and handling her, we'll don masks ourselves.

      But mandate laws around you? Grow a backbone and quit whining on a web site.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    24. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it fucking stinks and aggravates my asthma.

    25. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Tofino · · Score: 1

      Huzzah, sir. Where are my mod points when I need them?

    26. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by windex · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I hope you very quickly manage to kill whichever canidate you don't like, wouldn't want someone elses choices to effect you!

    27. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Jethro · · Score: 0, Troll

      Please show me where I said something about a law? All I said is "Smoke bothers me." And why don't you take your own advice? If it bothers you, don't read my comments.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    28. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as do car fumes

    29. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by bonhomme_de_neige · · Score: 1
      > You do alot more than piss off the non-smokers, you kill them. Please stop.

      Bullshit.

      "sorry

      We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States."

      Convincing.

      --
      "Why are you watching the washing machine?"
      "I love entertainment, as long as it's clean"
    30. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh shut up. Why should your freedoms impinge upon mine? You go somewhere else. We've already been banned from certain restaurants, crammed into small corners in others, and generally been treated like criminals.

      I think you need to take care of your asthma problem. It's not my problem you can't breathe for shit, why are you bitching to us? Why should I have to restrict my activities to the lowest common denominator? If you don't like it, stay away.

      You don't exactly see me saying to people carrying around various viruses and bacteria to stay away. Personally I don't care if others want to harm themselves by getting sick, *I* just don't want to be affected by *their* colds.

      My need to be healthy trumps your freedom to cough and sneeze in public.

    31. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by rastos1 · · Score: 1
      Yeah. Right. Bullshit.

      Cigarette smoke is harmless.

      And the Earth is flat.

    32. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by randomblast · · Score: 1

      >>We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States.

      *sniff* do i smell racists?

      --
      ...these aren't my real teeth.
    33. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Datafage · · Score: 1

      I saw that Bullshit episode and turned it off partway through. I was sickened. No one seriouely contests that smoking is bad for the smoker. How is it, then that the same smoke that is bad for the smoker is safe for the people around him? It may be in lower concentrations, but that doesn't change its chemical properties, and further, smaller doses can still cause a LOT of damage to children, especially if their parents smoke around them every day.

      And as for "go somewhere else if it's a problem" how would you feel if I walked around spitting randomly and told you to go elsewhere if you didn't want my spit on your clothing?

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    34. Re:Second hand smoke DOES NOT kill non-smokers by Shome · · Score: 1

      ...Bullshit.

      Show us a site that we can access from outside of US of A. You insentitive clod.

      --

      ~Once you have your choices narrowed down, the rest will fall into place.
  46. how does this beat the nicotine patch? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
    You get almost none of the ``pleasures'' of smoking, and get the stigma of being seen to smoke.

    I bet this is much bigger in Europe and Asia than in the U.S., since smoking carries less stigma over there. That's probably why it's being introduced in Germany rather than here.

    1. Re:how does this beat the nicotine patch? by lq_x_pl · · Score: 1

      The 'patch' doesn't sate the oral fixation (which is a big part of cigarette addiction). With this little doodad, not only do you get to _suck_ on something for the nicotine, you also get to fill your lungs with warm nicotine laden air! If I can ever get ahold of these babies, flying will be a far less stressful endeavor.

      --
      An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
  47. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf, ENDORSING CIGS?!

  48. Just friggin' QUIT, already! by The+I+Shing · · Score: 1

    Anyone who smokes who's concerned about the health effects of the habit really should try to quit.

    I promised three years ago that after quitting smoking I wouldn't become a preachy ex-smoker, but I don't think anyone would incredulously look upon my claim that my life is much, much better without cigarettes in it. I could go on about it ad nauseum, but I won't.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  49. Variantions... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    I wonder if I can get an AC version of that? Also, would they be marketed as 100 110s?

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Variantions... by RalphBinaca · · Score: 1

      I wonder if I can get an AC version of that? Also, would they be marketed as 100 110s?

      OH! Better yet - a nicotine spewing case mod for my riced out home rig!

  50. Great... by Skiron · · Score: 1

    Stop relying on fags and get addicted to batteries. What will this do?

    Governments will start taxing batteries at 1800% and EVERYONE will suffer.

    Support your local smoker, friends, or else...

  51. im pretty sure by Exter-C · · Score: 1

    Im sure that this is not a new invention. Im pretty confident that this was out in the 70s/80s by one of the BIG ones.. Phillip whatever i think it was..

  52. Safe? by gninnor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "and for non-smokers, because there is obviously not passive smoking effect." Yah as long as the smoker holds their breath. I knew pot smokers that would try to get all the THC by holding their breath or passing the smoke to some one else

  53. Ananova? by DoorFrame · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, can we not discuss anything seriously if it's based on a story from Ananova? I don't care how many additional sources you can come up with, anything based on an Ananova story is a waste of time.

    Do you remember when they had that virtual news anchor though? That was kind of fun.

  54. Bah! by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I used to smoke. Admittedly only a pipe and pipe smokers tend to smoke less, but it's still a tobacco habit. I kicked the habit when I realized that I felt like crap the day after lighting up the pipe. Quitting nicotine was somewhat difficult but it was a cakewalk compared to caffiene (Which I still haven't been successful at.) I still want to smoke from time to time, but I absolutely can NOT function if I don't get my cuppa in the morning and lately another one in the afternoon.

    And while Tobacco's nastier, at least THEY don't market to children anymore.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Bah! by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      And while Tobacco's nastier, at least THEY don't market to children anymore.

      It depends in which country. In the 80s, the US imposed trade sanctions on countries that were trying to ban their kids from smoking. And more recently, in 2001, the Bush administration imposed trade sanctions against South Korea for placing tariff on cigarette products.

  55. All I Want to Know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...does it taste like tomacco?

    1. Re:All I Want to Know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it tastes like grandma!

  56. Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    i'm not suprise that this thing comes from Switzerland....

    It's perhaps the most *smoked* country in Europe with the higher level of young smoker, perhaps also the higher quantity of cigarettes advertisement (*thanks* to the tobacco lobby)

    i know this because, i'm young, i'm a smoker and i'm swiss....

  57. Like the cigars... by PowerBook2k · · Score: 1

    Ananova- a division of Frobozz Electric?

    1. Re:Like the cigars... by PowerBook2k · · Score: 1

      Duh, hello! Wrong company. Let me try that again:

      "NicStic- a division of Frobozz Electric?"

  58. Eclipse by Sheepdot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm a smoker of Eclipse cigarettes. While I've quit and started smoking twice in my life, I've found recently that these cigarettes do not inhibit my life at all. They are essentially smokeless cigarettes, the smoke that is produced is odorless (smells like burnt paper) and doesn't come off in thick rings from the end of the cigarette as I smoke it.

    Generally speaking, innovations made in producing a 'healthy cigarette' usually involve a lot of cost, but these cigarettes are usually sold at the same price as Marborlo Lights. They also come in menthol.

    With 80% less additives, I think I'll stick to these unless the new battery-powered cigarettes actually end up cheaper.

  59. At first I dont think this is a good idea. by deft · · Score: 1

    But then I remembered I'm also a big fan of natural selection.

    The problem with smoke cigarettes is they were trying to deselect me with their 2nd hand smoke.

    But now, if I'm not effected, but the addiction gene gets a little harder to pass on... well hey, I'm all for it.

    Smoke on... I mean, inhale on you addicts... don't it feel good? Wow, we can't even call them smokers... they are inhalers... sounds alot like puffers, huffers... not so glamourous.

    But seriously, this really reduces all of the hoopla and coolness of cigarettes to a nicotine delivery tool of the simplest form. No trying to hide what its for behind a cool camel or a hot woman... just good clean addiction.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  60. These already exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    My Mom ended up in the hospital ( diagnosed with emphysema + bronchitis ) and they prescribed these things ( or something similar ) to her because she was not allowed to leave her bed for a smoke. There was no battery - it was more of a nicotine soaked wick-thing in a plastic case that she inhaled from. I smoked at the time, so she gave me a drag. It was tasteless air, but I did feel the nicotine. She was puffing on the things like a champ, wheezing and coughing in her hospital bed.

    There is no reason why nicotine stuff like this could not be extremely cheap. They even sell nicotine as bug killer. Pure nicotine without the tar and other cancer causing crap in ciggarette smoke would probably be much less damaging to one's health.

    The problem is that nicotine addicts are like lab rats that hit a bar for more even if it is killing them. If they are given a cheap painless way to take nicotine, they'll take even more of it.

    Think back to the first ciggarette that you ever tried to puff. For me it was in fifth grade. I was given a lit ciggarette by some older kids and dared to puff it. I inhaled deeply 'like a man' and exhaled out my nose as quickly as I could and still 'look cool'. My eyes were watering, and at the end, I couldn't help but cough my guts out, almost puking. The experience was so awful that I didn't touch tobacco again till I was 23.

    You need to overcome substantial natural aversion to inhaling smoke in order to get a nicotine fix from smoking. Myself, I learned to smoke by absorbing nicotine from uninhaled cigar smoke held in my mouth. Even that tasted foul at first, until I learned to appreciate it.

    And chewing tobacco tastes extremely awful as well. Tobacco is a plant who's flavor says: Don't eat me! If I taste this bad, I MUST be poisonous - and I am!

    Of course cigarrettes are the free-base crack form of nicotine. They are all ( maybe not American Spirit, or other 'Eco-health-food' brands of cigarrettes but certainly ordinary brands like Marlboro and Camel ) laced with Urea or Ammonia. The basic additives help the nicotine to affect your brain much more quickly increasing your association of the nicotine pleasure with the ciggarette you are smoking, and hence strengthening your addiction. The difference between ciggarettes and other forms of nicotine is the difference between cocaine and crack.

