Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Ban E-Cigarettes? Why not?Follow

#1 Aug 25 2013 at 9:47 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,098 posts

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/25/ban-e-cigarettes-the-anti-smoking-lobby-s-clueless-crusade.html

Quote:
H.L. Mencken famously defined puritanism as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” He might have been describing contemporary anti-smoking activists, that dour band of fuss-budgets constantly on the prowl for new ways to make life slightly less bearable by limiting the choices available to grown adults.

Incredibly, the latest push from tobacco eliminationists doesn’t involve actual smoking, which has already been driven out of polite society more thoroughly than Rev. Jeremiah Wright sermons, early David Allan Coe records, and Three’s Company-era **** jokes combined. But it does lay bare the prohibitionist mindset and its fixation on scrubbing the planet clean of any behavior or attitude the crusader deems unacceptable.

This time, the buttinskys are trying to douse the dreaded e-cigarette, a device that supplies a safe nicotine hit to the user without bothering or endangering anybody else. E-cigarettes use replaceable cartridges in which nicotine or flavors are heated, vaporized, and inhaled (users are called “vapers”). Some e-cigarettes look like conventional cancer sticks and others look more like something from a bad Sylvester Stallone movie set in the near future. Questions of fashion aside, they are not just a safer way for smokers to get the nicotine they crave, they are apparently as safe as milk (well, pasteurized milk, anyway, and assuming you’re not lactose intolerant).

Critics warn that trace amounts of bad stuff can be found in e-cigarettes’ vapor, but that is not necessarily cause for concern, much less prohibition. As a new review of the literature on e-cigarettes from Drexel University’s Igor Burstyn concludes, “Current data do not indicate that exposures to vapors from contaminants in electronic cigarettes warrant a concern. There are no known toxicological synergies among compounds in the aerosol, and mixture of the contaminants does not pose a risk to health. In fact, the inability to show proof of harm was one of the reasons the Food and Drug Administration’s 2010 bid to control e-cigarettes as a “drug-delivery device” failed in court. Burstyn notes further there is even less reason to be concerned with second-hand fumes, which are by definition even less concentrated that what the vaper sucks down. His main concern is that users knowingly choose whether they’re getting nicotine or not.

As Michael Siegel, who teaches at Boston University’s School of Public Health, wrote in a recent New York Times’ debate on e-cigarettes, despite evidence that e-cigarettes reduce overall harm from smoking, “many anti-smoking groups oppose these products because they are blinded by ideology: they find it difficult, if not impossible, to endorse a behavior that looks like smoking, even though it is literally saving people’s lives....What’s not to like?”

Anti-smoking groups find it difficult, if not impossible, to endorse a behavior that looks like smoking, even though it is literally saving people’s lives.

Well, plenty, it turns out. E-cigarettes are the subject of an ever-growing list of bans, prohibitions, and expert opprobrium (just read some of the other participants in that Times’ debate). As always, New York – a town once called “Fun City” that still likes to pretend it’s tougher than the rib-eyes for sale at the few remaining Tad’s Steaks in Times Sqaure – is leading the charge against e-cigarettes. As Gothamist reports, Michael Bloomberg is “quietly working...to enact a sweeping ban on flavored e-cigs.”

The same impulse is afoot in less trendy parts of the country. Illinois has banned e-cigarette sales to teens and Massachusetts is considering legislation that would ban giving away free samples or using the devices anywhere that tobacco is already verboten. Despite the lack of second-hand smoke, school districts around the country have lumped in e-cigarettes with banned tobacco products on campuses, and the Federal Aviation Administration has blocked their use on commercial flights.

In one sense, you’ve got to admire anti-smoking activists and their willingness to constantly look for new fires to put out. Like the March of Dimes, which scrambled for a new cause once polio was effectively eradicated (and found one in the all-encompassing categories of preventing birth defects and premature births), the anti-smoking movement is a victim of its own success. In the wake of increasingly high-handed bans, taxes, and regulations, smoking is everywhere in retreat. In the mid-1960s, over 40 percent of Americans smoked, compared to less than 20 percent these days. Yet it’s no coincidence that the biggest decreases in smoking rates came in the early decades after the U.S. Surgeon General’s 1964 report on smoking told Americans what they already knew: cigarettes were called “coffin nails” and “cancer sticks” for good goddamned reasons.

