Slashdot Mirror
Safe Cigarettes?
CDPatten writes "The UK Times Online is reporting that we could see a 'safe cigarette' next
year. From the article: 'BRITISH American Tobacco
(BAT) is to launch a controversial 'safer cigarette' designed to cut the risk of
smoking-related diseases such as cancer and heart failure by up to 90%.'
I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?"
it's still an addictive expensive drug.
"There is no safe cigarette." I think that's all we need to know.
-Palal
I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?
hopefully not. All the bans are not about health of smokers, it's about fresh air for non-smokers. Who cares if that stinking person over there inhales deadly stuff, or less deadly? It all stinks the same.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
As an American, I am appalled at the very idea of the government spending *any* money on developing a "safer cigarette". While that move might treat the physical effects of smoking and make it a safer alternative than traditional cigarettes, it does nothing to address the fact that smokers are *addicts* with a psychological dependence on a drug. Why not put money where it's really needed: addiction recovery. Develop drugs that are more effective at helping smokers quit, put more money into social campaigns against smoking (school, television, etc)? It amazes me sometimes how we Americans will find ways to make bad things acceptable and safer if it makes us money instead of just putting a stop to its use.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
why not just make it without Nicotine? Safest thing in the world then, nobody'll want them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Most smoking bans are not in place because of disease concerns, but rather because many people find smoke to be distracting anf foul smelling.
One cigarrette can lessen a dining or movie experience for a large number of people, and over time the smoke and ash saturate the environment.
Thus even if there are nos mokers present, it can still smell, and therefore taste, of smoke.
If I were addicted to highly concentrated sulfur fumes, or banging symbols loudly, I would not expect establishments to tolerate me.
Crying babies are another issue, but at least the baby will eventually grow up into a productive member of society. In theory, that is.
Your 80 year old doctor might smoke two packs a day, but my mother died age 48 of smoking related disease. She had a healthy diet, too. You can't draw a conclusion on the safety of smoking from a sample of two (you and your doctor).
As far as passive smoking -vs- unhealthy diets, if someone on the next table eats a bag of pork rinds, my eyes don't start to water and I don't leave the building smelling like an ash-tray. If someone on the next table eats the world's healthiest dinner but lights up, I end up leaving smelling like an ash tray. That's the difference - a person's unhealthy diet doesn't affect nearby strangers but their smoking will. That's the main problem with second hand smoke. I couldn't care less if it's totally harmless to me in the long term - in the short term it gives me what feels like an allergic reaction (stuffiness, watering eyes, lethargy) which isn't very pleasant. That's why there is a move on to ban smoking in public places. In the privacy of your own home, knock yourself out - I couldn't care less whether you smoke marijuana or tobacco. But in enclosed public spaces, please refrain from it - those of us who don't smoke find it at best smelly, at worst, feeling a bit ill.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I don't think a "safer" cigarette is going to convince people not to mind others smoking in public places. Most people's immediate concern is the eye irritation and noxious odor of second hand smoke, not the long term effects. Safer isn't going to solve the problems people are first concerned with. Also, most "safer" cigarettes are safer because they have very agressive filters in them. That's something that the second hand smoke recipients cannot benefit from.
That, and put a smoker in a room with someone that has a "different annoying habit"... like projectile vomiting. See how long they continue to believe that everyone has the "right to be annoying to the public".
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I agree! While we are at it, why not:
Of the four comparisons you made here three were invalid and the fourth actually proved his point
- Make cars more unsafe so people die when they crash? That way we will have fewer crashes
- Make materials more flameable? That way a fire will ensure everyone gets killed. THAT will teach people to be more carefule with matches and lighters.
- Make cellphones give you an electroshock when you say something ungodly? Then everyone will be religious and believe in the same crap.
Cars, matches and lighters, and cellphones are all very useful items that in some cases have innately dangerous qualities, people should exert caution with them but we lose a lot of benefit if people stop using them entirely. Cigarrettes on the other hand have no real benefits thus nothing is lost if people stop using them.
Yes, by golly! I think you are on to something... Why not just use all the nuclear weapons we have? Then we will not be having this discussion in the future!
We haven't used a nuclear weapon in a war since WWII, in fact because nuclear weapons are so insanely deadly there hasn't been a full out war between major powers since WWII, we simply made war so deadly with nukes that people stopped having them because is was MAD... Hey, isn't that exactly the point the grandparent was trying to make with about using extra deadly cigarettes?
I stole this Sig
I don't care if smoking has real or perceived benefits for anyone. But I believe in personal freedom. If *you* want to kill yourself slowly and painfully, then *you* should have every available means at your disposal to do so. Because I wouldn't like anyone to define what is best for me, I don't define to anyone else what's best for them. Smoking *is* addictive and dangerous, no question about that. But since everybody knows that by now, and smokes anyway, all we can do is watch them die. In a free society, there is no such thing as "help with force", no matter how hard some people wish there was. Restaurant owners can restrict smoking, shopping malls can, as well as airlines and taxi drivers - on their own property. I'm no smoker, but I'll sure as hell defend your right to smoke wherever non-smoking people could escape the fumes if they wanted to, the owner of the place agrees and there's no fire hazard involved. I'm more and more embarassed about how fast we give up personal freedom these days...