    With the ability to stay perpetually high on nicotine everywhere, the other effects of nicotine - like cardiovascular disease will become more prominant.

    I quit smoking about a year ago cold turkey from 3 packs a day and 2 years as an addict. My Mom still smokes, and probably will until it kills her.

  61. Tort reform! by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

    It should be obvious that a Useful and a Healthful product such as this would be of great Benefit to all people. Yet, it was not developed between the fair shores of the United States, but in a far off land.

    And why, you ask? Because our Excellent companies live in Abject fear of litigation.

    Friends and neighbors it's time, I say, High time we institute some manner of Sweeping reform to our legal system. We need Fine products such as this developed here! After all, our medical system is the envy of the world - no sense letting it go to waste.

    Thank you, and remember to write in CmdrTaco for President.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  62. One little issue... by cduffy · · Score: 1

    The nicotine isn't what makes secondhand smoke so dangerous.

  63. if the cigarette companies want to dominate again by revery · · Score: 1

    they should invest in cigarette-powered batteries...

    I can just see it now. In cnojunction with Apple:
    the Marlpod. Light up and listen.

    --

    Taste the Music.

  64. No offince to you smokers by G00F · · Score: 1

    but there is no way I am sitting next to someone using one of these.

    No smoke, good? No tar, good. But it still has plenty of nicotine

    And they plan on allowing this in enclosed air planes? I'd rather be on a flight with someone that sneaked in some fingernail clipers than this.

    --
    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    1. Re:No offince to you smokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a hulking, sub-normal mongoloid.

  65. It's a dream come true! by quax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I had cigarette smoke and my pet peeve about Germany is that you have hardly any non-smoking areas in restaurants. If this catches on it is going to make my life much more pleasant.

    1. Re:It's a dream come true! by magefile · · Score: 1

      I've experienced that. It sucks, too, 'cuz if you're with a group, and someone is smoking right next to you and you ask 'em to stop, they'll ignore you or start bitching about how you're violating their right to smoke.

  66. They make a sort of cig like this in the US by Rooked_One · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They are called "Eclipse" cigarettes... i'm sure you can google for them.

    They aren't smokeless, but definatly noteworthy. They look like a normal cig, but have a heating element that you initially light with a lighter. I think its a carbon filament, so it burns quite hot for about 4 minutes, and while its hot, you can "smoke" the tobacco in the tube. Note that there are no ashes becuase nothing besides tobacco is burned, and the "cig" never shrinks down like a normal one. Also, when you exhale, it is quite wierd... its like you are exhaling water. The cig pack says its mostly a glycerol mix instead of the normal tar laden smoke.

    1. Re:They make a sort of cig like this in the US by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      From Ecplise

      It's funny how they claim "it may reduce risk. How do we know?" and how they have done "probably the most extensive testing commercial testing" and it "may reduce the risk of cancer, chronical bronchitis and possibly emphysema."

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  67. Cigar by Luigi30 · · Score: 1

    Anyone reminded of the auto-lighting cigar you used to burn the Inquisitor doll in Zork: Grand Inquisitor? It felt so good to send Dirk Benedict to jail.

    --
    503 Sig Unavailable

    The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
  68. Re:Times are changing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With hardly any place left where smoking is allowed, smokers, tired of nic-fitting all day at work, or in restaurants are in demand of discreet ways to take nicotine. They don't want items that will interfere with their regular smoke habit ( having grown to love the taste ), but they don't want to always have to leave for a smoke break either.

  69. Smoke Tones? Bluetooth? by cyb3rllama · · Score: 0

    Does it come with downloadable "smoke" tones like a cell phone has ring tones? That would be sweet!

    --

    particlesphere.com - quantum
  70. Gum is for quitting.... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    people don't chew the gum for their daily nicotine fix, they chew it to quit. That's the perception, and it's why people don't start chewing gum. Also, many smokers are largely uneducated, and it wouldn't occur to them to seek out alternatives to Nicotine.

    As for my idea, you'd have the gov't require nicotine free smokes and severly punish companies that didn't comply. You could start with a blend, and work down until the whole country kicked the habit.

    Your smoker friends are militant because they know what they're doing is silly, dangerous and bad for everyone, but they can't stop, and they're afraid you're going to make them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Gum is for quitting.... by tcr · · Score: 1

      You could start with a blend, and work down until the whole country kicked the habit.

      I guess you've never tried "ultralights" out of curiosity.

      You end up chainsmoking several out of frustration because you feel they are "just not working".

      --


      Information wants to be beer.
  71. Quit smoking! It stinks! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Cigarettes STINK...
    People that smoke, STINK..
    I smoked 3 packs a day, full tilt, until the day I quit, Dec. 26, 1998..

    I smoked from the time I was 14 until I quit at 37.

    So, I'm fully qualified to BITCH at people about smoking.

    Nicotine is a poison. They used to (and may still) put it in Black Flag roach poison.
    Look it up if you don't believe me.

    And the stench is unbearable. I have several friends that smoke and when they bring their computers over for me to work on I have to leave them plugged in and running in my garage for at least two days to get the stench out of them before bringing them inside. ALL of their stuff is PISS yellow, keyboards, mice, monitors all gunked up and sticky.
    Yuck!..

    One guy just brought me his computer because the power supply burned out. Why? Smoke. The nicotine gunked up the cooling fan in the power supply so badly that it quit spinning and the power supply burned up. He's lucky, wait until the fan on his CPU does the same thing.

    The inside of his computer is DISGUSTINGLY filthy. I hate to even touch it it's so nasty.

    And when I go to any of my smoking friends houses, I have to take my clothes of in the garage and drop them straight into the washer or they will make my house stink. I have to take a shower right away after I get home, it makes my hair stink, everything. And that's just from being in the house where they smoke, and they don't smoke while I'm there!

    When they pull out some cigarettes I tell them "Oh, time for a suicide stink stick eh?"

    And for those that dip or chew tobacco, ever seen someone with mouth cancer? It's enough to make you vomit. The sight is worse than anything you would see in a horror movie.

    I hate going to the store where people throw their stinking butts on the ground, the entrance at the stores stink, it's like walking through a gas chamber just trying to get into the store..

    I think they should make tobacco totally illegal, the use, sale, growth, purchase, etc.. Get caught using tobacco, go to jail, felony, 1 year 1st offense.
    Get caught selling tobacco, charge, attempted murder, penalty, DEATH. 1st offense..

  72. What a waste by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    So, let's see, you suck on a stick to get an injection of nicotine. Why not just distribute it in pills and get it over with?

    Oh, that's right - that would be directly peddling a highly addictive and extremely toxic drug (nicotine). As if selling cigarettes isn't...

    Gaaah. Pathetic. The lot of them.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  73. Yeah and Penn&Teller are the authorities on f@ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do a quick search on google

    => waitress dies second hand smoke

    So you can take your bs and shove it.

  74. Re: You smoke, you die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's the whole plant family Solanacae that is deadly.

    Consider the data we now have from even prior to the American Civil War: in the 1850s anyone who ate any Potatoes, Tomatoes, Green Peppers, Smoked or Chewed Tobacco, ate Jimsonweed, Yams, Haberno, Thai hot, Cayenne or any other hot peppers is now dead.

  75. Is Roland Piquepaille the new John Katz??? by jimkski · · Score: 3, Funny
    John Katz disappears and Roland appears to fill his place.

    As you know, nature abhors a vacuum...

    --
    yea i stole your sig- whats the big deal, it sucked anyway.
  76. Swedes have known this for a long time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snus is something you put between you upper lip and gum. It has plenty of nicotine. More info here
    http://www.gothiatek.com/templates/index2.aspx?pag e_id=488&fromfirst=1/

    You will be able to use it in non-smoking restaurants, and even in airplanes -- if you care for nicotine.

  77. Let me just say... by Jethro · · Score: 1

    ...if anyone tries to use that thing anywhere near me and claim it's not a cigarette so it shouldn't bother me, I will kill them before that thing kills me.

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  78. It depends by daveo0331 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're around secondhand smoke a lot, over a long period of time -- like if you're married to a smoker or you spend several years working in smoky bars or casinos or wherever -- there's a good chance this will cause some health problems of some kind. If you get a lungful of cigarette smoke once in a while as you leave a building or pull up next to a smoker at a red light or visit friends/relatives who smoke or watch movies where the characters smoke, it's not going to hurt you.

    Think of it this way: Big Macs are unhealthy. Cyanide is also unhealthy. The difference is that eating one Big Mac isn't going to kill you. Cigarettes are unhealthy like Big Macs. If you smoke, quit, and if you don't smoke, don't start. But at the same time, don't freak out over every cubic millimeter of cigarette smoke that happens to touch you.

    --
    Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
    1. Re:It depends by gpinzone · · Score: 1

      The difference is that there's hard evidence that Cyanide is unhealthy. There is no evidence that second-hand smoke is unhealthy. Annoying, smelling, and dirty, yes. But, it's not dangerous even after prolonged exposure.

    2. Re:It depends by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very true. I love how some hysterical people think they're going to get lung cancer just because they go out to a smoky bar a couple of times a week for about 2-3 hours at a time. Has there ever been a documented case of this? Also, what do these people do when they're walking down the street and a city bus or a big truck passes by, emitting the same chemicals as cigarette smoke? Where is their campaign to ban vehicles? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that those types of people simply love to poke their nose in other peoples' business.

    3. Re:It depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you, sir, love to poke your smoke in other people's breathing air.

    4. Re:It depends by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Nope. I don't smoke at all. Never have. I just can't stand extremists, and that includes hysterical anti-smokers. I think non-smoking sections in restaurants are a great idea; I just don't think it's the end of the world if I have to smell smoke for a few seconds. As for people who blow their smoke in the face of non-smokers, I can't stand them either. It's all about moderation.

