Interesting Links for 07-07-2013

[andrewducker]

• Sharefest - peer-to-peer sharing with just your friends. Worked perfectly between me and Julie.
  (tags: filesharing p2p )
• Harry Potter | The War (stupid HP fanvids making me feel all emotional)
  (tags: harrypotter video )
• E-cigarettes: Is a smoking alternative being choked by regulation?
  (tags: cigarettes nicotine europe regulation )
• 100 Most

Comments

[bart_calendar]

Yeah, the way the anti-smoking people are reacting to e-cigarettes is insane (and the reason I'm not trying e-cigarettes yet

[steer]

I sympathise with your view point here.

On the other hand, the idea that Joe Quack can set up, manufacture and legally sell a device which will allow people to inhale whatever he puts into it and that's just fine seems a bit whacko. The alveoli are a pretty damned effective way of transferring any chemical to the bloodstream -- which is why so many drugs are inhaled in smoke. I'd just want some kind of basic quality assurance on these things and that means some kind of regulation.

Something in me says that when it comes to devices which transfer chemicals to the bloodstream "cheapest possible to market wins" isn't a sufficient safety regime.

I've no sympathy for the "ooh, not in public" or "fruity flavours will encourage children" crowd (FFS, condoms come in fruity flavours -- nobody's banning them because it encourages children).

[bart_calendar]

Oh, I'm in favor of regulating them to make sure they are safe. I'm responding to the very strong efforts in the EU to make them illegal to use in bars, airplanes, etc.... because it simply smacks of not "well, smoking will kill you" but "we just don't like smokers."

[steer]

It does smack of "just for the sake of it".

I can see why the British Medical Association has jumped the way it has... they spent years getting the death toll from smoking down and it wasn't easy.

We'll see -- I imagine (for once) in the UK they will gather some evidence before acting as there's good evidence that these things are helping people quit smoking and hence actually saving lives.

[bart_calendar]

My prediction is that there is so much anti-smoking paranoia that they will create laws which will completely cancel out the point of e-cigs and they will die.

I mean, the best pitch possible for e-cigs is "never have to step out of the pub into the rain again to smoke and never have horrible nicotine cravings on a long flight again." If you remove those selling points you kill the product.

[steer]

Apparently you can't use them on planes anyway in a lot of places. Of course since it's vapour not smoke the ban is easily circumvented as they're not going to set off a smoke alarm.

In this country I don't think you do kill the product because there's enough people who genuinely want to quit and can't to make a market even if it's inconvenient to use them. (Nobody is buying nicotine patches because you can wear them in the pub... they're buying nicotine patches because they want to quit smoking).

[bart_calendar]

And the whole "it will re-normalize smoking" thing really gets my goat. Hey, us smokers are willing to stop setting leaves on fire and blowing smoke in your face if you simply let us use this devices - and these people won't even accept that compromise. If anything their stance will make sure that more people smoke, more often and for longer periods of time.

[steer]

If anything their stance will make sure that more people smoke, more often and for longer periods of time.

Depends doesn't it? If e-cigarettes do lead to people going "hey, this nicotine is OK... guess I should try me the real stuff" then not banning them will lead to more people smoking more often. I doubt that is the case but time will tell.

Right now they're causing people to quit smoking.

[anton_p_nym]

My main complaint about cigarettes is the smoke; I'm allergic, and experience asthma-like symptoms when exposed. (Curiously, I experience worse symptoms from marijuana smoke; dunno why.) It's been remarkably effective at keeping me from smoking... and it's made me one of those folks complaining. I like breathing. It feels nice. I don't like not breathing, or breathing through slime-clogged drinking straws.

E-cigs don't float my boat, but they don't bug me either. I have no problem with someone wanting to steam nicotine into themselves if that's their poison of choice (mine's alcohol) because it doesn't affect me in the least. But spite-smoking is just farting-in-the-elevator rude.

-- Steve's also annoyed by smokers who apparently take great delight in standing upwind of bus stops before lighting up, or lighting up in confined public spaces.

[chess]

I fucking hate second-hand smoke, I don't care if it has long-term health consequences or not, it has short-term health consequences where I have to go and have a coughing fit and it puts me off my food. I therefore love the smoking ban. (I have the same problem walking next to heavy traffic sometimes, but usually that's diffuse enough not to set me off.)

I also love e-cigs, because being around them is just fine (the most I have noticed is quite a pleasant aroma from one variety). If people could smoke e-cigs instead of actual burning things I would be totally okay with them doing it wherever they felt like doing it. I don't understand the e-cigs problem at all, apart from the 'durgs are baad' angle...

[marrog]

Erin has a really bad reaction to cigarette smoke. Her eyes start streaming, her sinuses clog up and she starts sniffling and having trouble breathing properly. Usually, outside this isn't such an issue but if she lands downwind of someone smoking, it's a fast and visible reaction.

I completely agree with your angle on e-cigs - I think the negative reaction is ridiculous too. But your attitude toward non-smokers and people who find smokers in confined (or semi-confined - a lot of outdoor beer gardens have awnings and walls that trap smoke almost as much as indoors) spaces to be problematic makes you sound like a grade A cunt.

[bart_calendar]

I spent the last 20 years asking people, even strangers, if it was OK if I smoked. Even when it was cool in bars. Even today on cafe terraces before I light up I will ask everyone on the four terraces if they are cool. . And, anytime someone has said "I'm allergic" or even "it bothers me" I have not smoked

[marrog]

That's a bollocks argument. Find me one actual human being who is against e-cigs in principle. It sounds like weird health regs that are getting in the way for the most part. Yeah, there are moral panic types throwing their hands in the air, but honestly if there were no regulatory concerns I think that stuff would dissipate almost immediately in the face of the obvious advantages. Don't throw your toys out of the pram just 'cause you can't have what you want right this second. Honestly, what kind of an impatient, knee-jerk reactionary stance is that?

[bart_calendar]

One actual human being???

Jesus chist I see about 10 a night. Which is why bars won't let us smoke them in them.

[marrog]

Guess you should move to Scotland; I've never met or heard of anyone who objects to them 'til I read that article.

[nancylebov]

I get headaches from exposure to second hand smoke-- it takes a fair amount of time in a smokey room. I find it easy to believe that there are other people who are more vulnerable than I am.