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."

Comments

Infernal devices

[FranTaylor]

If they were not the delivery devices for addictive drugs then they would be illegal.

Many states have laws against carrying "infernal devices" in public that belch smoke, stink, and otherwise create unpleasantness.

I gotta say those e-cigs smell pretty darned nasty. Have you ever smelled one?

Re:Infernal devices

[FranTaylor]

I saw a demonstration at the local shopping mall. You could smell the stink everywhere in the whole mall. It was borderline intolerable on the balcony right above the kiosk where the demonstration was going on.

Re:The entire concept is mistaken

[CorporateSuit]

But you're missing the point. Breaking away from these "crutches" should be a personal choice

Not if I'm being taxed for their medical bills.

You see, That is when government-mandated healthcare comes full circle.

Re:Good article

[spun]

good point, however I was refering to airborn chemicals.

What airborne chemicals? You need combustion to produce combustion products. These produce nothing but nicotine, and that gets absorbed into the user's lungs.

Re:It's the usual

[kuzb]

OK, I'll agree with you, but first, lets expand the scope a little.

Please stop eating all those fat greasy burgers - obesity is a far larger problem which poses more risks than smoking.

Please ban alcohol - it's just as bad as smoking.

Please ban cars - people don't exercise because they drive everywhere.

Please ban bottled water - about a zillion of these plastic bottles go in to a landfill somewhere every month

Please ban using oil - it's not an infinite resource and to wrecks the atmosphere

The fact is that you dipshits are so hypocritical you fail to recognize the more serious problems out there, while in comparison, smoking is relatively minor.

Re:Good article

[Kylere]

Your husband does not have an allergy to cigarettes, it is biologically impossible. A large number of non-protein substances like Kleenex, paper dust, paint fumes, perfume, newsprint and cigarette smoke are erroneously called allergens, but they’re not. They do produce symptoms in many people, but it’s because they’re irritating, not allergic. Which means he is "allergic" to anything burning. Tobacco allergy does exist but only affects those who handle the raw leaves.

Re:The entire concept is mistaken

[Scrameustache]

If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

I should be allowed to inject you with anything I wish. If you don't like it, go somewhere else before I'm done preparing the second injection.

What, that doesn't sound ok? How about pouring things in your drink? Rubbing things on your skin? Or adding things to your food? You think it's ok to put things in my lungs, that I can just opt out once someone started to saturate the air with the chemicals of their choice, but you wouldn't let them do the same with other delivery methods? Why is that? It's easier not to drink something than not to breathe.

Re:Good article

[Pokey.Clyde]

Just because your husband is genetically inferior doesn't mean I should have to snuff out my smoke because he's around. Oh, and as far as I know, Ecigs have no second hand smoke. So your precious little snowflake of a husband should be just fine around one of them.

Re:Good article

[drinkypoo]

Heaven forbid you notice how illogical it is to be addicted to a substance without even the benefit of a 'high'; regardless of the method of consumption.

If cigarettes don't make you high, then you're smoking them wrong, toolbag. Being allowed to smoke while driving is fucking stupid if it's rational to make it illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol or marijuana; when you take a good hard drag of a real cigarette (like an American Spirit roll-your-own) you will know. All these people driving down the road getting high, it blows my mind. Oh shit, I'd better not get behind the wheel in this condition... :p