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).
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."
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.
A list of intellectual jokes. I giggled at the Merkel one.cartesiandaemonJuly 7 2013, 11:30:35 UTC
Likewise. I think that's a good example of a joke which is perpetuating a stereotype by referencing it (so I'm a bit uncomfortable with it), but not endorsing it (so I don't think it's inherently racist).
I read that entire article about depicting vaginas with a serious feeling of WTF. The entire article was about depicting vulvas, not vaginas. Then at the end he offers up some bullshit apology that he knows he used the wrong word, but he did it for clarity.
Again, he used the wrong word for the sake of clarity.
I keep reading and rereading the 100 Most FAQs and giggling. It's so true!!! I have a pidly amount of experience in IT really, but it's still so, so true.
I'm intrigued by this game about female masturbation. Thanks! (though oh man, that logo)
Comments 20
Reply
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).
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
Again, he used the wrong word for the sake of clarity.
No. This is not using language right.
Reply
I'm intrigued by this game about female masturbation. Thanks! (though oh man, that logo)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment