Not an aid to quitting smoking? Seriously?

[TropicalBob]

Okay, we agree not to argue the absurd. Neither extreme is desirable and England has swung out of balance from what I read. (America is getting there, but we're still not the nanny state England is fast becoming.)

I do know I expect my government (the nanny in your analogy) to provide prudent protection for me, her charge. Certainly we expect to be protected from the potentially harmful actions of others, but many draw the line at protecting us from what are seen as irresponsible individual actions: ie, smoking. It's a matter of personal choice, we argue.

I do, too. tobacco is a legal product. If I choose, with full knowledge, to use it, that's my choice and I must live with the consequences, if any. But it hasn't been prohibited, so I have that choice. What I don't have is the right to expose others publicly to my smoking. The action and consequences of tobacco smoking must be mine alone.

There is great truth to this statement: Your right to smoke ends at my nose.

And well it should. That's for the public well being, and it trumps personal desire. No one should have to suffer your stinky smoke exhalations or side-stream smoke in a public location. This conclusion has now become law in most countries. Do as you wish -- but not in the presence of others.

In my area, we have a harsh new law passed this past year to squash noise from vehicle audio systems. Surely we're all familiar with the bolt-shaking bass boom sounds and vulgar "lyrics" coming from some cars. No more. If the sound is audible 75 feet from the car, the offender gets a ticket. The argument that passed the law: Your right to play music at a volume of your choosing ends at my ear.

The council vote was unanimous to muffle the boom boys. Public considerations trump individual desires.

 

[Cage]

You should try living in England, our health and safety laws are like something out of a Kafka novel.
Plus all this talk about protecting consumers, are we dumb little sheepies that need goading from one tadpole-thought to the next? We are supposed to be adults for Christ's sake.
It's like when the tobacco companies were sued for harming people, it was a despicable decision. Everyone bloody knew that smoking was bad for them, even King James I of England said as much back in the 1620's.
People choose to smoke and have to live or die with the consequences and to make companies responsible for the bad decisions we make turns us all into the nanny state's children.

I'll admit it.
Sometimes I need a Nanny... I don't want one, but I do need one.
I've proven many times that I'm just no good on my own.

We pride ourselves on making informed decisions and bare our teeth if anyone dares tell us what to do with our own bodies.
But sometimes, even informed decisions can have devastating, heartbreaking consequences...

Anyone remember Thalidomide?
Thalidomide was chiefly sold and prescribed during the late 1950s and early 1960s to pregnant women, as an antiemetic to combat morning sickness and as an aid to help them sleep

Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children in Africa and Europe were born with severe malformities, including phocomelia, because their mothers had taken thalidomide during pregnancy.
The Australian obstetrician William McBride discovered the link between birth defects and the drug, and was awarded a medal and prize money by the prestigious L'Institut de la Vie in Paris.
The impact in the United States was minimized when Frances Oldham Kelsey refused FDA-approval for an application from Richardson Merrell to market it saying it needed more study. Richardson Merrell gave the tablets to doctors with the understanding that it was still under investigation. 17 children in the U.S. were born with the defects.
In 1962, the United States Congress enacted laws requiring tests for safety during pregnancy before a drug can receive approval for sale in the U.S. Other countries enacted similar legislation, and thalidomide was not prescribed or sold for decades.

You can spend hours reading about this drug and it's subsequent impact on the FDA, as well as other laws in the U.S. and abroad.

One article:
The Evolution of U.S. Drug Law

The stories available on this topic, from survivors and their families, will leave you in tears.

My point is, we can't always see the consequences of our actions, no matter how well intentioned.
FDA, FTA, CLO, etc... love 'em or hate 'em, the reasons for them are valid.
I don't want to live in a police state, but like I mentioned earlier... sometimes I'm just no good on my own.

 

[New Year quitter]

Okay, we agree not to argue the absurd. Neither extreme is desirable and England has swung out of balance from what I read. (America is getting there, but we're still not the nanny state England is fast becoming.)

I do know I expect my government (the nanny in your analogy) to provide prudent protection for me, her charge. Certainly we expect to be protected from the potentially harmful actions of others, but many draw the line at protecting us from what are seen as irresponsible individual actions: ie, smoking. It's a matter of personal choice, we argue.

I do, too. Tobacco is a legal product. If I choose, with full knowledge, to use it, that's my choice and I must live with the consequences, if any. But it hasn't been prohibited, so I have that choice. What I don't have is the right to expose others publicly to my smoking. The action and consequences of tobacco smoking must be mine alone.

There is great truth to this statement: Your right to smoke ends at my nose.

And well it should. That's for the public well being, and it trumps personal desire. No one should have to suffer your stinky smoke exhalations or side-stream smoke in a public location. This conclusion has now become law in most countries. Do as you wish -- but not in the presence of others.