Ciggarrets should be taxed based on their level of health risk.
It's obvious...
That's it.
If our government weren't addicted to the $15.7 billion dollars in taxes they collect on an annual basis from cigarettes, we would get safe cigarettes in a heartbeat.
It's quotes like that that really make me wonder why our goverment doesn't legalize marijuana and tax it like tobacco. Save billions on enforcement (~80% of drug arrests are marijuana possession), and make tens of billions in taxes.
Maybe they're too to stoned to realize.
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
We can't have safe cigarettes. If people had safe cigarettes there wouldn't be any excuse to levy massive taxes on them.
You really think the government needs a reason to tax? Please. Taxing something unpopular is easy to do because the powers that be know that they aren't offending the majority. We know that red meat is unhealthy and is probably just as costly to society in the way of illness and death but when do you expect to pay a tax on Big Macs? The difference? 1 in 6 people in the US smokes, 29 in 30 people in the US eats red meat. (those are rough figures, you get the point).
So under the pretense of discouraging cigarette smoking, politicians can impose a regressive racist tax.
Racist? How, praytell, is "the man" forcing these smokes on the minority races? No one is forcing anyone to smoke. It's odd that "the poor" (which you seem to associate directly with minority races) seem to bitch and moan about every cent they spend in taxes as they smoke away a large percentage of their income. Not smoking is a very valid option. I will not be made to feel bad about the fact that minorities make up for the bulk of the poor and for whatever reason these same people feel the need to piss away what little expendable cash they have on smokes. It's their choice, I won't begrudge them for it but don't make it sound like they're somehow the victim. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you need to act stupid.
This is like some of the old women that work at the company I work for; they're on their smoke breaks bitching about gas costing 75 cents more a gallon as they puff away and talk about spending money on the Powerball lottery but in nearly the same breath they complain that if the price of gas continues to be high they will have to make the choice between "eating and driving". This is no bullshit. If you're spending 4-5 USD a day on cigarettes there should be no reason for bills to be late nor for you to not have enough money for some of the basic needs in life. I won't even go on to my thoughts about the people who pay for their groceries with foodstamps but buy a couple of cartons of smokes either...
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
[...] we simply made war so deadly with nukes that people stopped having them because is was MAD...
Excuse me, stopped having wars?
Seriously though, I'm a smoker and I absolutely love smoking. I can spend 10 minutes doing abosolutely nothing but enjoying a cigarette. Don't ask me why, because I don't know. I can find plenty of worse ways to go. Smoking really works for me and I don't mind trading off a few years of my life for it.
I understand and respect how and why non-smokers can be annoyed by smoke, that's fine and understandable, but don't force your tired arguments down our throats. Smoking is a personal choice, so leave it at that, please. I've met one too many non-smokers who's been trying to "save me", which really just annoys me and won't ever work.
"Live free or don't."
Sure thing, then we'll replace ethanol with methanol so all the evil drinkers go blind or die, followed by poisoning bacon and fast food! Surely this will make the world a better place for the rest of us!
I have another idea! We can force everyone to exercise every day, it would save a lot of lives! We'll make it a mandatory part of everyone's workday, right after the two-minutes'-hate.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Eventhough I abhor smoking (volunteering as med physicist til the ph.d is done), I still think that government mandated smoking bans in public places aren't right. It should be up to the business owner to decide to allow smoking or not. If people like you and me don't want to patronize a restaurant because they allow smoking, then the business owner loses our money. If enough people decide not to go there, then the business owner will disallow smoking to bring back business. It's the free market that should decide the ban on smoking, not the government. People have a right to do with their lives and property as they please. If people want to be morons and smoke, it's their decision since it's their lives, just as it's my decision not to smoke. If you choose to go to a bar, you're choosing to go where people smoke. You don't have to go there, because you have as much an option of going somewhere else that doesn't allow smoking. If you still decide to go because you think it's such a great place, then it reverts back to a good old cost-benefit tradeoff where you place having fun at the moment over your future health. It's your decision since no one is holding a gun to your head to go there, whereas a government mandated ban is essentially holding a gun to the heads of the business owners telling them they cannot allow smoking. Smokers have just as much right to congregate together and smoke as does anyone else.
[...] we simply made war so deadly with nukes that people stopped having them because is was MAD...
Excuse me, stopped having wars?
Not sure if you were being sarcastic but that statement was qualified with the preceeding phrase "there hasn't been a full out war between major powers since WWII". Which to my knowledge is correct, the "we" in the quote you took was of course referring to the "major powers" and "war" was "war between major powers".
Seriously though, I'm a smoker and I absolutely love smoking. I can spend 10 minutes doing abosolutely nothing but enjoying a cigarette. Don't ask me why, because I don't know. I can find plenty of worse ways to go. Smoking really works for me and I don't mind trading off a few years of my life for it.