    5. Re:It depends by Tassach · · Score: 1

      I see... the smoke is only bad for your lungs if it comes out of the BACK end of the cigarette. Or is it that all of the bad stuff gets filtered out by the smoker's lungs, so what they breathe out is perfectly safe for everyone else? Either way, it's pretty amazing!

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    6. Re:It depends by sydb · · Score: 1

      I don't understand your denial. It's the chemicals in cigarette smoke that cause health problems, not whether or not it's first or second hand. Now, I can imagine that perhaps there's a threshold concentration required to cause problems, but the same is true for cyanide.

      Anyway, there's cyanide in cigarette smoke.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    7. Re:It depends by gpinzone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's amazing is your inability to understand that the smoke getting injected into the smoker's lungs is more potent than the smoke by-product puffed and diffused into the air.

    8. Re:It depends by sydb · · Score: 1

      get lung cancer just because they go out to a smoky bar a couple of times a week for about 2-3 hours at a time. Has there ever been a documented case of this?

      Please explain how this could reasonably be documented.

      Sometimes you have to forget empirical evidence - because the cost of gathering it would be prohibitive - and use deductive reasoning: the chemicals in cigarette smoke are harmful at some high concentration; the smoke reaches high concentrations in closed rooms; therefore it's unhealthy to be in a closed room with lots of cigarette smoke.

      Determining the precise concentration at which damage occurs is prohibitive given the timescales and suffering involved. It's more reasonable to simply assume that second-hand smoke in closed areas is harmful.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    9. Re:It depends by Tassach · · Score: 1
      More CONCENTRATED, perhaps, but not more POTENT. It's still the exact same chemicals, just in a less concentrated dose. However, for someone like a bartender who works in a smoke-filled enviornment, they're getting that less-concentrated dose constantly.

      Which would you rather drink, a 6-pack of beer where one bottle is full of piss, or one where all 6 bottles have 2 oz of piss? Either way, you're getting the same amount of piss.

      Just because I'm getting less smoke in my lungs per breath than you are doesn't mean I want it there. Don't make me breathe your smoke and I won't piss in your beer.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    10. Re:It depends by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1

      Well, the real problem with smoking in bars is not the non-smoking patrons who are inhaling the second-hand smoke. If they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

      The problem is the occupational hazard of working in such an environment eight hours a day every day of the week. Many of these people don't have a choice. I respect their health.

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    11. Re:It depends by gpinzone · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is actually somewhat close to reality, albeit disgusting. You're just off by orders of magnitude (and piss isn't poisonous.)

      Second hand smoke does give off carcinogens. The point is that they are much, much less than what is being inhaled by the smoker. So much less that you'd have to lock yourself in a small smoke filled room for hours to get the same effect of smoking a cigarette. Still, that doesn't mean that prolonged exposure to a substance in very small quantities is the same as a short and potent dose. Dihydrogen monoxide is dangerous if you ingest extremely large quantities, but is perfectly safe if you limit yourself to about 8 cups a day.

    12. Re:It depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, he understands that. Thanks for proving his point, though!

    13. Re:It depends by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      I respect their health too, but I have never met a single person who works in a bar and is a non-smoker. I've been waiting for a counterexample for a long time. Anyway, people have a choice over where they work. There are plenty of non-smoking workplaces out there.

    14. Re:It depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The problem is that the dividing line between the smoking & non-smoking sections of many restaurants merely consists of an invisible line in the air. Which somehow, smoke doesn't seem to stay on the correct side.

      It's pretty cool that when you go out to eat, it only lasts a few seconds. I've been to suppers that have lasted up to an hour.

    15. Re:It depends by chainsaw1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It may be more than lack of concentration vs. exposure. It's possible that as the burning cigerette is inhaled, you're inhaling partially/still reacting chemicals at a high temperature. By the time they're exhaled, the reaction has mostly completed and the temperature has dropped. If most of the poisons are found in that partially reacted state, there is truth that 2nd hand smoke isn't as dangerous. Carbon Monoxide _could_ fall in this category, as could elemental heavy metals.

      It is also possible that the reason poisonous items are mostly harmful to the inhaler is that they are more water soluable and dissolve in the lungs easier. As such, the smoke they exhale would be "purified". The not-as-easy to dissolve items would stand just as small a chance to be dissolved in anyone else's lungs as well (more if they weren't dissolved because of saturation, less because of reduced gas temperature)

      Just my $0.02. Sorry for playing devil's advocate...

      --
      - Sig
    16. Re:It depends by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      "the smoke getting injected into the smoker's lungs" ...through a filter usually. It's also worth noting that the non-smoker may be a non-smoker because they *can't* smoke. For example, if they are asthmatic.

      As a final point, by that argument, we should completely ignore smokestack emissions. By the time anyone breathes them, they are far more diffuse than second hand smoke from multiple cigarettes in an enclosed space (like a restaurant or bar).

    17. Re:It depends by Pleione · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suggest that you don't go outside or drive then. If you work in a bar, that is the choice you have made. People don't go to bars to get healthy. Don't like it, quit and find another job.

    18. Re:It depends by robfoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, although generally the smoker's end has a FILTER on it..
      What's that about anyway? If you're going to inhale smoke for fun, at least be hard enough to inhale ALL of it. Jeez.

    19. Re:It depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been to suppers that have lasted up to an hour.

      Maybe you shouldn't eat so damn much, fatty.

    20. Re:It depends by edrain · · Score: 1

      I have never met a single person who works in a bar and is a non-smoker

      Anecdote != data.
      For every example you can cite, I can cite a counterexample. Suffice it to say that there is a significant number of non-smokers who work in smoke-filled environments.

      There are plenty of non-smoking workplaces out there

      Elitist nonsense. If you are a bartender, that number of workplaces decreases significantly. Career change is difficult whether you are a bartender concerned about secondhand smoke or a programmer concerned about outsourcing.

    21. Re:It depends by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1
      I've been waiting for a counterexample for a long time. Anyway, people have a choice over where they work. There are plenty of non-smoking workplaces out there.

      I know plenty of people who work in bars that don't smoke. Not to mention restaurants, coffee shops, etc. But that's immaterial; I'm sure plenty of people have similar friends.

      As for there being plenty of non-smoking workplaces out there, there are two reasons for that:
      1. Legislation that bans smoking in workplaces; or
      2. Business owners that are self-regulating in this regard.

      Legislation makes it easier for business owners to ban smoking because they won't lose their business to other businesses.

      I don't think that it is appropriate to limit where someone can work just because you think that people should be able to smoke in your workplace.
      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    22. Re:It depends by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      and also far less potent than the crap that's in the air from cars and trucks....but pointing the finger at the real culprit would have undesirable effects for the economy (we can't afford to live without cars and trucks), so smokers make a convenient scapegoat.

      diesel exhaust is particularly nasty - contains extremely carcinogenic substances.

      and unleaded petrol exhaust contains benzene, another carcinogen. amazing how the world switched from leaded petrol to unleaded. that's choosing cancer over a slight statistical decrease in the average IQ of children with long-term high-level exposure (e.g. in a school on a major road). best of all, lead particles are heavy and don't spread more than 20 feet or so from the road, while benzene is very lightly and can spread for over 100 feet.

      the cynical might suspect that the change was pushed because lead is expensive, while benzene is basically a free byproduct of petrol distillation.

    23. Re:It depends by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Career change is difficult whether you are a bartender concerned about secondhand smoke or a programmer concerned about outsourcing.

      Difficult, yes. But sometimes that's what you've got to do. In both cases, you can either take responsibility for yourself or you can whine to the government to take care of the problem for you. Guess which method has been shown to be more successful? When I was a kid, I had to quit mowing yards because the hayfever was killing me. Did I run to the government begging for help? No, I found other work to make up for the loss of money. I pinched pennies for a while until I got a job at the church running the sound board. If the ability to adapt to a changing environment, or changing desires is elitist, then I'm proud to be a member of the elite.

    24. Re:It depends by edrain · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid, I had to quit mowing yards because the hayfever was killing me.

      Unless it was literally killing you, I think a more accurate word would be 'irritating'. Besides, despite your inspiring story, I doubt your ability to eat dinner or pay rent would have been affected unless you are a minor character in a Dickens novel. If I were you, I'd consider getting over myself.

    25. Re:It depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Which would you rather drink, a 6-pack of beer where one bottle is full of piss, or one where all 6 bottles have 2 oz of piss?

      I'd rather drink a 6 pack where one bottle is full of piss. Why? Because then I could have a good buzz before I chug down 12oz of piss! Yummy.

      Piss is not poisonous, BTW.

    26. Re:It depends by tcr · · Score: 1

      I can't remember who said it, but the best quote I read to sum that up is :

      "Having a non-smoking area in a restaurant is like having a non-peeing area in a swimming pool".

      :-)

      --


      Information wants to be beer.
  79. That looks interesting. by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

    As a smoker, I might try this if it hits the shelves in the USA. Assuming I haven't quit by then.

    If they can get the prices down near regular cigarettes(possbily by dodging the insane taxes), it could help reduce the health problems I'm sure to face over the next 10-30 years or so.

  80. Physical addition? by Theovon · · Score: 1

    Is the physical addiction such a huge componnent that people can't get the same buzz from other means, like chewing nicotine gum?

  81. why do we have the right by StM.Rawder · · Score: 0

    to tell people how to live? where does this right come from? I can understand bitching about the smokers stinking up a room or enclosed space, but I dont think we have any right to tell them or tax them on the basis that smoking is dangerous. Getting into your car in the morning and driving to work is the most dangerous thing you can do. True, you dont have to smoke, but you dont have to drive and polute the air either :p Id post some auto death statistics here but im too lazy.