In my area, we have a harsh new law passed this past year to squash noise from vehicle audio systems. Surely we're all familiar with the bolt-shaking bass boom sounds and vulgar "lyrics" coming from some cars. No more. If the sound is audible 75 feet from the car, the offender gets a ticket. The argument that passed the law: Your right to play music at a volume of your choosing ends at my ear.

The council vote was unanimous to muffle the boom boys. Public considerations trump individual desires.

But where do you draw the line? Alcohol causes most of the violence in society, especially amongst young men and battered wives, plus there's drinking and driving. So alcohol effects people other than the user.

So as a teetotaler (me) what gives people the right to effect me with their alcohol consumption? As a non drinker is it right that I have to be effected by binge drinking - a huge problem in England that makes the streets uninhabitable after dark.

As for England 'becoming' a nanny state, we're already there dude.

 

[TribbleTrouble]

I worry too about the government getting involved with this whole e-cigarette phenomenon. The puritans will ban anything that resembles drug use. For some reason all recreational drug use is considered immoral. I've never understood this and I never will. It's as if they think pleasure should be banned.

Whatever. They can outlaw sales of e-cigs and liquid but in order to stop vaping they would have to stop the sale of tobacco (or anything else containing nicotine), vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol, (and probably other chemicals) and anything that produces heat. Oh, and batteries and/or electricity.

They can't stop it. In the USA they have already lost the battle against pot, they will lose this one too.

I think there is something in what xpdx said. They sell water pipes (Bongs) in head shops without any directions for use or anything to put in them. They never state anything about what they should be used for, they just sell them and you have to figure it out. Maybe the only way we will be able to keep our gear is for the industry to go in that direction. Separate the equipment from the liquid. Let all of the scrutiny be put on the e-liquid itself. Sell the gear without prefilled carts or bottles of e-liquid. Don't make any statements about how people should use them. I would be fine with that, because I can make my own liquid, I just can't make my own equipment.

 

[TribbleTrouble]

...........

 

[Lithium1330]

I think there is something in what xpdx said. They sell water pipes (Bongs) in head shops without any directions for use or anything to put in them. They never state anything about what they should be used for, they just sell them and you have to figure it out. Maybe the only way we will be able to keep our gear is for the industry to go in that direction. Separate the equipment from the liquid. Let all of the scrutiny be put on the e-liquid itself. Sell the gear without prefilled carts or bottles of e-liquid. Don't make any statements about how people should use them. I would be fine with that, because I can make my own liquid, I just can't make my own equipment.

Actually by law you can't sell drug paraphernalia, for sale bongs you must to make a disclaimer that it is for "tobacco use only" nobody can sell bongs and marijuana T-shirt in the same place for example, but because the bongs can be used for a legal purpose like somoking tobacco then the gov't can't just ban them, of course separate the liquid from the device can help a lot, but with "cigarette" in the name of the device it can be something hard to do, a personal vaporizer that can be used to vaporize liquid for aromatherapy may have been better (you could use it with nic, just don't tell anybody) Urban Dictionary: for tobacco use only

 

[TribbleTrouble]

Actually by law you can't sell drug paraphernalia, for sale bongs you must to make a disclaimer that it is for "tobacco use only" nobody can sell bongs and marijuana T-shirt in the same place for example, but because the bongs can be used for a legal purpose like somoking tobacco then the gov't can't just ban them, of course separate the liquid from the device can help a lot, but with "cigarette" in the name of the device it can be something hard to do, a personal vaporizer that can be used to vaporize liquid for aromatherapy may have been better (you could use it with nic, just don't tell anybody) Urban Dictionary: for tobacco use only

I don't even think that the company or individuals who make water pipes even mention "Tobacco Use Only". The only people that might say that are the head shop owners. They sell them to the shop owners legally because they make zero claims about what they are or how they are used. If the manufacturers change the name to "Personal Water Vaporizer" or just "Vaporizer", and don't provide any liquids to actually put in it or directions on how to use it, then I wouldn't see why there should still be FDA issues with it. That way, all of the FDA focus would have to fall on the liquid. That is where the Nicotine is.

 

[Lithium1330]

Of course that was my point, the "cigarette" part in the name dosn't help... well it helps to sale, but in long term that name only gonna carry troubles as well as the design, not just with FDA but with antis.

I was just saying that by law the bongs should not be selled for ilegal drugs, so they just claim it is for tobacco and that way can't be banned because tobacco is not hard regulated, if this devices had been sold as personal vaporizers for aromatherapy then they hadn't had so many problems, but in that case who had bought them?

 

[j_royall]

"Well, they roped off all of my problems and pointed their fingers at addiction,
Cuz they know if you're doing the pointing, nobody's looking at you,
But you know this war on drugs is funded by the tobacco and alcohol commisions,
It's not what drugs you're strung out on they care about as much as whose."
- Todd Snider

Damn right. Nobody cares if you're addicted to something. They just want to make sure you're paying THEM for your addiction.