I understand and respect how and why non-smokers can be annoyed by smoke, that's fine and understandable, but don't force your tired arguments down our throats. Smoking is a personal choice, so leave it at that, please. I've met one too many non-smokers who's been trying to "save me", which really just annoys me and won't ever work.
You sound like a nice person so I'd rather you didn't die a few years earlier, but that's just me. Note that in addition to your harming own health you are damaging the health of others, both directly through second hand smoke and indirectly through reinforcing the social acceptability of smoking. I don't know if you have children but if you did would you truly want your children to start smoking... did I just play the "won't sombody think of the children" card? (don't feel obliged to take that point seriously;)
Either way if you really do like smoking and feel the cost is worth it than go ahead, but I'd ask you to be considerate of where you do smoke. Consider it like talking on your cellphone, alone in your house, sure, in a theatre, not so good. I can tell you I never really enjoy walking through a cloud of smoke (and smokers) hanging around the entrance to a building on campus. As well I've heard cigarette smoke can be extremely annoying to former smokers. Again, as with any decision look at all the different costs and benefits impartially and decide accordingly.
I stole this Sig
right to smoke wherever non-smoking people could ESCAPE the fumes if they wanted to...
You can't just slip that in - that's THE crux of the smoking bans. Somebody is going to be inconvienced, either smokers (forced to go outside or special smoking rooms) or non-smokers (forced to "escape" the fumes as you so quaintly phrased it).
These situations are not symmetrical. Smokers can still enjoy non-smoking venues. Smokers often report preferring non-smoking venues for several reasons - their non-smoking friends are more likely to join them, they can taste their own food better, they aren't tempted to light up themselves as smoke from an adjacent patron waffs by. Smokers who are quiting can't even go into smoking venues because of the last item. At worst they're inconvenienced for minutes every few hours.
Non-smokers, in contrast, don't have any choices. "Non-smoking areas" are a joke. If the smoke bothers us (and I've had to walk away from non-refundable admissions because the smoke caused my eyes to water within minutes) it's going to bother us the entire time we're there, not for a few minutes every few hours.
There's also the issue of fairness to the employees. It's easy for us to say that employees can always change jobs if they don't like dealing with smoke throughout the day, but back in the real world we know that people at this economic rung are often stuck in their job since they live from check to check and can't afford even a modest reduction in hours as the new guy.
Those are reasons for businesses to go smoke-free, is it a valid reason to make it mandatory? That's a non-trivial question -- if you think it's obviously not appropriate for the government to get involved ask yourself how you would feel if most restaurants were "white only" because the owners felt they would lose sales (from white patrons avoiding them) if they allowed non-whites to eat there. It's not an exact parallel but it demolishes the "owner uber alles" mindset.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Er, what witches? The ones spewing poisonous disgusting toxins in public, just because they're addicted to it? The ones who mostly are glad someone finally enforced their chance to quit? The ones whose long painful deaths the public pays for?
Hint: witches are imaginary or harmless. Smokers are real, their nuisance is lethal, and your troll is a failure.
--
make install -not war
> The ones spewing poisonous disgusting toxins in public,
you're right - cars, trucks, and other hydrocarbon-fuel based engines and generators should be banned from public spaces.
> So your sarcastic comment is actually true.
it wasn't really sarcastic. it was highlighting the fact that the "smoking in public places" issue is just a red herring to distract people from the REAL health risk, carcinogens like benzene in petrol fumes, and (worst of all), diesel exhaust.
Well, first off, breathing smoke-free air is not a "right" at least last time I looked at the bill of rights.
Consider this concept of personal freedom: If I'm having a party, I have every right to tell my guests that I don't want them to smoke on property. My guests who smoke may choose not to come to my party because I won't let them smoke. They may choose to stand on the sidewalk in front of my house and smoke. They may choose to not smoke while at my party. They have the freedom to decide.
If I'm having a party, I have every right to tell my guests to light up. My guests who do not smoke can choose not to come to my party if they don't wish to inhale smoke. They may choose to avoid smokers and end up hanging out someplace where there are no smokers, such as on the sidewalk in front of my house. They may choose to put up with the smoke. They have the freedom to decide.
To me, personal freedom is about the right to choose. I don't have to agree with their choices. I may wish they wouldn't choose these things. I may not want to be around them when they choose these things. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to not allow them to choose.
Last night, I went out to dinner with a friend of mine. We were at a nice restaurant enjoying a quiet meal and conversation. Unfortunately, about half-way through our meal, a group of people came in and ended up sitting at a table close to us. They'd probably been sitting at the bar for an hour or so, so they were already a little drunk and loud. They ordered a couple of bottles of wine and started getting a little loud. It certainly was annoying. Were infringing on my "personal freedom" to enjoy a quiet dinner? Had I gone to the restaurant and complained, would I be infringing on their "personal freedom" to have a good time?
You'd prefer not to be annoyed by cigarette smoke while enjoying a night out and I can't say that I blame you. But to equate your preferences with "personal freedom" is a bit much. To go back to your term, "right", you don't have the "right" to make everybody else do what you want.