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?"

Comments

Re:bans?

[pipingguy]

Hitler was a rabid anti-smoker. It's kind of like farts: anything other than your own smell is distasteful.

The anti-smoking efforts have become extreme, but "they're doing it for our own good".

Yeah, right, it's really all about control.

Re:Would you quit driving

[jrockway]

> Seems unreasonable doesnt it.

Seems reasonable to me. I've often dreamed about how wonderful the city would be if everyone had to park their cars outside the limits and take public transportation to get around inside. If banning smoking in public means we need to ban cars too, then excellent! I win double!

But let me ask you this -- how come I have an allergic reaction to a nearby smoker and not a nearby car?

(Both are "harmless" by your definition -- so why am I harmed by second hand smoke? Because you're lying to support your drug addiction. Get help.)

Re:The difference is...

[kaleco]

I don't like the idea of my tax payments going to the NHS to subsidise people who like killing themselves slowly and painfully as an 'expression of personal freedom'. If you want to kill youself, try not to inconvenience other people when you do it. Your personal freedoms have consequences beyond yourself, and that is whu you need to start thinking responsibly.

However, I must concede that people should have the freedom to be irresponsible, but the education to make informed decisions for themselves. The government should not provide rigid parameters within which we must operate.

Re:tobacco still sucks - canabis

[illiterate_light]

You, sir, are the moron. The poster's point is that pot smokers would prefer not to have to add a damaging, addictive substance to their relatively harmless smoke. Nicotine is far more harmful than marijuana, and many pot smokers are attuned to this fact. As a side note, I hope you don't vote, because you're a goddamn fascist, coupled with the fact that you're ill-informed.

Re:Still Safe?

[carninja]

Talking trash on the interweb is fun! Physical threats from behind the veil of anonymity! WHEEEE! Wait, what's that? Definition of "Troll"? *GASP* NO!

Re:Still Safe? Never safe

[saskboy]

"why do you ask? "

Because most people who defend their right to smoke so strongly, are strongly addicted to nicotine, and the drug warps their sense of reason so they can justify stupid things like smoking.

"smoking out in the open is not a risk for anyone but the smoker themselves, "

And that shows what you know: nothing. There are loads of people can can have a breathing attack in open air smoking areas, brought on by the smoke. This is one reason why in Canada, some sports stadiums that don't have domes are smoke free, because you can smell the ruddy smoke from 10 seats and 5 rows over from the nicotine junkie that just can't wait 3 hours to light up.

I don't think I've seen a worse case of /. moderation, where they gave your senseless ramblings a +5, and modded my insightful reply down. I guess there's a lot of smokers on slashdot looking to justify their addiction.