    This thing is a good idea if it works correctly.

    --

    ---
    My sig was stolen - the insurance company replaced it with this one.
    1. Re:why do we have the right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Yes, we drivers do indeed have to "pay" for our transgressions for polluting the air. Its called having your car "smogged" and excise taxes.

      A smoker definitely would fail a smog test just as a car with a bad ring job would. As a society, we tell ourselves to clean it up or shut it down. One smoker in a restaurant is like one oil-burner at a stoplight.

      I am rather disappointed they made the faux ciggies look like real ones. Its like making faux guns that look like real ones. You don't wanna be seen in places where the genuine item is verboten with a fake one that looks real.

      Personally, I would prefer the fake ciggie look like a baby's pacifier... cause that's what it is.

      I know, I spoke my mind here, and I will post AC because I know there are a helluva lot of people I offended by just being honest.

  82. Cigarette Lighter adapter available? by GrendelT · · Score: 1

    Instead of batteries, can I get a cigarette lighter adapter for this thing???

    (see what i did there? har har)

  83. Re:but*2 by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    But if you were popping the anti-depressants and balanced it with going to the gym (Which is normally free for college students) And over time you actually get in better shape (which improves your sex life) And you get to meet all the cute college girls who are working out which can be even more social then hanging out in the proorring rain.

    Taking pills that improve your changes on weight gain which improve your chances on health issues vs. Smoking that improves your chances for health care issues.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  84. But I Don't Smoke.... by gmletzkojr · · Score: 1

    You Insensitive Clod!!!

    --
    I for one welcome our new [insert main topic] overlords.
  85. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by geomon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Every word of the parent is true.

    I smoked an average of one pack a day from age 11 until February 10, 2002.

    My children visit their grandmother's house and I wash their clothes IMMEDIATELY after then come home. I can smell tobacco smoke on them in a strong breeze. I am constantly bothering my mom about quitting.

    There is nothing good than can be said about smoking that can counter the bad shit that can be said about smoking.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  86. Awwww crap.... by jbrelie · · Score: 1

    Damnit.. I'm almost quit, and they had to go and invent the ultimate nerd cigarette.

  87. Only in the states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get this error message.
    sorry

    We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States.

  88. Re:FIRE FIRE FIRE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    YYYYEAH! I need TP for my BUNGHOLE!!!

    Smoking involves lighters and matches. It appeals to the pyro in all of us.

  89. Battery powered? by Colonel+Failure · · Score: 0

    So I can just see it now. People asking to bum a charge off your pack...

  90. And by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    It's so expressive too. With a cigarrette, you can say "Fuck You" in all of its many meanings, simply by sucking or blowing in one of several ways.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  91. Depends on what properities you mean by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

    The smoke is bad for you, as all smoke is. However you generally inhale much less of it than with cigarettes. I mean it's not uncommon to see someone smoke 2+ packs of cigs per day, but I don't know many potheads that smoke more than 10 joints a day.

    As for the active ingrediants (nicotine vs THC) it also depends on what you mean. THC is essentially non-toxic in terms of killing you, you'd be hard pressed to OD on it. Nicotine, on the other hand, is quite toxic. However obviously, in standard concentrations, THC has a more severe effect on the body, hence why you need to smoke less to feel good.

    1. Re:Depends on what properities you mean by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > you'd be hard pressed to OD on [THC}

      Actually, not just hard-pressed, but the FIRST EVER to OD. It has never happened.

      That's not entirely accurate (well, it is... read on). According to some government-sponsored "research," rabbits "overdosed" on Marijuana. Of course, they force-fed the thing like 1/4 its body weight in MJ, so they could have been feeding it carrots & conclude that they are deadly.

    2. Re:Depends on what properities you mean by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Like I said, hard pressed. You CAN OD on almost anything, even water. However to OD on THC, you really have to be trying. You aren't going to do it just by smoking marajuna.

  92. Missing: Gov't fees by CodeMunch · · Score: 1

    Govertnment Taxation. These devices probably aren't taxed/levied/whatever anywhere near as bad as a cigarette.

  93. I'll raise you two... by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit. But just for the record, I think smoking is a vile nasty habbit.

    1. Re:I'll raise you two... by LGagnon · · Score: 5, Funny

      But just for the record, I think smoking is a vile nasty habbit.

      Nasty habbitses, stealing my precious lungs.

    2. Re:I'll raise you two... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      This reminds me..

      You know how people say: "smoking is a bad habit"?
      I mean, it's totally nonsensical!

      </joke>

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    3. Re:I'll raise you two... by psoriac · · Score: 1

      This might be the most creative LOTR twist I've seen in a looong time. Deserves to be +6 at least.

      --
      I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
    4. Re:I'll raise you two... by Maavin · · Score: 1

      It's not a habit.... It's an addiction...

      --


      Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
  94. Bet you drive a fucking SUV by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

    Y'know, I'm trying to quit right now, and people like you make me want to light up and blow smoke in your face.

    I bet you drive a car, so here's one for you. Stop fucking driving. The pollutants from your car affect my kid's lungs (alright - maybe not mine, but *someone*'s kids).

    (whiny voice) "But smoking is a useless exercise whereas driving a car is necessary".

    So fucking what. I live in LA and I do not drive. You choose to drive and I don't choose to breathe gas pollution but I have to. The amount of pollutants/carcinogens I create through second hand cigarette smoke is a LOT less than I bet you produce in your car.

    Bill Hicks was right, "I would quit smoking, but I'm scared I'll end up like one of you whiny faggots".

    And to top it off, you're not even whining about carcinogens, but traces of nicotine itself. FFS. Do you bitch at someone who's had a glass of wine because alcohol vapor is leaving their lips?

    People like you are about as useful as those big "NO SMOKING" signs that very helpfully contain an image of a beautiful, lit cigarette. You wind us up so much that we need a puff just to stop us from punching you.

    I'll finish this little rant with another gem of advice from Bill - "Non-smokers die EVERY DAY. Sorry to burst your little immortality bubble".

    cLive ;-)

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
  95. But... by CoolCat · · Score: 1

    ... why not just stop this discusting habbit? I mean like, everybody knows it kills you?? right?

    1. Re:But... by Famanoran · · Score: 1

      I smoke because I like the taste of tobacco... I don't care whether it kills me, I'd rather die of lung cancer than die of old age..

      Might be a naive point of view, but then - just because you think it's disgusting and I know it kills me, doesn't mean I should stop..

    2. Re:But... by whitegold · · Score: 1
      Um... why not?

      Americans are amazingly opposed to "legislating" anything.

      I'm not talking about things like the Patriot Act, etc. I'm talking about Seat Belts, Motorcycle Helmets, etc.

      Smokers seem to think their habit doesn't affect other people. That the choice is their own to make.

      Not true. I will consider smoking acceptable when ALL of the following is no longer a factor.

      1. Smokers stepping off a bus or train and lighting up sending that first big puff my way.
      2. Smokers standing outside buildings, creating a toxic cloud at the entrance that I have to walk through.
      3. Smokers throwing their cigarette butts out of the car into bushland where it can start fires. I'm in Australia, and this is a MAJOR problem.
      4. Smokers throwing cigarette butts on the ground. It's filthy. If I did that with my coke bottles or gum wrappers I'd be considered a filthy pig. Same rule applies. Don't do it.
      5. Smoking causes death. Sorry, but that's a fact. And while I don't actually care that smokers die I DO care about the drain they place on a healthcare system that could be better used to treat people who don't deserve what they get. Sorry to sound harsh, but if you still smoke now, you DESERVE lung cancer. You've been warned enough.


      I personally think smoking should be outlawed. Banned altogether. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it will happen any time soon, but I DO think it will happen eventually.

      In Australia, for example, in 2007 it will be illegal to smoke in Bars and Clubs. I believe they're looking at extending that to public parks and gardens as well. Good.

      Smoking is a clutching remnant of a long dead time. It's addictiveness is the ONLY reason it is still accepted in a society that views even butter as unhealthy, and "double dipping" as unclean.
    3. Re:But... by andynz · · Score: 1
      Wow, they gave them that long before the ban comes into effect, 2007! New Zealand's ban on smoking in bars and clubs comes into effect on Dec 10, I am looking forward to that day.

      Of course bar owners are loudly proclaiming the end of the 'hospitality industry'. There are even some moronic bar owners calling emergency services as a protest when people light a cigarette in their bar.

      The real downside I see to this law is that in summer, all the really good outdoor spots at cafes will be packed with smokers.

    4. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's 2007. Someone told me 2006, but I'm not sure. Governments work slowly. Glad NZ got their act together faster.

      Personally, I'd have made it retro-active, so that everyone who lit up YESTERDAY would be fined too. But I'm a little obessive. :)

      As for your comment about outdoor areas, you're probably right. Smokers have this assumption that if they're outside the smoke just magically vanishes. Certainly doesn't blow all over people, oh no!

      But still, I think that dis-connecting smoking and drinking is an important step. Too many people smoke only when they drink, or have the most trouble then, or take it up again, etc. Smoking will only stop when society views it as unacceptable. Any step is at least a step.

    5. Re:But... by Famanoran · · Score: 1

      "Americans are amazingly opposed to "legislating" anything."

      I'm insulted. I'm not a Yankee, nor do I live there.
      I'm a frickin' Kiwi mate.

      "Smokers stepping off a bus or train and lighting up sending that first big puff my way."

      There are worse things. I have had co-workers who had no idea what a toothbrush was, let alone how to use one. And that can get pretty stenchy, particularly in close quarters. But I doubt they'll ever make dental hygeine compulsory.

      "Smokers standing outside buildings, creating a toxic cloud at the entrance that I have to walk through."

      What about the huge cloud of shit pouring out of the bus you just stepped out of?

      "Smokers throwing their cigarette butts out of the car into bushland where it can start fires. I'm in Australia, and this is a MAJOR problem."

      "Smokers throwing cigarette butts on the ground. It's filthy. If I did that with my coke bottles or gum wrappers I'd be considered a filthy pig. Same rule applies. Don't do it."

      Yeah, that's probably a problem. But don't label us all with that brush. There are just as many non-smokers who litter as there are smokers. And smokers that don't litter. Not all of us are inconsiderate pricks, contrary to what you probably believe about smokers.

      "Smoking causes death. Sorry, but that's a fact. And while I don't actually care that smokers die I DO care about the drain they place on a healthcare system that could be better used to treat people who don't deserve what they get. Sorry to sound harsh, but if you still smoke now, you DESERVE lung cancer. You've been warned enough."

      Why are you sorry that smoking causes death? I'm not. I'd rather die of something - anything - than die of old age and boredom. Besides, some of us also have private health insurance that covers smoking. Like mine.

      Let he who is perfect cast the first stone. Otherwise, let me enjoy my fine divinely-smelling rum and wine soaked tobacco, lovingly crafted into a hand-rolled cigarette, and inhale the sweet taste of that delightful smoke.

      New Zealand and Australia are both lucky that you're not anywhere near to being in charge.
      What other civil liberties of mine would you be trying to legislate away? Alcohol? Meat-eating? Playing pool maybe? Oh - I know... existing! Yeah, that's it. Because your rights are more important than mine.

      Get real dude.

  96. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is an excellent Chinese restaurant close to my home. It is a small, out-of-the-way place that probably only seats about fourty people. Because of it's size, there is no way that it could be divided in to sections to accomodate smokers and non-smokers. This means that the smokers simply disperse themselves throughout the room. I hate to even go there anymore, because the taste and smell of cigarettes completely ruins the meal.

    Those of you who smoke around other people, know this: it's rude and disgusting. You probably annoy more people than you think, it's just that most people are simply too polite to complain.

  97. What about....? by kf6auf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The people with asthma? Or is asthma bullshit too? I know one girl with asthma in my hall that has to avoid smokers. Not only that, but she cannot be in a (motel) room that has had the smoke absorbed into everything. And spraying the room with perfume (so that most people don't notice the smoke) doesn't help at all, since the smoke is still there and gives her an asthma attack. So it kills asthmatics, do you really think it's not unhealthful for everyone else? Then why do people cough when they breathe in second-hand smoke? Because their body doesn't like it but it's really not harmful at all? Maybe I should make a cigarrette out of poison oak or something.

    1. Re:What about....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently Darwinism is not doing it's job well enough. Sometimes it takes the help of us smokers to thin out the (naturally) unhealthy members of the hurd. That does include ourselves, as well.

    2. Re:What about....? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      I know one girl with asthma in my hall that has to avoid smokers.

      So what? I'm alergic to nuts and they could kill me. You don't see me telling others what to do, or trying to ban peanuts from airplanes. The smell makes me feel physically sick, but I get over it as I have no right to complain to others about MY weakness.

      So it kills asthmatics, do you really think it's not unhealthful for everyone else?

      No. Medical research backs this up.

      Then why do people cough when they breathe in second-hand smoke?

      Only the pussies. Seriously. I don't know anyone that coughs with secondhand smoke, and as a smoker I seem to be around secondhand smoke a lot.

  98. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by lifes+a+cluster · · Score: 1

    So tell us what you really think man!

    I personally think non-smoking weenies who want to banish cigarette smokers to a closet or whatever are pricks. Just my opinion, though.

  99. Available today, here in the US: by scosol · · Score: 3, Informative

    At my local 7-11 even:

    Eclipse Cigarettes by RJ Reynolds

    You light it like a normal cigarette, but what you're actually lighting is a graphite rod that burns slowly and provides heat. Then then you inhale it heats up a packet of tobbaco which releases nicotine and water vapor but that's about it. (It works like a vaporizer)

    No smoke, just water vapor and a different taste, and all that sweet sweet nicotine! :)

    --
    I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
  100. They say this: by orasio · · Score: 1

    We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States

  101. I, for one... by Fortress · · Score: 1

    ...am holding out for tomacco.

    I hear they're going to market it towards kids, though.

    1. Re:I, for one... by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 1

      It tastes like grandma.

  102. You worried about your job... by WebCowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...at Benson and Hedges?

    There is a reason why tobacco is "politically acceptable substance to hate". There still may be some debate as to what second hand smoke does to people, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the smokers themselves are at increased risk of enphesyma and cancer and that by smoking you shorten your life considerably. As such, more people are quitting smoking and fewer start at all.

    Regardless of what science says about health dangers of second hand smoke, you CANNOT DISPUTE that just like most other kinds of smoke, it is an irritant--particularly to non-smokers. Since the majority of the population in North America are now non-smokers, the majority find smoking distasteful. As it is a democratic society, majority rules on most matters. This is leading towards the eventual extinction of smoking in public.

    I'm not sure some smokers realise this, but smoking is considered a dirty habit now. Never mind whether second-hand smoke is a health hazard. The smoke smells awful. The smoke makes people's eyes sting. It makes my eczema flare up when I'm in a smokey room. The butts are disguisting to look at. I've also noticed a slowly growing trend in the opinion that smoking is a habit of the low-class. It is about as appealing and sophisticated to many as spitting chewing tobacco. Unapologetic smokers are thought to be more likely low-income, uneducated individuals.

    Not only that, smokers present a safety hazard. Insurance companies charge higher premiums to homeowners to permit smoking in their homes because of studies demonstrating an increased fire risk. The grasslands in an urban park within my city catch fire during dry weather, and the last few have ALL been attributed to careless disposal of lit cigarettes. One of the fires out an adjoining neighbourhood in danger as well.

    Even as a non-smoker however, I do not agree with excessive government intrusion into private habits. I support the idea of a total ban on smoking in government buildings, schools, hospitals and establishments that permit children. I also support tax incentives for smoke-free businesses (promoting healthy lifestyles reduces the load on government funded medicare). I do NOT think business owners should be FORCED to ban smoking in situations outside the above (age 18+ only, private buildings). Given the state of society today, I think that is a reasonable compromise.

    If smokers do not see that as a reasonable compromise, I might suggest to them to make an effort to quit smoking--the increased quality of life is amazing. If you do not believe even now that you have no good reason to quit, use your manners and keep your habit to yourself--smoke in your own home/yard only, or in a space designated as a smoking area. If you light up in public, chances are that the majority of people around you are non-smokers and are bothered by your smoke.

    1. Re:You worried about your job... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with all your poins, excet this one:
      As it is a democratic society, majority rules on most matters.
      In a democratic society the majority doesnt rule. Rather, all sides are proportionatelly represented.

    2. Re:You worried about your job... by Qacker · · Score: 0

      The USA is not a democracy; its a democratic republic. Try again

      --
      Learn lisp today!
    3. Re:You worried about your job... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm worried about liberty. I don't give a fig for democracy, or the opinion of the majority: I care about freedom.

      And I agree that non-smokers tend to consider smoking is a nuisance. But I also think that short pants on anyone over the age of 13 are a nuisance. I don't presume to legislate over either issue:-)

      Regarding the load on government-funded health care a) the government shouldn't be in that business in the first place and b) economic studies have shown that the net effect is positive: higher health expenses of some sorts (and reduced tax contributions) are offset by reduced Social Security and on-going health care costs (since cigarette smokers tend to die earlier).

      I don't disagree that most cigarette smokers would have a much better quality of life if they quit. I do believe that most non-smokers would have a much better quality of life if they would smoke moderately (say, a cigar a month or a pipe a week). We pipe smokers outlast you all:-)

    4. Re:You worried about your job... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm worried about liberty. I don't give a fig for democracy, or the opinion of the majority: I care about freedom.

      Your freedom stops where my freedom to breath freely begins.

  103. why not just be honest about nicotine by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 1

    and snort it or inject it.

    --
    MORTAR COMBAT!
  104. Just a suggestion, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you're likely to cough up phlegm for days after being exposed to smoke five yards away for more than a minute, you might want to get that checked out... Sounds to me like you have some serious breathing problems already.

    The smell of patchouli gives me a headache... as do most of the people who wear it in lieu of a shower, so I avoid bars where hippies hang out. That's my problem, not theirs. So, do we go around banning every substance that some people have a particular sensitivity to? Or, do you make adjustments in your habits to avoid places where you'll encounter irritants? I'm guessing that you'll opt to make new laws... But where does it end?

    Isn't there some middle ground on this? How about a multi-pronged attack on the problem... One, make the tobbaco companies stop putting additives in their products. Two, require better ventilation in places that permit smoking. Three, quit fucking whining until you stop driving your car or using any products that have harmful effects.

    1. Re:Just a suggestion, but... by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Here's my thing.

      I avoid smoky places. I never go to bars, ever. I don't go to restaurauints that have a smoking section. I don't go to peoples' houses who smoke.

      But they stand at the entrance to stores I need to go into. They stand around parking lots. They follow me when I take the dog to the park.

      When I ask them if please, please they could hold off on the cig while I'm around (and I /do/ ask politely) I get "We're allowed to smoke out here!!!"

      Now, if someone smokes in the park, while walking, and I follow in their path 10 minutes later, I STILL GET IT. Especially in the winter when that thing can linger for aaages.

      By the way, patchouli? Ewwwwwww.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    2. Re:Just a suggestion, but... by windex · · Score: 1

      You don't have much of a social life, do you? :)

    3. Re:Just a suggestion, but... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd like to point out the contrary. He clearly states that when he follows someone in the park, he can "still get it". Also note that the "thing can linger for aaages". Now what on earth is he referring to exactly??