Informational campaigns about the terrible health consequences of smoking, along with restrictions on advertising and other broad-based cultural trends that valorized being in shape and not stinking like an ashtray went a long way to creating a smoke-free society. People actually respond to logic, argument, and persuasion. Who knew?

But as the percentage of Americans who smoke has stayed relatively stuck in the high teens and low twenties, the anti-smoking movement has turned to increasingly paternalistic, dictatorial, and infantilizing measures to achieve its goals. From statewide bans on smoking in more and more places to the censoring of marketing terms such as light and mild that have ushered in an age of childishly color-coded cigarette packs to plans for scrubbing smoking in movies and TV shows, there’s no logical stopping point for treating us all as moral defectives incapable of making our own choices.

Indeed, taking a page from the Stalin-era Soviet Union, prohibitionists even managed to erase omnipresent cigarettes dangling from the lips of artist Jackson Pollock and bluesman Robert Johnson in iconic images used for postage stamps (would that activists had been half as successful at curbing public urination, Pollock’s other signature move).

And now, the prohibitionists are taking on e-cigarettes because... because... because... smoking tobacco is bad for you. And they don’t think you should decide how to live your life.

Which reminds me of a different Mencken quote about those who would control our choices: “The only guarantee of the Bill of Rights which continues to have any force and effect is the one prohibiting quartering troops on citizens in time of peace.” These days, even that may be up for grabs. But there’s no question that in a nanny state, all of us- even those of us who don't smoke tobacco or puff on e-cigarettes- are all treated like children incapable of making our own choices.


Helps smokers quit. . .bad.
Hurts NO ONE ELSE. . .still bad.
No proof of any danger to public. . .still bad.

Nanny statists don't give one wit about safety and this undeniably proves it. It's all about control and making sure adults can't make their own choices. Here we are talking about banning and taxing the **** out of something that is saving literally thousands of lives and for why? Because it looks like smoking?

The monumental idiocy behind this is inexplicable.

-NW
____________________________
The Pessimist: A person who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street.
#2 Aug 26 2013 at 1:22 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
I support a ban on drinking Root Beer in public and of course while driving.

Edited, Aug 26th 2013 9:22am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#3 Aug 26 2013 at 5:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,806 posts
It's stupid. Perhaps they should be regulated - not sold to kids, that kind of thing. There is little proof of any harm to the user except it sustains a tobacco addiction. No proof of any harm to those exposed to second-hand 'vapor'.

I wonder if tobacco companies are involved in this??

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#4 Aug 26 2013 at 7:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,618 posts
Reads like an article written by someone that needs to seriously take a smoke break.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Aug 26 2013 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
I was going to make some vague allusion to laws regulating various indecent behaviors or something. It seemed a little week, but I figured why not, maybe it'll spur a little discussion. However after Miley Cyrus' little jiggle session that's all over the internet today that argument doesn't even feel like it has a broken leg to stand on anymore.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#6 Aug 26 2013 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,786 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
However after Miley Cyrus' little jiggle session that's all over the internet today


Should I have watched the VMAs last night, or what?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#7 Aug 26 2013 at 10:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
TirithRR wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
However after Miley Cyrus' little jiggle session that's all over the internet today


Should I have watched the VMAs last night, or what?
I'm still going with a 'no' on that. Unless you like watching another yet former Disney star go through their bad boy/girl stage.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#8 Aug 26 2013 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
God, that recent song of hers is horrible. It's auto-tuned to the point of sounding like a friggin' insect whine. We watch VH1's countdown on Sunday mornings because my little one likes the music and we like him being occupied with a break from toddler TV. So I see plenty of songs I don't especially care for but that song just grates.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Aug 26 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,237 posts
If it weren't for the internet today, I'd still be only tangentially aware of the fact that Miley Cyrus still exists.
____________________________
Banh
#10 Aug 26 2013 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If not for the internet, I'd have ZERO idea that you exist, so I guess Miley won that round.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Aug 26 2013 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,237 posts
Smiley: crymore
____________________________
Banh
#12 Aug 26 2013 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
If not for the internet MMOs would be awful.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#13 Aug 26 2013 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,618 posts
Jophiel wrote:
God, that recent song of hers is horrible.
I admit, I kind of just assumed all her songs were horrible.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 Aug 26 2013 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
God, that recent song of hers is horrible.
I admit, I kind of just assumed all her songs were horrible.
Which is really a bummer, since that stripper act of hers needs quite a bit of work still.


