Sure, guns are deadly, but the Constitution guarantees us the right to have them. There is no inherent right to sell fentanyl or cigarettes.
I think we ought to save as many lives as we reasonably can.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
It seems to be creating a lot of juvenile nicotine addicts.
The uncontrolled junk in those things probably will kill people.
Where's the FDA when we need them?
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
That's quite arguable. Where in the Constitution does the government derive the power to limit the sale of lethal drugs?
Ban cars and 5-gallon buckets.
Clifford Heath wrote in news:YZazC.22709$FZ2.8650 @fx33.iad:
You do not know that to be a fact.
You probably also think tasers are "non-lethal", eh?
They actually get worse. Substituting 500 vape inhales a day, and even have a cigarette every now and then, thinking they have cut down.
te:
rote:
d d".
rds
vely short time in the same time frame--mid to late 1980's. It went from s moking freely - to dedicated rooms - to no more smoking in about 5 years ti me. All in the same time frame , around 1985 through 1990. Not just Intel , but everywhere.
rea set up just outside the cafeteria and any student could smoke there wit hout consequence.
slow and painful process. The place I worked went through stages of limiti ng where you could smoke (starting with the not very useful "only at YOUR d esk" to "only in the break room" (still not very good for anyone else since the break room became a smokey den) to finally making them go outside. It was some 10 years or more later that even the hospital banned smoking outs ide because anyone not a smoker would stand right by the doorway and blow s moke in your face as you went by.
artake other than "not here". I suppose they don't want to be seen as appr oving smoking or potentially being liable for the outcome.
in
t a
lic
ke the
.Probably not. The US tried Prohibition for ethanol, and it didn't work too well. They are still trying to make it work for other recreational drugs, a nd it isn't working too well either.
Taxes on tobacco products are already high enough that quite a bit of smugg ling goes on. The bargain is to keep the taxes high enough to discourage sm oking without making them high enough to make smuggling profitable enough t o become a high volume activity (which does put an upper limit on the deter rent effect you can get out of high taxes).
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Vaping is easier to quit because the user controls the dose size and concentration.
A smoker is going think say that cigarette cost $2 (or whatever) I'm going to smoke the whole thing, not chuck it half smoked.
--
?
I'm pretty sure it's not sold to them. same as tobacco.
Ignoring it beacuse the alternative is worse. SFAIK the common ingredients are FDA approved except the nicotine.
--
?
There is very good evidence for it, if you care to look past the mountain of fake "evidence" funded by the tobacco lobby.
The evidence is not as mature as the evidence against smoking, but it's there.
It's a solved problem you just tax the product in proportion to the amount of scientifically documented damage that the use causes and pay for the treatment from the fund. The user pays for the product and their treatment at the same time. Nothing is banned, freedom is not destroyed, you can buy whatever you like.
Yeah, it'll be expensive. Lots of unhealthy drugs and vices are expensive, so what. Crime will not significantly increase, anyone seriously pondering theft to fund their cigarette habit is already stealing to fund their hard drug habit. There'll be a black market naturally but most people won't use it.
I very rarely see anyone in Massachusetts under the age of 50 buying cigarettes anymore
The trouble with smoking is that is legal, not too expensive, and has been so for quite some time. It is very addictive. And the problems come later - years after you start smoking. If you raise taxes on it to the point where the taxes pay for the health problems it causes, you'd get a public outcry. There are just too many people that can't help buying these things, and who don't see the health problems yet.
The way smoking has been reduced in Europe is to attack it on multiple levels. Taxes have been increased, but gradually. Brand differentiation has been eroded - cigarette packets all need to be the same size, shape colour, typeface, etc., with the brand name reduced to a small bit of text. There is no advertising allowed, directly or indirectly (like sponsoring things). Cigarettes are hidden from view in shops - you have to ask for them specifically. And the packets are dominated by pictures of cancerous lungs and the like. The aim is to make it embarrassing to buy cigarettes, and to stop any impulse buying.
Then there are lots of things done to minimise the number of new smokers
- anti-smoking adverts, age limits, severe restrictions on smoking in school areas, etc. And smoking has been banned from most public places, work places, etc. Next in the firing line is smoking in cars (even your own) if there are other people in the car.
It works. There are far fewer smokers now than there used to be, especially amongst younger folk. And those that do smoke are a lot more considerate (beyond the requirements of the law) - smokers usually go outside even in their own homes.
There is more to do, of course. I would like to see a ban on smoking on beaches, parks, and at sporting events - there are still people who think that because they are outside, their smoke won't bother people. I'd like a deposit arrangement for cigarette buts (I can't think how it could be done in practice, but I'd like it) so that smokers would stop throwing the buts away in nature. I'd like a ban on all extra "flavourings" added in cigarettes - many of these are added purely to increase the addictiveness and keep people loyal to particular brands.
I'd also like more campaign information to reduce snuff, e-cigarettes and other alternative sources of nicotine that have increased as cigarette usage has dropped. These sorts of things are not as bad as cigarettes (and have far less second-hand health problems), but they are still addictive health problems.
FDA approved for thermal vaporization and inhalation?
"Dr. Ana Navas-Acien, a professor of environmental health sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, recently released a study measuring metal levels in this aerosol. The research found chromium, nickel, zinc and lead, Navas-Acien said. Surgeon general sounds the alarm on teens and e-cigarettes Surgeon general sounds the alarm on teens and e-cigarettes "Comparing what was initially in the liquid, that was very, very tiny amount (of lead) practically undetectable. But after the e-liquid was heated through the e-cigarette device, lead levels were then 25 times higher," she said. "
Another example of technology exploiting human weaknesses at extreme levels. Expect that to get worse.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
What damage?
No one under 50 can afford them.
they are approved flavourings, and taste is mostly smell, so yeah kind-of approved.
If the FDA got involved they probably have to ban it, but tobacco is much worse and they seem unwilling to ban that.
the levels still seem to be lower than in cigarettes
Why expect that to get worse? has Trump just fired the surgeon general or closed the CDC or something?
--
?
With a few interesting exceptions, raising the price of things reduces consumption.
Saving lives incrementally is a good thing to do.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
I gave them up for ~ a year when the price hit $2/ pack. As a pack a day man I figured I could give 'em up for a year and buy an IBM clone. ~$600 at the time.
Then I started up again... never sure why.
George H.
It's around $10 a pack for say Camels or Marlboro in MA last I looked. In NYC prices in the $14-15 range aren't uncommon
My brother still smokes, he drives out to the Res (Indian reservation) and get's 'em for $50(?) a cartoon. (10 packs per cartoon)
My impression is that smoking is more common if you don't live in a 'bubble' area. The coasts and upscale parts of big midwestern cities.
George H.
bitrex wrote in news:hdQyC.8499$bx2.5350 @fx09.iad:
No... right... not a carcinogen... just a deadly poison.
The dose makes the poison. Nicotine extract used to be used as a pesticide but it tended to kill too many amateur gardeners.
These days there are synthetic neonicitinoids but it has recently been found that bumble bees get hooked on the taste and go for the more poisonous nectar when given the chance. Bad news for them :(
Neonics otherwise work very well against difficult pests that have become almost entirely resistant to the old organophosphate pesticides.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
bitrex wrote in news:K3pyC.13244$ snipped-for-privacy@fx28.iad:
It is like that in all 50 states (illegal)... it just so happens that some states have a higher population of intelligent individuals with a cursory understanding of inertial physics.
Because it is also illegal to blatanly traipse right out in front of the moving traffic whether the idiots in Mass know it or not. The cops should be citing folks who do that and put an end to the utter stupidity of that behavior.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.