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    4. Re:Just a suggestion, but... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      When I ask them if please, please they could hold off on the cig while I'm around (and I /do/ ask politely) I get "We're allowed to smoke out here!!!"

      As as smoker, I know why they do this. We are shat on from every direction and there are literally very few places where we are allowed to smoke. If you hastle a smoker in one of these few places, then you may get your head bitten off! Hence the "we're allowed to smoke" kind of response.

    5. Re:Just a suggestion, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bubble Boy? Did you escape? Maybe you need to get back in the damned bubble.

      If you are that sensitive to smoke, you must be sensitive to other things... do we have to ban those too? How many of us need to change our lives so that you can walk through the park? Natural selection used to take care of problems like yours. If I were standing in the park, and you came up and asked me to stop smoking OUTSIDE, you better have some kind of weapon.

      What I like to tell rabid non-smokers when they say "Don't you know smoking is bad for you?" is "Don't you know being a nosy bitch and fucking with smokers about their habit is bad for you?".

      Get yourself one of those Michael Jackson dust masks, and shut up.

    6. Re:Just a suggestion, but... by Jethro · · Score: 1

      The thing is, you know smoking is bad for you and everyone around you. Yes, it's your choice, but does that mean you have to be... inconsiderate?

      I'm not talking strangers. I'm talking someone I'm having a polite conversation with. The4y just turn into an Instant Asshole.

      Hell, I've had friends who know how I feel about smoking and had said they'd never ever smoke near me, smoke near me. In my own back yard! They tried to hide behind the garage...

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    7. Re:Just a suggestion, but... by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Defensive, are we?

      How about if this is in a park where smoking is, in fact, banned? Am I allowed to complain then, O Mighty Addict?

      How about all the times I had to stomp out the still lit cigarettes your fellow addicts decided to throw in the dry brush right next to the tree line?

      Why do I have to deal with the HUGE amounts of cigarette butts you can't even be bothered to carry with you to the next trash can?

      You /know/ smoking is bad. You don't need me to tell you that. How is it fair to force it on people?

      What if I liked eating arsenic? You want to make it legal for me to force it into your food?

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    8. Re:Just a suggestion, but... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      The thing is, you know smoking is bad for you and everyone around you.

      As others have pointed out, it's never been proven to be bad for others by any reputable study.

      does that mean you have to be... inconsiderate?

      Some folks might say you are the one being inconsiderate. There are many things you can do that annoy others. You have the misfortune of being seriously affected by someone elses vice.

      I'm talking someone I'm having a polite conversation with. The4y just turn into an Instant Asshole.

      There are a lot of arseholes about, smokers or non-smokers, that's for sure. I'd bet anyone who knew that you had a genuine need to avoid smoke would not get annoyed about your request. However, you cannot expect to dictate to people what they should do without getting the odd bit of resentment. Especially if they have already had to come down out of their office into the cold street for a smoke. Don't expect them to be in a good mood!!

      they'd never ever smoke near me, smoke near me. In my own back yard! They tried to hide behind the garage...

      Did that bother you for medical reasons, or the fact they did it? Surely sneaking round the back of your garage should have made it OK for you?

      The thing is, you have to remember that smokers are not all that different from crackheads. Without a fix, they are irritable and often annoying. Come between them and their fix, you may live to regret it!! ;-)

    9. Re:Just a suggestion, but... by Jethro · · Score: 1

      The thing is, you have to remember that smokers are not all that different from crackheads.

      Um. Yeah. I know. It's an addiction. Hmmm, what do we do about other things that are addictive and destructive... oh yeah, we make them illegal!

      As for my friend smoking behind the garage - that's bad because she knew how much it affects me, she had promised that she'd never do anything like that, and she's a good friend and still did it. Also, the smell did get back into my house from behind the garage.

      Also, when someone smokes, they end up smelling like smoke. I don't need that in my house.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    10. Re:Just a suggestion, but... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Hmmm, what do we do about other things that are addictive and destructive... oh yeah, we make them illegal!

      The only result of this is handing over control to criminals. It's supply and demand, and there will always be a demand. Getting wasted has been a human trait for millenia.

      Banning smoking outright would be disasterous. Nicotine is harder to come off than heroin, you are much more likely to be successful coming of H than smokes. I can't imagine the harm caused by letting drug dealers work with tobacco.

    11. Re:Just a suggestion, but... by Jethro · · Score: 1

      The only result of this is handing over control to criminals.

      No, that's not trne only result.

      In the short term, it'd be a huge economic blow. That's the real reason cigs are still legal.

      However, it'd also mean I never have to deal with them again. Same way I don't have to deal with heroin or marijuana.

      I do believe that if cigs were illegal, less people would smoke them. Maybe not at first, but again, in the long run. It's harder to nick some off your parents if your parents hide them.

      Note that I don't expect cigarettes to ever be made illegal. Just being hypothetical here.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  105. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by MacBorg · · Score: 1

    I'd say the OP is entitled to his view... considering his previous habit... so STFU

  106. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    No, I don't want to banish smokers to a closet.
    I just want to banish smoking..

    Tell me ONE benefit of smoking.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Still waiting..
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Hmmmmm... That's what I thought..

    Oh yeah, Have a happy Heart Attack..
    Just like the 5 heart attacks my STILL SMOKING friend has had, and the 3 heart attacks my grandfather had, his 3rd one was his last one.
    And the two heart attacks my cousin had, his second one was his last one.
    And the two heart attacks my uncle had, his second one was his last one.
    And so on..
    I've seen cigarettes KILL a lot of my family and friends...

    If you value death over life you have serious mental problems..

  107. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FYI, the smell of cigarette smoke bothers ex-smokers a lot more than normal. I know, I'm an ex-smoker. The smell of smoke never bothered me before or during the years I smoked, but now it bugs me to no end, and EVERY ex-smoker I know is like this. So be aware: as an ex-smoker you are constantly over-reacting to the smells and side-effects of smoking.

    As far as death penalty for selling tobacco... you're just a sad sad person.

  108. Pravda?!! by mi · · Score: 2, Funny
    Since when is it acceptable to quote the dirty and blood soaked Russian Communist party rag in a decent publication?

    And no, this is not a troll...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  109. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by jackrd · · Score: 1

    Wow. You sound like you're pretty stressed...maybe a nice, relaxing cigarette would help.

    Seriously, though, if you hate smokers so much, why do you still assosciate with them?
    If their houses are so nasty, why don't you meet them at your favorite non-smoking establishment?
    If you don't want to touch their computers, why do you?

    I hate going to the store where people throw their stinking butts on the ground, the entrance at the stores stink, it's like walking through a gas chamber just trying to get into the store..
    I'm going to have to assume you've got a super-sensitive nose or maybe it's just your inherent hatred of smoking you that predisposes you to be sensitive to anything tobacco-related, but I've never heard anyone complain about this before. That said, you should consider encouraging these establishment to perhaps move their ashtrays away from the door. Or maybe just deal with smelling a hint of tobacco smoke in the air for 6 seconds.

    When they pull out some cigarettes I tell them "Oh, time for a suicide stink stick eh?"
    My, what an endearing trait. I don't know your friends, but I somehow get the feeling they already know how you feel about their smoking, I can't imagine how this would help.

    I think they should make tobacco totally illegal, the use, sale, growth, purchase, etc.. Get caught using tobacco, go to jail, felony, 1 year 1st offense. Get caught selling tobacco, charge, attempted murder, penalty, DEATH. 1st offense..
    This one is what got me to reply in the first place. I'm assuming you don't really feel this way, but I can't tell for sure. Do you really want your friends to be in jail? Do you really think the world would be better if, instead of merely causing health problems, using tobacco would end up putting you in jail, where you lose your freedom, can no longer support your family (if you have one), and become nothing more than a burden to society? And do you really think that growing and selling a plant, something that exists naturally should result in your death rather than perhaps a guilty conscience?

    Like I said, I can only assume the answer to those questions is "no", but then again, I can think of another plant that people seem to think otherwise of.

  110. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Soko · · Score: 1

    Congrats to you and the grandparent poster for being able to kick the habit.

    However, there is nothing worse than a sanctimonious ex-smoker.

    You were an addict once, and I don't think it was as easy to quit as simply throwing away your smokes. There are studies that show that Nicotine is as addictive as heroin.

    Again, Congradulations on being able to do this, but show a little compasion to those of us who have been unable as yet to become ex-smokers.

    (BTW, if you've been a Nicotine addict and don't smoke now, you are not a non-smoker. You are an ex-smoker, and the addiction is but one smoke away. Don't ever think "Ah, just one cigarette - it won't make me start again...")

    Soko

    --
    "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  111. Your Sig by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

    :) Made me laugh. lol that's pretty funny... Honers graduate.

    Watch it - he might throw some nuculer weapons at you...

    =D

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Your Sig by raider_red · · Score: 1

      I've got some background on my .sig lines here. It truly is intended as a joke and not a political statement.

      Also, my last girlfriend would fly into a rage if you said "nucular". It was kind of fun to watch.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
  112. Finally, something that doesn't hurt me too by blueforce · · Score: 1

    If you want to run for president, pierce your tongue, pierce your eyebrows, or staple your earlobes together behind your head - fine by me.

    I don't care if you shave your hair into the shape of a sundial or file your teeth into pointed vampire-style fangs.

    But, for the love of all things good, don't subject me to your second-hand smoke.

    Smoking is one of the very few habits that not only kills the weak-minded individual that can't quit and chooses to partake - it forces everyone else around them to smoke too. I chewed Copenhagen snuff for 9 years until one day I realized it was bad news. I did it because I was addicted to the nicotene and the habit of having something in my lip. So, yes - I feel I'm qualified to give advice on the weak-mindedness of cigarettes. I quit. Cold turkey. It wasn't easy and 5 years later, I still crave it occasionally but I did quit. It is possible and it IS a mental challenge but it can be done. If you started it, you can end it.