Edited, Aug 26th 2013 10:59am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#15 Aug 26 2013 at 12:02 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,098 posts
Elinda wrote:
It's stupid. Perhaps they should be regulated - not sold to kids, that kind of thing. There is little proof of any harm to the user except it sustains a tobacco addiction. No proof of any harm to those exposed to second-hand 'vapor'.

I wonder if tobacco companies are involved in this??




Doubtful. Big Tobacco's pull amongst politicians has all but evaporated. That ship sailed over 20 years ago.

It's the same statists that brought you large-sized soda bans in NYC and a tobacco tax hike in MN.

-NW
____________________________
The Pessimist: A person who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street.
#16 Aug 26 2013 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
******
43,618 posts
NaughtyWord wrote:
It's the same statists that brought you large-sized soda bans in NYC
That's what happens when an Independent gets into any kind of office.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#17 Aug 26 2013 at 1:53 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,166 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
God, that recent song of hers is horrible.
I admit, I kind of just assumed all her songs were horrible.
Which is really a bummer, since that stripper act of hers needs quite a bit of work still.
She can practice stripping without having to sing.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#18 Aug 26 2013 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
God, that recent song of hers is horrible.
I admit, I kind of just assumed all her songs were horrible.
Which is really a bummer, since that stripper act of hers needs quite a bit of work still.
She can practice stripping without having to sing.
Sage advice. Practice that alone more, that way when she tries to combine the two again it doesn't get so awkward.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#19 Aug 26 2013 at 2:02 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,098 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
NaughtyWord wrote:
It's the same statists that brought you large-sized soda bans in NYC
That's what happens when an Independent gets into any kind of office.



I don't do political parties. I think they are just another system that exists to enrich and empower a select few on the backs of the many.


Statists exist in both major political parties and among independents as well.


-NW
____________________________
The Pessimist: A person who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street.
#20 Aug 26 2013 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,166 posts
NaughtyWord wrote:
I don't do political parties. I think they are just another system that exists to enrich and empower a select few on the backs of the many.


Statists exist in both major political parties and among independents as well.


-NW
Have a beer and chill out a bit, all that raging is bad for you.
Screenshot



Edited, Aug 26th 2013 10:23pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#21 Aug 26 2013 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,538 posts
NaughtyWord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
It's stupid. Perhaps they should be regulated - not sold to kids, that kind of thing. There is little proof of any harm to the user except it sustains a tobacco addiction. No proof of any harm to those exposed to second-hand 'vapor'.

I wonder if tobacco companies are involved in this??




Doubtful. Big Tobacco's pull amongst politicians has all but evaporated. That ship sailed over 20 years ago.

It's the same statists that brought you large-sized soda bans in NYC and a tobacco tax hike in MN.

-NW


I wouldn't even necessarily use the label "statists". Busybodies, is more like it. Once a cause gets going, it becomes institutionalized and has to keep finding things to fight against. And often what happens is that along the way the original reasons for fighting against something gets lost and it just becomes about fighting against something. In this case, the presumed reasons for fighting against smoking was because of the harmful health effects, both to the person smoking and to those around him/her. But those objectives tend to get translated into a general "against smoking" position, often with an emotional reaction. So it's not surprising at all that the idea of someone "smoking" in a way that is not harmful would still be opposed. It's ceased to be about the harm, and is about the perceived action itself.


I'm sure if you were to ask most people who support banning e-cigarettes, they'd argue something about how children might see people smoking an e-cig and think it looks cool, and then start smoking tobacco products as a result. Which makes the whole "let's ban these from minors" approach problematic at best. Seems to me that would be counterproductive since it's pretty easy to bum a smoke off someone, but far less likely someone's going to let you borrow their e-cig. So if some minor wants to "smoke", you've left him with no choice but tobacco cigarettes. So great job I guess!?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Aug 26 2013 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,786 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm sure if you were to ask most people who support banning e-cigarettes, they'd argue something about how children might see people smoking an e-cig and think it looks cool, and then start smoking tobacco products as a result. Which makes the whole "let's ban these from minors" approach problematic at best. Seems to me that would be counterproductive since it's pretty easy to bum a smoke off someone, but far less likely someone's going to let you borrow their e-cig. So if some minor wants to "smoke", you've left him with no choice but tobacco cigarettes. So great job I guess!?


