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."
But the ALA has an agenda to push, and logic and reason be damned.
Free Martian Whores!
As long as you continue to feed your nicotine addiction, you will never be able to break yourself away from these crutches.
Cold turkey is the only method that actually works short of medication (which has its own problems).
How about we sell cigs that don't contain so much bullshit? I mean honestly...is all that crap really necessary?
Living With a Nerd
Nicotine is far from harmless. Best to keep people away from it if at all possible.
Not by force of law necessarily, but by education and social support.
'HEY! THOSE PEOPLE ARE ENJOYING SOMETHING WE DONT APPROVE OF! STOP THEM!'
They always came off that way anyways with the attitude of their messages.
One has to wonder why they would even do this. Why push for a ban on something that is so obviously better for you than actual cigarettes? You have to think Big Tobacco is stuffing money in their pocket to strengthen the legitmacy of this ban request, but why make such an obvious move? It only weakens what credibility they might have had before this.
...give me a seat next to an electric cigarette smoker over a cigarette smoker any day.
There's a lot of FUD about nicotine, when it is not apparent that nicotine is dangerous, compared to all the other chemicals that get delivered with the traditional nicotine cigarette.
I've never seen the need for treating nicotine like a controlled substance outside cigarettes. If I want Nicorette for uses other than smoking-cessation, how is that any more dangerous than my ability to buy aspirin, acetaminophen, or caffeine tablets, all of which can be used to a harmful degree?
People who derive gratification from telling others what to do and what is good for them. They always have a convoluted explanation, but it always comes down to others having to adapt to busybody's choices.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
John Stuart Mill
I am not a smoker.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
http://www.joelspitzer.com/whyquit/joel/Joel_01_13_gradual_withdrawal.html
No, it isn't. It is just less harmful.
If you don't know the difference, probably you say a gunshot wound is healthier than stepping on a landmine.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
While they may be less bad than traditional smoked tobacco, they still aren't good for your lungs. Our lungs are, after all, living tissue that is tasked with gas exchange. That is a fairly complicated job to begin with, and if you start intoducting airborne solids into the mixture you are only making the job that much more difficult.
So while the rest of the toxic crap that is added to cigarettes (much of it to keep them burning) might not be present, the inhaled mixture itself isn't good for your lungs regardless. So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I occasionally smoke cigarettes (we're talking a few times a month). They're horrible for your lungs, full of tar, and your lungs work like a sponge. Ask a smoking friend to see their cigarette when they're done and look at the filter.
The less people who smoke cigarettes, the better. It's terrible for them, but it's also bad for people around them inhaling the smoke. Good riddance.
But these e-cigarettes are nicotine and some flavoring, with a battery vaporizer. Now, nicotine's not harmless in the slightest - it is, in fact, rat poison. But nicotine alone vs. nicotine, tar, formaldehyde, etc... all in one package - it doesn't take a genius to figure out which you should be encouraging people to use.
Most smokers I know are acutely aware of how bad it is for them (actually, most are medical professionals of some sort). Some of them want to stop and can't, and some of them just don't care. But they know it's bad, they're not in denial about it. The people I hang out tend to be well educated about this sort of stuff, but many aren't. If the ALA were to come out and say "hey guys, smoke this instead! same great effects, no tar, woohoo... vastly vastly reduced risk of cancer" well they'd probably switch.
In fact, straight nicotine basically doesn't affect the lungs - it'll mess up your arteries and brain, but largely ignore your lungs. <conspiracy_theory>Maybe they're worried about being put out of business</conspiracy_theory>
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.
So we should ban E-Cigs, but not the "more" bad regular kind?
Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
Beloved Spouse has been using these. They smell less bad, they're not as bad for you, and they make it a lot easier to taper down nicotine to get rid of it -- without taking away the fidget. Seems like a great idea, and I am pretty sure the only reason to ban them is that they could result in many people ceasing to use the pure-cancer form of nicotine delivery.
One caveat, though, the cartridges don't seem to last NEARLY as long as advertised. Still cheaper that traditional cigs.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
It isn't hard to find chemical free cigarettes. Most of the convenience stores around here stock at least one variety, like this brand. They aren't really any healthier though. The health problems with cigarettes have far less to do with the chemicals, and more to do with partially combusted hydrocarbons (tar) sticking to the most sensitive parts of your lungs.
The chemicals are put into cigarettes for various reasons - some to make the smoke "smoother", some for flavor, some to make the cigarette burn faster, and others actually increase the combustion of the leaves, decreasing some of the more harmful naturally occurring components of tar.
Rachel: "Do you mind if I smoke electronic cigarettes?"
Decker: "It won't affect the test. Give me a hit."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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
I'm an ex-smoker (yeah yeah I know reformed whore), & have switched to using a vaporizer for my fine herbals. I rarely smoke anymore, but now have realized I have no means of partaking outside my home without going back to old ways.
What electronic cigs have you used for a mid priced unit & what if any manufacturer would you recommend or stay away from?
Thanks
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
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.
What is in the inhaled mixture of an e-cig other than the nicotine? Anyone know by chance?
How about we ban organizations that propose bans!