    I have Sarcoidosis so second hand smoke precludes me from going to a lot of restaurants, taverns, and even places like bowling alleys, casinos, and other public places that allow smoking.

    Like I said, do whatever you want to yourself, but dog gone it, don't force me to do it with you.

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  113. Screw that - here's 9 tips to quit smoking. by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 1

    Yes, i quit using these methods. I've had no cigarrettes for 6 months now.

    (1) Cold turkey is best.
    (2) First 2 weeks - 2 aspirin in the morning, 2 aspirin when you develop headaches. IF aspirin stops working, switch it with ibuprofen. Dont mix ibuprofen with alcohol ("they" say it's bad for the liver).
    (3) B-Vitamin anti-stress formula to reduce tension.
    (4) Nic-Patch - Buy the strongest ones 22mg - treat each mg as a cigarette, and CUT the patches down to size. One mg per cigarrette, and steadily reduce them until you're not using any.
    (5) If you accidentally "cheat" stick with the program, and keep quitting smoking.
    (6) Coffee in the morning helps take the edge off.
    (7) Sometimes a beer at night does the same.
    (8) Valerian Root, or Camomile Tea to help you sleep.
    (9) Finally, when you're really stressing and craving, remember that your body actually wants some other thing first, before that cigarrette (which you're NOT going to smoke ;) . The other thing might be taking a walk, eating a snack, drinking some water or juice. Taking a nap. You name it.

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
    1. Re:Screw that - here's 9 tips to quit smoking. by narcc · · Score: 1

      That's silly -- why go through all that?

      Buy Quest Step down to no nicotine, then quitting just kinda happens...

      Oh, I should mention that they're not ment to help you quit smoking. Sure their not.

      I quit for 8+ months.

  114. Reduce nicotine in cigs to zero by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

    The feds can regulate anything they like, so why not regulate the maximum nicotine content in cigarettes? Then start reducing it year by year so that in about 8 or 10 years the maximum nicotine content in cigs is zero. How hard is it going to be to quit then?

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  115. not anything new.. by Suppafly · · Score: 1

    This is nothing new, if you know anything about the industry, almost exactly the same thing was experimented with about 20 years ago.

  116. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Zeebs · · Score: 1

    Ok, someone really needs to calm down. I think it's great you survived you death defying escape from cigarettes. Great, but why do you want to make something I am choosing to do of my own free will, illegal. Yes, I smoke, i'm approx. a Pack/3 months smoker. I'm all for smoking bans in public places, I love being able to go to the bar and not come back having 2nd handed 2 or 3 packs worth. I only smoke with other smokers, outside away from people. Not effecting anyone else. For the love of god, why are you advocating draconian laws against the substance. I bet you think other drug laws a good too. DEATH for growing tobacco, did a tobacco farmer kill your parrents or something?

    I think it's just wrong you think that way.

    --

    Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
  117. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by jqstm · · Score: 1

    >I think they should make tobacco totally illegal,
    >the use, sale, growth, purchase, etc..

    yeah this approach worked really well for alcohol in the 1920s and 1930s. and today it's impossible to get heroin, marijuana and crack in this country.

    what we should do instead is have the feds try to guarantee that there is an adequate supply of cigarettes for everyone. then, as with flu shots, we'd have a tough time getting them. :-)

  118. Wish I could mod you up... by jaraxle · · Score: 1

    but used the last of my points yesterday. As a non-smoker, I completely agree with you.

    Recently in my hometown (Winnipeg, MB), they've gone smoke-free in all public establishments. Now, sure it's nice to go in to a restaurant and eat without cigarette smoke in the air, but honestly it's never really bothered me.

    Bar business is definitely hurting because of it. There's a bar that I've been to a few times, and the owner had put a broken down schoolbus beside it, allowing smokers somewhere to go in the winter to get out of the cold. There were even heaters in there. Now, of course, he was fined and told to get rid of it because it circumvented the bylaw. How fucking ridiculous is that? The bar is smoke free, and he's just trying to keep patrons by allowing them someplace to go. It's not like non-smokers had any reason to go in there, but they still whined and bitched and complained. Bullshit!

    ~jaraxle

  119. Great, more trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Okay, we don't already have enough castoffs from the smokers of the world (Motto: The world is our ashtray!) I am tired of seeing cigarette butts and containers all over this otherwise beautiful planet.

    Now, we have the same inconsiderate set of slobs further littering the earth with batteries leaking additional toxic chemicals to further pollute the environment.

    Just another indication of what is obviously one of the the most inconsiderate segments of society.

  120. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    --I think they should make tobacco totally illegal, the use, sale, growth, purchase, etc.. Get caught using tobacco, go to jail, felony, 1 year 1st offense.
    Get caught selling tobacco, charge, attempted murder, penalty, DEATH. 1st offense..--

    I hate smoking too but this ain't going to work. Look at the war on drugs. Make cigerettes illegal and there will be plenty of people to lock up then. Whoa, what a Mofia that will create.

  121. Allow me to tell it like it is. by cryptochrome · · Score: 2

    "I CHOOSE to smoke" my ass.

    Admit it. You're an addict. You couldn't stop if you tried. Getting your buzz is more important to you than pissing off every non-smoker in your vincinity by stinking up their clothes and filling their air with crap. And you'll pay through the nose and ruin your health and that of anyone unfortunate enough to live with you to do so.

    You can cop an attitude all you want, but it won't cover up the fact that you're that cancer stick's bitch.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    1. Re:Allow me to tell it like it is. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > You can cop an attitude all you want, but it won't cover up the fact that you're that cancer stick's bitch.

      You can cop an attitude all you want, but it won't cover up the fact that you want to take away all personal choices and freedoms that don't fall into your fascist view.

      See, I can make ludicrous claims as well and state them as fact. You don't know me (I really hate that phrase...) and you don't know that I'm addicted. I probably AM, but quitting isn't as impossible as people seem to think, if the smoker REALLY wants to.

  122. A democratic republic... by WebCowboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...is a style of government. Democracy is a process used by government. It seems to me that they are related but not the same thing. Isn't your statement kind of like saying "an orange is not a plant, it is a fruit"?

    Doesn't democracy play an important role in a democratic republic? In my observation the US holds elections on every damn thing to do with government. Today, you are electing the President, congressmen, sentaors, judges, public commissioners, voting on propositions, etc etc etc.

    Seems to me that the system was at least INTENDED to govern by majority opinion.

  123. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh, I'll be the first one to say that quitting was total hell.

    I had never tried to quit before I did quit.
    The first time I tried to quit, I quit.
    I know people that constantly say, "I'm trying to quit" as they puff on one.

    Right.

    I used the patches to help me quit, and for about a year I was miserable. It was hell.
    I replaced cigarettes with soda waters. Everytime I felt the urge, which was about every ten minutes, I drank a soda water instead.
    I went from 147lbs to 210lbs in one year. I'm still trying to knock that down. I'm disabled, having a broken back made it impossible for me to exercise to loose the weight, now I'm recovering from back surgery and still I can't exercise, yet. But I did manage to get down to around 190lbs. I still have about 20lbs to go before I am satisfied.

    Smoking was the worst thing I ever took up, quitting was the hardest thing I ever did. But I have no regrets for quitting, it was the best thing I ever did.

    I hate people that smoke that think they have the right to make me inhale their poison along with them or have to smell their stench.

    And to another poster, I've complained to the stores about the butts everywhere, they moved the ashtrays away from the door and the smokers just threw them on the ground, they move them closer to the door and a FEW will put them in the ashtrays but MOST still throw them on the ground.

    And people drive down the road and flip them out the windows into my yard. How considerate of them, eh? Real nice of you to make a disabled man in a full torso cast that can not bend over, have to get on his knees and pick up their stinking, filthy, ugly cigarette butts from his yard. You can't imagine how difficult and painful it is to drop to your knees and get back up again when you're completely immobilized in a medevil torture device...

    Oh, and thanks a lot, all you smokers, I appreciate all the unnecessary pain and trouble you put me through as I try to keep my yard looking decent...

    Am I an asshole about smoking? You bet I am..
    And proud of it...

  124. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who has never smoked, the smell of smoke has always bothered me. I do not think I am over-reacting to the smell and is not necesarily a side-effect of smoking.

    Perhaps this is because I do not have friends who smoke and try very hard not to go anywhere that people are smoking.

    It really does smell.

  125. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    DEATH for growing tobacco, did a tobacco farmer kill your parrents or something?

    Yes, as a matter of fact. Several of my family members died as a direct result of smoking.
    They died horrible, painful deaths.
    Cancer, heart attacks, etc..
    I watched them die, at their sides in the hospital, I watched them die.
    The tobacco farmers are responsible, the tobacco companies are responsible, the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is responsible.
    Yes, the government makes a HUGE profit from the sale of tobacco, it's called sales tax.
    The more sales, the more revenue.
    ATF.. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. They are the ones that control the sales of tobacco..

    There's so much more..

    Tobacco is a poison. It kills people.
    You can not deny that. If you do, you are a fool...

    Oh and I see some of these posts are getting modded as flamebait. I presume by militant smokers..

  126. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by VAXGeek · · Score: 1

    "The tobacco farmers are responsible, the tobacco companies are responsible, the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is responsible."

    Good thing there's no such thing as personal responsibility...

    --
    this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
  127. The hepafilter of stoners by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    The trick was keeping it just above 80C but below 90C, that way you get most of the alcaloid, but none of the easily-recognized-by-autorithies smell.