Pretty sure on NPR this morning I listened to a story about trying to ban cigarillos and flavored cigars, because they appealed to kids (small + flavors = childish). Apparently flavored cigarettes are already banned? News to me, thought I guess I don't see Clove and Orange cigarettes in the stores.

Sometimes South Park is relevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUEjnoWpdao

Edited, Aug 26th 2013 6:58pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#23 Aug 26 2013 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,749 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm sure if you were to ask most people who support banning e-cigarettes, they'd argue something about how children might see people smoking an e-cig and think it looks cool, and then start smoking tobacco products as a result. Which makes the whole "let's ban these from minors" approach problematic at best. Seems to me that would be counterproductive since it's pretty easy to bum a smoke off someone, but far less likely someone's going to let you borrow their e-cig. So if some minor wants to "smoke", you've left him with no choice but tobacco cigarettes. So great job I guess!?


Pretty sure on NPR this morning I listened to a story about trying to ban cigarillos and flavored cigars, because they appealed to kids (small + flavors = childish). Apparently flavored cigarettes are already banned? News to me, thought I guess I don't see Clove and Orange cigarettes in the stores.

Sometimes South Park is relevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUEjnoWpdao

Edited, Aug 26th 2013 6:58pm by TirithRR


That happened maybe 6 or 7 years ago? At least in NJ it did; dunno if that was a federal ban, or if a federal ban came later. But big tobacco really brought that one on themselves, because they weren't even in eyesight of the line anymore. Flashy packaging, traditional candy flavors, candy-esque packaging.

I'm sure clove wasn't an offender. Green apple, "very cherry," etc. were the ones drawing fire from the FDA. But the ban only covered cigarettes, not cigarillos, cigars, or other forms of tobacco.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#24 Aug 26 2013 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,270 posts
Elinda wrote:
It's stupid. Perhaps they should be regulated - not sold to kids, that kind of thing.



Here in Canuckistan, they do. When they first started coming out when I worked at a gas station, it stated right on the boxes that they weren't to be sold to minors.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#26 Sep 12 2013 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,806 posts
Duluth, MN has just added the same restrictions to e-cigs as regular cigs. They're not the same product, I think it's short-sighted to simply tack on the same set of regulations.

Edit - Oops - the Story.



Edited, Sep 12th 2013 5:33pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#27 Sep 12 2013 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
******
43,618 posts
The image looks like a necklace hookah.

Edited, Sep 12th 2013 11:42am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#28 Sep 12 2013 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,278 posts
I'm a vehement anti-smoker and I don't mind e-cigs. Unlike regular cigarettes, the vapor doesn't stink like wet dogs not does it make me feel nauseous. (I'm allergic to the chemical additives in the tobacco of plain cigarettes. Heck, I don't mind cigars either for that matter, and I find the smell of hookahs to be pleasant.)

I think banning e-cigs is stupid. So, don't paint all us anti-smokers with the same brush.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#29 Sep 12 2013 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,040 posts
Must be something wrong with US cigarettes if the smoke smells like wet dogs. I've smelled a wet dog (large one at that), and it smells nothing like my Pall Malls. Smiley: confused

Anyway, the French (naturally) did a pretty big report on e-cigarettes, and the conclusion was that, nicotine or no nicotine, e-cigarettes aren't harmless. It didn't exactly paint them as dangerous, but they also couldn't confirm that they are harmless.

Meh.

I'm probably going to switch to one soon. Just need to find a good one online, because our government banned (yup) the sale of refills here.

