Slashdot Mirror
American Lung Association Pushes For Ban On Electronic Cigarettes
Anarki2004 writes "The American Lung Association is jumping on board the ban-E-cigs-train. From the article: 'So, while the ALA admitted that electronic cigarettes contain fewer chemicals than tobacco cigarettes, they refuse to acknowledge the obvious health benefit that lack of the most toxic chemicals provides to the smokers who switch. Are lives and lung health the real issue here or is nicotine addiction? The ALA must know that numerous studies show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine. The American Heart Association acknowledges that nicotine is "safe" in other smoke-free forms such as patches or gum.' For those of you not in the know, electronic cigarettes (also called personal vaporizers) are a nicotine delivery device that resembles a cigarette in shape and size, but does not burn tobacco. It is less a expensive alternative to the traditional tobacco cigarette that is by all appearances (though not thoroughly researched) also healthier."
no kidding. My husband has a serious cigarette allergy (his throat swells shut and he falls over unable to breathe), more smokers people using e-cigs the better. The lack of all that crap in them greatly reduces his symptoms, and the fact that a far higher % is absorbed by the smoker means that there is less in the air per "cig".
E-cigs have far less second hand smoke, and generally only harm the person using them. If anything, the APA should be trying to get more long term smokers to swap to e-cigs if they are not planning on quiting.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
The author is attacking the American Lung Association for their agenda. But what's the author's agenda?
Quoting from her bio on the site: Kristin Noll-Marsh is a charter member of the board of directors of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA), Vapers International and a member of the Vaper's Coalition, a cooperation of organizations working to encourage the use and understanding of smoke-free alternatives. She receives no funding (directly or indirectly) from tobacco, drug or e-cigarette companies or trade assocations.
Do you honestly believe that those organizations listed do not receive substantial sponsorshipf from e-cigarette companies and affiliated interests?
Test your net with Netalyzr
We're witnessing, in our own time, a version of the 'Edison DC'/'Tesla AC' debate. Except there's more law and fewer dead elephants.
In the one corner, tobacco. Long-known, home-grown, proven mood-adjuster. People can self-medicate throughout their normal day by taking what's known as a 'smoke break', as little or as often as necessary. There are no debilitating effects, like with alcohol or marijuana, that otherwise interfere with your daily life. It is messy, yes, but quite effective and relatively cheap (before taxes).
In the other corner, prescription drugs. Little pills exist for every problem. Your doctor tells you how many to take, and your pharmacy tells you how much it costs. When they don't work quite well enough, go back to the doc and get some more. Eventually you'll need a box with seven compartments to keep it all straight, but you might just wind up feeling exactly the way you want, all the time. Look at Chantix, for example. One-for-one transition with that one: nicotine to prescriptions.
Now ask yourself, who staffs the ALA? Who makes their policy decisions? Lay persons, or medical industry types?
Occam's Razor applies here. Unless you really think that it makes MORE sense that the ALA has collectively taken leave of its senses.
It should be mentioned that most of the manufacturers of e-cig liquid offer nicotine-free versions. Getting through the physical dependency of nicotine could be a lot easier if you don't have to fight through the psychological habit of the whole act of smoking at the same time.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
It's funny. Some people seem to have no problem with big corporations controlling almost every aspect of their lives, but take offense at mere suggestions from people trying to look out for them. It's almost as if they identify with the corporations and the owning class CEOs and board members who run them, and anything that limits the powers of said fat cats is a personal affront. News Flash, you idiots: you are not owning class fat cats and you never will be so stop siding with them all the time. They are laughing at you as they rape you and steal your wallet, while you sit there like the abused spouse who defends their own oppressor.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This is not entirely true. Some people have looked into the cartriges in the e-cigs and have found all sorts of interesting stuff like anti-freeze and unknown compounds.
http://class-actions.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/1781-The-Dangers-of-E-Cigarettes.html
I enjoy going to smoke-free establishments as well; however, if that were my only reason for liking smoking bans, I would oppose them. If you don't like what goes on in a bar, it's your responsibility to not patronize that bar. If no bar owners choose to provide the product you want (a smoke-free bar), too bad for you; you shouldn't be able to legislate that someone provide a product you prefer.
HOWEVER, that is not the only reason to support a smoking ban. A far more valid reason, and the reason I do support such bans, is that the bar's employees are also exposed to second-hand smoke. The argument "they could choose not to work there" doesn't hold up, unless we also discard all of the OSHA regulations that provide for workplace safety.
One side says these are evil, harmful, addictive things that destroy lives; the other says (get this-- it's great) people will manage themselves fine while addicted to crack, and will get professional help and have doctors write prescriptions, and use their drugs responsibly.
No: One side says addicts should be dealt with by the police, the other says addicts should be dealt with by doctors.
Oh, ok, I'll meet you half way: One side says addicts are evil and their lives should be destroyed by the police, the other says addicts should be dealt with by doctors.
There, that's closer to how you said it.
You can't take the sky from me...