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Nicotine suspended in Polyproplene Glycol, or Vegetable Glycerine. Checking these two out you will find that not only are they safe but where considered in the past for vaporizing into the air within hospitals to make the environment safer.
Got Code?
I just called my local branch of the ALA and it turns out this article is mostly scaremongering.
As it was described to me they are pushing for two things currently;
Prohibit the sale to those under the age of 18.
and
Investigate the safety of the ingredients.
They're not trying to blindly take away your e-cigs, they're pressing for things that are actually rather reasonable. The person I spoke to stated that they are NOT pushing for a blanket ban, only a request for testing with decisions to be made after official, legitimate research has taken place.
Seeing as how I want an ingredients list and some sort of quality control on the stuff I'm puffing on right now, this is directly in line with my own interests as an e-cigarette user.
bend like the reed
eCigs have about 1/1000th the health risk of a normal cigarette. Somehow moving society forward to a far less harmful way to maintain a nicotine addiction is a bad thing? Sure, addiction is bad, but dying of cancer is a lot worse. This is a way to significantly avoid cancer. It's completely antithetical to the ALA's stated purpose to be against these.
I think the ALA is just pissed cause they aren't going to be able to continue their free ride where they are funded by a cut of cigarette taxes. Of course they are against that, as they are becoming irrelevant.
It's like the RIAA/MPAA witch hunt, only instead of trying to mess with people rights and freedom, they are trying to take away people's lives. Even worse.
Lets face it, eCigs are very disruptive technology - the old way is breathing in burning smoke with all kinds of carcinogens (and lots of taxes on it since it's truly dangerous), the new way is inhaling vaporized nicotine (Not much of an excuse for a sin tax on a nearly safe product.) and all the tax-funded entities aren't going to get their cut, so of course they are against it.
It's safer, by far, so let's ban it. That makes sense.
eCigs have the potential to save millions from the agonizing death of lung cancer, this should be the key point and the reason society should back eCigs wholeheartedly. My grandparents might still be alive if this product existed back in the day.
I thought the ALA and other anti-smoking outfits had a purpose - trying to keep people from using a highly dangerous product. This just makes me completely disrespect them.
Fully dumb - for every day they fight these things, that's another thousand people who will get cancer.
Are eCigs completely safe? No, they are not, but they are around three orders of magnitude safer than real cigarettes, so that should be the deciding factor.
Ban tobacco smoking, no problem now, there's a better alternative.
Banning something with a dangerosity level on the level of coffee is just asinine and futile.
Just more money-grubbing pigs, ignore them and help millions avoid cancer.
That's not flamebait, it's human natue. Like all other self-righteous do-gooders and cause-sellers who want to tell you how to live your life, the ALA wants you to do it THEIR WAY and their way ONLY.
Also, an environmentalist doesn't want you to just pick any old way to reduce carbon (i.e. clean coal, hyrdro-electric, nuclear), they want you to pick THEIR chosen ways of doing it (wind and solar) and those ONLY.
Also, a bible-thumper doesn't want you to come to Jesus just any old way, they want you to do it through THEIR particular sect or denomination and theirs ONLY.
etc.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
and it produces NO weed smell when you smoke weed with the electronic cigarette but the filament burns out quickly and the device doesn't last long. Haven't tried it with oil yet.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I used an e-cig to quit tobacco completely -- day one. Eight months later I was still using an e-cig but had cut out nicotine completely. Twelve months later I had stopped using an e-cig at all. It's now been four months since I put down the e-cig for the last time.
There are lots of ways to quit -- the cold turkey argument holds no water. It's just the kind of thing that gets bandied about when cigarette smoking and quitting gets mentioned -- it's a meme.
Furthermore, harm reduction is a perfectly rational and useful goal to pursue -- if people don't want to or can't quit, then providing them with options which reduce the harm they do to themselves should be promoted and not decried. There's really very little harm is using nicotine responsibly and if people choose to do so it's really nobody else's business. In the same way it's nobody else's business if someone chooses to use caffeine, for example.
Thought thinks itself.
I'm onboard with the bans on public smoking/second hand smoke. SH smoke can't be controlled, it can't be avoided and is largely forced on to other people. While I doubt smokers intend it, forcing SH smoke is really a selfish act that is detrimental to society at large. It's forcing others to accept your choice.
But if you want to smoke, full speed ahead! You do want you want with my blessing.
This thinking on banning electronic cigarrettes seems to be similar to a lot of the logic that goes on in pushing for more outlawing of thought crime. Nothing's taking place that is harming anyone whatsoever (even the smoker) but someone somewhere deems it wrong or immoral or whatever. We should have the right to kill ourselves in anyway we desire so long as there is no direct or indirect (to a couple of levels) harm to other people.
Going on a rant.. but I really hate our backwards false-puritanical society. Religion, god, faith, allah, $other_diety$.. it's all a crock of mind-control horseshit.
FDA smoke screen on e-cigarettes
by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/06/fda-smoke-screen-on-e-cigarettes/
"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a press conference late last month to scare Americans about the so-called "e-cigarette" -- claiming it was loaded with harmful "toxins" and "carcinogens." The agency was implicitly saying: Stay away from these newfangled, untested cigarette substitutes -- better to stick with the real ones, the ones that we are more familiar with, the ones that cause over 450,000 deaths annually in the U.S.