Edited, Sep 12th 2013 10:17pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#30 Sep 12 2013 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,786 posts
Mazra wrote:
Must be something wrong with US cigarettes if the smoke smells like wet dogs. I've smelled a wet dog (large one at that), and it smells nothing like my Pall Malls. Smiley: confused


It doesn't smell like wet dogs. Cat's just one of those over exaggerating anti-smokers. Cigarette smoke smells like cigarette smoke. Stale cigarette smoke smells like stale cigarette smoke. That's not to say that it doesn't smell bad. It does, especially the stale stuff.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#31 Sep 12 2013 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Mazra wrote:
Anyway, the French (naturally) did a pretty big report on e-cigarettes, and the conclusion was that, nicotine or no nicotine, e-cigarettes aren't harmless. It didn't exactly paint them as dangerous, but they also couldn't confirm that they are harmless.
So in other words the results were inconclusive and they need more funding to better investigate the issue?

Scientists... Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#32 Sep 13 2013 at 3:18 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,166 posts
Sounds like they're pretty smart scientists, creating more work for themselves.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#33 Sep 13 2013 at 3:51 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,679 posts
Government employees
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#34 Sep 13 2013 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
******
43,618 posts
No, we create less work for ourselves and bill you the same.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 Sep 18 2013 at 3:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,119 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Must be something wrong with US cigarettes if the smoke smells like wet dogs. I've smelled a wet dog (large one at that), and it smells nothing like my Pall Malls. Smiley: confused


It doesn't smell like wet dogs. Cat's just one of those over exaggerating anti-smokers. Cigarette smoke smells like cigarette smoke. Stale cigarette smoke smells like stale cigarette smoke. That's not to say that it doesn't smell bad. It does, especially the stale stuff.


Or worse, stale cig smoke smell on someone who just came in from the rain who just smoked a fresh cig... I have a coworker that knows not to come near me on days it is raining, She is a nice person but **** does she stink.
____________________________
This sig better be appropriate...
#36 Sep 19 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Tyrrant wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Must be something wrong with US cigarettes if the smoke smells like wet dogs. I've smelled a wet dog (large one at that), and it smells nothing like my Pall Malls. Smiley: confused


It doesn't smell like wet dogs. Cat's just one of those over exaggerating anti-smokers. Cigarette smoke smells like cigarette smoke. Stale cigarette smoke smells like stale cigarette smoke. That's not to say that it doesn't smell bad. It does, especially the stale stuff.


Or worse, stale cig smoke smell on someone who just came in from the rain who just smoked a fresh cig... I have a coworker that knows not to come near me on days it is raining, She is a nice person but **** does she stink.


The cheaper cigarettes must have more foul burning filler content or something, because my mother smokes Dorals and I swear to god they smell 10x worse than any Marlboro/Camel/Newport.

Also, as someone who hasn't had a real cigarette in over a month thanks to e-cigarettes, idiots who wish to ban e-cigs because they look like cigarettes or because ZOMG FEAR THE UNKNOWN can shove an ecigarette right up their **** ass.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#37 Sep 20 2013 at 2:44 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,166 posts
They should just make the e-cigs pink or neon green or something, that way they don't look as much like cigarettes anymore (yeah I know there's coloured cigs, not common though).
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#38 Sep 20 2013 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
******
43,618 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Also, as someone who hasn't had a real cigarette in over a month
Congratulations.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Sep 26 2013 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
I quit a year ago. And I've thought about maybe trying these but then I think - why the **** would I do that? Get my nicotine cravings going again and before you know it, I'd probably be back on the real things again. No thanks. Also, I like not spending money on this stuff anymore.
#40 Sep 26 2013 at 10:23 PM Rating: Good
Under A Thumb...
*****
10,008 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I support a ban on drinking Root Beer in public and of course while driving.

Edited, Aug 26th 2013 9:22am by Almalieque


This is probably the best thing I've ever seen you post.

I use Blu. They don't look like a cigarette, or smell like one but allows me to "vape" on campus, at work, in my house, without the messier part of real cigarettes. Plus, being disposable, I can still toss it in a beer bottle with satisfaction.

Edited, Sep 26th 2013 11:24pm by Kaelesh
____________________________
Quote:
I would imagine that if you could understand Morse code, a tap dancer would drive you crazy.
Lebowski Fest | Church of the Latter-Day Dude | Nick And Dooie!
#41 Sep 27 2013 at 9:30 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
I use Blu. They don't look like a cigarette, or smell like one but allows me to "vape" on campus, at work, in my house, without the messier part of real cigarettes. Plus, being disposable, I can still toss it in a beer bottle with satisfaction.


