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."

95 of 608 comments (clear)

  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 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.
  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 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

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

      Smoke faster.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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
    11. 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!

    12. 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

    13. 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.
  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 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 :)
    3. 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 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.
  5. where do i get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    the marijuana flavored ones?

  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 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.
  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.
  8. 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".

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

    Dude, can I bum a AA?

  10. 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 Flabby+Boohoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    4. 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.

  11. 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 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.
  12. 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."
  13. 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 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.

  14. 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...
  15. 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.

  16. 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?

  17. 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.
  18. 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

  19. 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 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.

  20. 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/

  21. 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 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

    2. 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

  22. 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 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!!

    2. 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?

  23. 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.

  24. 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
  25. 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"
  26. 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 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

  27. 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 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.
    2. 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?

  28. 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!"
  29. 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

  30. 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?

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.
  37. 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..

  38. 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.
  39. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

  40. 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!"
  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.
  44. 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.

  45. 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.
  46. 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 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:-)

  47. 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.

  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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?

  51. 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.