In making its distorted, incomplete and misleading statement, FDA was violating its long-cherished tradition of sticking to sound science as the basis for its policies. And in doing so, it is putting the lives and health of millions of Americans at risk."
The FDA has shown E-Cigarettes to be less likely to cause cancer than even nicotine gum based on nitrosamine content.
FDA report on nitrosamine content of cigarettes, Nicotine replacements and E-Cigs
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf
Canadian report on nitrosamine levels in commercial cigarettes
http://smoke-vs-vapor.webs.com/Canadian%20Cigarette%20Data%202004.ods
Website that has compiled data and presented a table of the data for quick viewing
http://smoke-vs-vapor.webs.com/nitrosaminelevels.htm
This is a philosophical battle. Some people believe abstinence is the only answer to addiction, while others think addiction isn't the problem, it is the harm addiction causes that is the problem. To the first group, devices like this are insidious evils which corrupt the innocent with the promise of harm free drug use. To which the second group usually responds with something along the lines of, "LOLwhat? Without harm, what's the fucking problem, you tightass sonsabitches?" It is basically a battle between the Puritan ideal that all pleasures of the flesh are bad, wrong, and evil, and the not so crazy idea that harm is bad while pleasure is good.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
From an epidemiological perspective, the perfect-but-difficult solution almost certainly saves far-fewer man years of life than does the merely-ok-but-easy solution.
The quit rate for nicotine sucks. Nicotine is just that addictive. It just isn't that harmful, though, so that isn't a huge deal. If you can skip the hard problem of getting somebody off nicotine, and attack the (much easier) problem of just getting them to use a delivery method that won't kill them and piss off everyone around them, you get 80% of the gains for 20% of the effort. A classic good outcome.
The ALA can go fuck itself. E-cigs are from what I've noticed the single best way to quit smoking and apparently the ALA doesn't want people to actually quit smoking. Patches and all that jazz don't work so I wonder how much ALA funding is coming from the makers of those.
It's quite clear there's more to a cigarette addiction than just a nicotine addiction. Patches and all that crap barely work for that very reason.
I know a lot of people who have tried to quit for years or decades without much success. Then they tried e-cigs and after a while they don't smoke at all anymore or at most once a week. Quite a few have even stopped smoking e-cigs as well. If I remember studies show the success rate to be absurdly better than any other approach.
Hey retard,
Read the post I was replying to, which was pretty obviously referring to cigarettes themselves.
but you can't replace the battery and the EULA stipulates you have to wear black while smoking it.
Nullius in verba
What is their agenda? (other than to promote lung health, which no reasonable person could criticize)
When their agenda includes banning a legal product because they think it sends the wrong message, then they've crossed the line. They've done noble work over the years, but they're becoming as bad as those fools from the Center For Science In The Public Interest. If you want to convince someone to change habits, more power to them. If you're trying to ban a legal product because, well, you just know what's good for them, then ALA can go pound sand.
Note: I don't even smoke. Never have. But ALA is just being a nannying busybody here.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
They themselves have in a press release asked for an absolute BAN
http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/e-cigarettes-action.html
"Our organizations thank Senator Lautenberg for his leadership in urging the FDA to remove these products from the market and echo his call that the FDA move quickly to remove these products from the marketplace. "
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Anyone see the 60 minutes special on the SNUS ? After around 30 years, the European studies are rolling in and this type of tobacco looks pretty harmless. No lung or mouth cancer. A questionable uptick in pancreatic cancer, and slightly higher blood pressure. Tobacco without spitting.
So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.
So we should ban E-Cigs, but not the "more" bad regular kind?
I suspect it is, at least in part, a case of them picking their battles. It is easier to stop a new product than kill an existing one; and if their interest is in lung health they should take action against things that are bad for lung health. They likely realize that there is no chance in hell of pulling off a full bad on regular cigarettes - at least not with a pro-business government - so they might as well put energy into something they might be able to get some traction on.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Vaporizers are a whole lot healthier when comparing with smoking for medical marijuana, there's no reason they shouldn't be much healthier with tobacco also. The ALA looks pretty stupid here, a couple more moves like this and they'll seem as intelligent as those 'birthers' who refuse to believe Hawaii officials about who was born there.
I also bought one solely to legally get round a smoking ban in the UK and pretty amazingly I haven't smoked a real cigarette since that day it was never my intention to give them up. I just want my opinion noted that I feel a lot healthier than when I was smoking I have more energy my smell and taste atre back and I can walk quite considerable distances now without any problems. To put it bluntly these e-cigs were invented by a chinese fellow who lost someone to cancer and they work like a dream obviously well enough to scare the tobbaco/ medicine lobby. To ban these might even send me back to real cigarettes and end up killing me and who knows how many more, banning these without a doubt will end up killing a lot more people. So really what is the agenda here why do they want people to die?
because that works so well for pot, crack, cocaine, ecstacy, etc, ad infinitum
The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.