And the Classic Tobacco flavor has a subtle hint of coffee that is just kinda nice.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#42 Sep 30 2013 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,040 posts
Those Blu e-cigs look awesome. Wish you could get them here, but apparently you can only buy them from the official site, and they don't ship out of the country.

**** shame. Smiley: frown
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#43 Oct 01 2013 at 2:31 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,166 posts
There are plenty services which will order it for you in the US and have it shipped to you in Denmark (at a price, of course).
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#44 Oct 02 2013 at 1:02 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,564 posts
NaughtyWord wrote:
Nanny statists don't give one wit about safety and this undeniably proves it. It's all about control and making sure adults can't make their own choices. Here we are talking about banning and taxing the **** out of something that is saving literally thousands of lives and for why? Because it looks like smoking?

The monumental idiocy behind this is inexplicable.

-NW

Do you really think that such a thing as "Nanny statists" exists? People who only want "control and making sure adults can't make their own choices"? What purpose would that serve? People advocate for positions because either it serves their own well-being, because they believe it serves their own well-being, or because it indirectly serves their well-being by making them happy to think they are promoting the greater good. If someone wants to ban e-cigarettes, it's because they think the devices are causing undue harm to society. It's entirely possible that they are completely ignorant of the safety of e-cigarettes, but that doesn't mean that they are acting purely out of some non-sensical desire for vague control or choice-denial.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#45 Oct 02 2013 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,538 posts
trickybeck wrote:
NaughtyWord wrote:
Nanny statists don't give one wit about safety and this undeniably proves it. It's all about control and making sure adults can't make their own choices. Here we are talking about banning and taxing the **** out of something that is saving literally thousands of lives and for why? Because it looks like smoking?

The monumental idiocy behind this is inexplicable.

-NW

Do you really think that such a thing as "Nanny statists" exists? People who only want "control and making sure adults can't make their own choices"? What purpose would that serve? People advocate for positions because either it serves their own well-being, because they believe it serves their own well-being, or because it indirectly serves their well-being by making them happy to think they are promoting the greater good. If someone wants to ban e-cigarettes, it's because they think the devices are causing undue harm to society. It's entirely possible that they are completely ignorant of the safety of e-cigarettes, but that doesn't mean that they are acting purely out of some non-sensical desire for vague control or choice-denial.


I'm not a big fan of the phrase "nanny statists" (or variations thereof), mostly because it's overused rhetoric that usually removes thought from the issue in favor of emotional reaction. However, there is a growing population who have adopted the idea that the absence of government regulations is "bad" somehow and that people's rights are served by protecting them with regulations. Obviously, sometimes regulation is good, and sometimes it's bad. But many people simplify this down and look at the method and fail to step back and think about what they're really trying to do. We sometimes get lost picking sides over how to do something and fail to ask whether what we're doing really makes sense.

I don't think these people think that government control is a good thing. I just think that they've become so used to the method of going to the government to solve problems that it doesn't occur to them that along the way they're empowering it at the expense of their own freedoms. I don't believe that they think about the government control angle so much as the government taking action angle.


How this applies to causes is similar IMO. I think that sometimes people get so caught up in the cause itself that they lose sight of why they started it in the first place. The cause becomes institutionalized and people start to define themselves by the act of pursuing "the cause" rather than the thing the cause is supposed to be about. This gets worse when you get layers of action that are taken as part of the cause and which make sense in one context, but may not make sense in another. People substitute the actions for the objective and begin placing more weight on the former than the latter. Thus we have environmentalists praising Brazil for becoming energy independent via their adoption of biofuels, while failing to recognize that this was accomplished by decades of slash and burning vast amounts of rainforest, which the environmentalists of just a decade or so earlier were strongly opposed to. Somewhere along the way, the cause of environmentalism forgot that it was supposed to be about minimizing the impact humans have on the planet, and turned it into "green energy". So using ethonol as a powersource became "good" in their eyes and outweighed the harmful impact on the environment required to get there.