    Well, it was funnier when I was baked:
    I remember one time in college we were using a dorm tube (a one liter bottle filled with drier sheets) to exhale the smoke, so as not to let the smell exit our room. Just outside our door I heard a neighbor exclaim, "It smells like I'm about to get eaten by an 8-foot tall Snuggles."

  128. But you cannot use this while sleeping! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The patch is still WAY better. You'll realize how much better nicotine can be when you wear the patch
    while sleeping.

  129. Re: There's also a battery-operated vaporizer by jackrd · · Score: 1

    It's called the Vapir. The target market seems to be for *eh-hem* other smokable plant matter, but they market it for tobacco and I don't see why it wouldn't work. They have cordless and corded models and you can set the temperature. They're rather large, however, and only work for ~30mins/charge, but that's still 10 cigarettes' worth.

  130. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, I see...after you quit smoking you became a whiny, immature, elitist. Oh well, seems there's always a tradeoff. Too bad yours couldn't be something like food or chewing gum.

  131. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by geomon · · Score: 1

    Congrats to you and the grandparent poster for being able to kick the habit.

    Thanks.

    However, there is nothing worse than a sanctimonious ex-smoker.

    That's true, but stating facts shouldn't be considered being sanctimonious.

    You were an addict once, and I don't think it was as easy to quit as simply throwing away your smokes.

    You are quite correct. I tried countless times to quit smoking without success. What I didn't know at the time was that every time I that I attempted to quit, I was that much closer to finally quitting.

    Again, Congradulations on being able to do this, but show a little compasion to those of us who have been unable as yet to become ex-smokers.

    Actually, I have a great deal of compassion for those who are still smokers. But one of the most motivating things that pushed me to quit smoking was my wife. She never smoked, and never she let up on me to quit.

    Don't ever think "Ah, just one cigarette - it won't make me start again..."

    I've been there and have been able to fight the urge. As time passes, the ease with which I am able to fight those urges grows stronger.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  132. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I know plenty of people who quit smoking and they said it was pretty easy.

    Of course, they're dead. Barum bum. Just kidding. Try the veal.

    Seriously, though, my Dad quit smoking. He smoked for about 40 years. What caused him to quit? He saw a chest X-ray.

    My Mom quit. What caused her to quit? Seeing her sister die of lung cancer.

    My favorite, though, is a friend of mine. She's probably smoked for about twenty years and had tried to quit a few times but failed. During her last attempt at quitting, she was outside "taking out the trash" and sneaking a cigarette. It was about -20 degrees fahrenheit. And it occurred to her that she wasn't fooling anybody: It doesn't take 20 minutes to take out the trash, her son knows she's out here smoking. She should either really quit or she should go inside and finish her cigarette where it's warm.

    She threw the pack in a snowbank. After that epiphany, though, she said that quitting was easy.

    Personally, as a smoker, I can't quit. Why? Because my Mom always told me, "Nobody likes a quitter."

    Barum bum. Thank you! I'll be here all week!

  133. thats Funny! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    I think all cigaretes taste like Sh*t. Its a shame really, cause man they make you look cool. I allways thought I'd grow up to be a smoker. Its just one of those manly things that make us think that we're cool and sophsiticated. I guess I'm neither manly or sophisticated. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to live a little longer and marry a wife who just wants me for my mind. Sigh...

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:thats Funny! by n54 · · Score: 1

      Hehe I'm a smoker and it doesn't make me (or anyone else imo) look cool or manly at all but I sure think they taste like heaven "D

      *puff* Nasty *puff* habit *puff* though...*puff*

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
  134. a better dumb habit. by twitter · · Score: 1
    most smokers like smoking because it's more habitual. They're used to the act of having a cigarette in their hand and the act of blowing smoke.

    They should try chewing gum. It's cheaper, better for your teeth and won't rot everything you use to breath and smell so that you smell like death before dying of heart dissease or cancer. Yes, that rotten smell is really dead tissue.

    cigarettes have an illusion of being "cheap" and easily available. Not to mention the perceived (albeit ill-placed) "coolness factor".

    They are as cheap as they can be and include a lot of paper and other garbage you would not eat off much less put to your mouth.

    Chewing gum is much less expensive, though of equal quality. The downside is that you look like a cow. The upside is that's only about 1/100th as stupid as people who smoke look.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  135. THC isn't an alkaloid.... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    It doesn't contain any nitrogen, a primary requirement for alkaloids.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  136. All fine and well. by bob+beta · · Score: 1

    This is all fine and well, but I smoke cigars and my pipe, not cigarettes.

    Sorry. Complex 'nicotine delivery systems' can't replace the pleasure of buying a good cigar after filling up the car with gas and making a big smoky cloud while puffing it. No, I don't inhale.

  137. so is it hackable? by louden+obscure · · Score: 1

    i'd prefer to masquerade as a nic junkie and replace the nicotine with thc.

    --
    Serenity now, insanity later.
  138. Doublespeak Ahoy! by serutan · · Score: 1

    Nicotine -- acts like a drug and is used like a drug, but it's not a drug at all!

    Headline 2014: FDA Chairman/Philip Morris CEO Michael Szymanczyk announces new product: Intravenarettes!

  139. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by incom · · Score: 1

    Wow, damn strange coincidence. I too smoked from age 11 til 2002. I'm 21 right now.

    --
    True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
  140. (-1, Fascist) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You support a fascist nanny-state. Thus, you should be publically flogged for your advocacy against American values.

    You ever say "time for a suicide stink stick eh?" to me and you'll get my fist in your piehole. It's people like you that I deliberately like to piss off with my smoking. I would BLOW THE FUCKING SMOKE RIGHT IN YOUR FACE AND MAKE YOU COUGH. Because you're an intolerant asshole. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander, motherfucker.

  141. "Totally New?" Heh. by Disk+Pickable · · Score: 1
    Funny, such a battery-powered mechanism is mentioned in this PBS NOVA feature from October 2001:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/cigarette/history2.ht ml

    "Philip Morris is testing its own high-tech cigarette called Accord, which has been described as a cigarette encased in a kazoo-shaped lighter. Consumers buy a $40 kit that includes a battery charger, a puff-activated lighter that holds the cigarette, and a carton of special cigarettes. To smoke the cigarettes, a smoker sucks on the kazoolike box. A microchip senses the puff and sends a burst of heat to the cigarette. The process gives the smoker one drag and does not create ashes or smoke. An illuminated display shows the number of puffs remaining, and the batteries must be recharged after every pack."
    The article also details much earlier (non-electric) "smokeless" cigarettes developed and even marketed, such as RJR's "Premier" all the way back in 1988.
  142. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a cocksucker. That's all it boils down to, you think that what's right for you is right for everyone else, and that you have the right to force others to agree with you.

    If I met you on the street I'd kick your face in. Because you're a fucking piece of dogshit scum.

    Those who espouse taking rights away from others deserve no rights at all.

    Fuck you, dickwad.

  143. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Damvan · · Score: 1

    There was only one person responsible for the deaths of your family members. Themselves! None of those organizations listed forced your relatives to smoke. They chose to, they paid the price. Ever hear of this concept of personal responsibility? Look it up, you might learn something.

  144. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I value my rights. You have no right to tell me what I can ingest. As an adult, it's my responsibility to make decisions such as those, and YOU BETTER FUCKING WELL STAY OUT OF IT.

    I bet you also support banning gay marriage and gay civil unions. Because YOU don't agree with it.

    You can suck a fart cloud from my ass, and write up a review of it's flavor. If I was walking down the street and saw someone beating the living fuck out of you, I'd go over and aid in the beating.

  145. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not try asking your so-called 'friends' not to smoke around you? If they're truly your friends, they won't smoke around you.

    But, if you're as much of a dick about it as you seem to be, it's no wonder they make a point to piss you the fuck off as much as they can. I would, anyway.

  146. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong, he's not entitled to advocate making that decision for EVERYONE. It's his choice, sure, but the converse also holds true, and it's people like him that piss off the smokers who actually try to be respectful about it (such as me).

    I'm respectful about smoking until someone is disrespectful or patronizing to me about it. Then I piss them off as much as I can.

  147. without tar by jack_csk · · Score: 1

    Ok, tar free cigarettes... what about gzip?

  148. It's both... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Acutally. In high enough doses (pack or 2 a day) it's a depressant. Check here

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  149. Every breath you take... by renjipanicker · · Score: 1

    The most effective demonstration I give is to hold a thin white cotton cloth over the filter and take a puff through it. With the stronger cigs, the cloth turns near-black; and that's the crap that's lining your lungs with every drag you take.

  150. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by olrik666 · · Score: 1

    "I smoked 3 packs a day, full tilt, until the day I quit, Dec. 26, 1998.."

    [snip]

    "Get caught using tobacco, go to jail, felony, 1 year 1st offense."

    And make the law retroactive to 1997...

  151. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
    You've got to be the whiniest motherfucker I've read a post of all day. And the biggest hypocrite too.

    So you think people should go to jail for doing exactly what YOU did? That puts you in the exact same category as George Bush who has strengthened drug laws despite having been a coke head.

    You are both whiny hypocrites. May you die of lung cancer.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  152. Good point by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but those people die, and new smokers aren't as throughly hooked, since they started with smaller doses. Also, Like I said, you don't do it all at once, but work your way down (there are plenty of studies done to figure out the progression). As you reduce the Nicotine in smokes, you'll reduce the # of smokers. If only as the die hards croke off.

    I would kinda miss buying tobacco though. Cherry tobbacco is just about the finest ant poison money can buy (and no, I'm not kidding, the ants take it back to the nest and feed it to the larva, it kills everything :) ).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  153. Re:Quit smoking! It stinks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just that most people are simply too polite to complain.

    Good. That's the way it should be.