I think with regards to e-cigs, a similar thing has happened. People have spent so much time being 'against smoking', that they've latched onto the actions and image of smoking and focused on those things. The cause has long worked to eliminate advertising of smoking or the use of smoking in films and popular media under the assumption that if people don't see other people smoking (especially in glamorous portrayals) they'll be less inclined to start themselves. So the original objective of reducing people's exposure to the harmful effects of smoking has been replaced with fighting against the public image of smoking. It would not surprise me if much of the motivation for the second hand smoke argument really has less to do with the actual effects of second hand smoke (which are real, if minor), and more to do with eliminating public exposure to smoking itself. And by exposure, I don't mean to the chemicals in second hand smoke, but actually seeing people smoke in public places. If you can ban smoking from as many places as possible, the same logic used with regard to advertising and media applies.

Seeing people vape in public almost certainly instills a sense that those people are "cheating" somehow by being able to do something that looks like smoking without actually inhaling (or exhaling) harmful smoke. I can totally see some anti-smoker types being infuriated about this. Because somewhere along the line they've lost sight of the purpose of the cause and have latched onto the methods of the cause. The methods say you must minimize the image of smoking in order to protect people. Someone vaping appears to be getting around the rules. So it's not unreasonable that some will react by trying to change the rules to apply to e-cigs as well. They've substituted the purpose of the cause with the methods of the cause. To them, it doesn't matter that the person is inhaling harmless vapor. It matters that they're doing something that looks like smoking, so it must be stopped.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Oct 02 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think with regards to e-cigs, a similar thing has happened. People have spent so much time being 'against smoking', that they've latched onto the actions and image of smoking and focused on those things. The cause has long worked to eliminate advertising of smoking or the use of smoking in films and popular media under the assumption that if people don't see other people smoking (especially in glamorous portrayals) they'll be less inclined to start themselves. So the original objective of reducing people's exposure to the harmful effects of smoking has been replaced with fighting against the public image of smoking. It would not surprise me if much of the motivation for the second hand smoke argument really has less to do with the actual effects of second hand smoke (which are real, if minor), and more to do with eliminating public exposure to smoking itself. And by exposure, I don't mean to the chemicals in second hand smoke, but actually seeing people smoke in public places. If you can ban smoking from as many places as possible, the same logic used with regard to advertising and media applies.

Seeing people vape in public almost certainly instills a sense that those people are "cheating" somehow by being able to do something that looks like smoking without actually inhaling (or exhaling) harmful smoke. I can totally see some anti-smoker types being infuriated about this. Because somewhere along the line they've lost sight of the purpose of the cause and have latched onto the methods of the cause. The methods say you must minimize the image of smoking in order to protect people. Someone vaping appears to be getting around the rules. So it's not unreasonable that some will react by trying to change the rules to apply to e-cigs as well. They've substituted the purpose of the cause with the methods of the cause. To them, it doesn't matter that the person is inhaling harmless vapor. It matters that they're doing something that looks like smoking, so it must be stopped.


Someone toss Satan a match - **** must have frozen over. I agree with the above 100%. The e-cigarette crusade is one against the image of smoking, not the actual harm it poses. And I'll add to that the problem of a whole generation that believes legislation is a replacement for proper parental guidance, especially with regards to smoking.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2013 7:07pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#47 Oct 03 2013 at 9:20 AM Rating: Decent
*****
12,810 posts
I honestly had not read the gbaji text vomit up there... but thanks to you BD, I had to read that... Am I... about to agree with... and rate u gbaji....?

I feel so dirty.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Viddler: http://www.viddler.com/explore/pawkeshup/
UStream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/pawkeshup-s-gaming-stream
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#48 Oct 03 2013 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,679 posts
Don't feel dirty. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#49 Oct 03 2013 at 9:52 AM Rating: Decent
*****
12,810 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Don't feel dirty. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

It's gbaji, though. That's more like a clock with no hands or digital display!
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Viddler: http://www.viddler.com/explore/pawkeshup/
UStream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/pawkeshup-s-gaming-stream
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#50 Oct 03 2013 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,679 posts
You can go with what I said, or assume that since he's always wrong, you agreeing with him means you're wrong.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#51 Oct 03 2013 at 11:45 AM Rating: Decent
*****
12,810 posts
Yea... I will have to admit that this time... this one time.. gbaji is... r.. r.... not wrong.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Viddler: http://www.viddler.com/explore/pawkeshup/
UStream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/pawkeshup-s-gaming-stream
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 60 All times are in CDT
LockeColeMA, sookmosley44, Szabo, Anonymous Guests (57)