The tobacco-less nicotine device mentioned in someone's earlier post is at http://www.modernvapor.com/aboutus.asp. I assume the product is not a hoax; you breathe in vaporized tobacco-less nicotine from a cigarrette-like device. That would better satisfy addiction than patches or gum; it would have minimal health consequences, so people who use it would not be taking money out of our pockets to pay for tobacco-related diseases.

Regarding complaints about the government losing tax money if tobacco were outlawed, the whole point of the tax is to pay for the cost to the public that tobacco usage incurs. That tax money is not magic money to pay for roads or police or other state duties: what smokers do to themselves (and others with second-hand smoke) costs us money. If there were no smoking, there would be no such expense, therefore no need for the tax money.

If it were outlawed, resulting in 0 tax money, we would gain because there would be no future tobacco costs. Only when all the smokers die out would there be no more public cost due to tobacco, and that would take decades. But having the tax perpetuates the disease and the expense: getting tax money today guarantees future expense from future illness.

Let's keep the addicts addicted, and tax the smokeless tobacco they get from modernvapor.com, and set the tax to diminish over time until all the "real" smokers have died out.

Ironic: my initial comment on this article was because of its factual inaccuracies.

send green star

In many ways I agree with you GEORGE B.

But - going one step further - let's ban ALL nicotine (smoking) products. That would be the ultimate solution. But - then the Governments wouldn't get their 40%+ tax from it all, would they ? Oh woe to them !!

This comment comes from a smoker - who knows ALL about the horrid addiction this actually is. I would LOVE to see it all banned - but I reckon the non-smokers would have a pink fit at what Governments would have to do THEIR hip pocket (taxes) to make up the shortfall in no more tax from smoking. hmmmm. Interesting - huh ?

send green star

I don't want to throw my two cents into this LONG discussion just say that most of the comments have brought up valid points, ones to mull over, and I am grateful to the posters.


George B, I esp. love your eloquently written comments and whole heartedly agree with what you believe.

send green star

The rest of my comment: [I guess it was too lengthy for Care2]--

[*The second thing I would do would be to use our armed forces, not to protect one group of desert nomads from another, but to seal off the borders of all the rainforests and prevent intrusion except by the occasional scientist.]

send green star

Dear Modern--

I have no argument with nicotine itself. It may actually have some benefits that outweigh the slight detrimental effect on the cardiovascular system. The lower incidence of Alzheimer's in smokers is clearly because of the nicotine. As far as the fact that it is addicting is concerned, I could live with that if the drug were delivered in a manner as innocuous as that of the product you provided a link to. It doesn't bother me that diabetics have to have their "fix" of insulin every day, nor would it bother me if someone used that particular product, if it is truly as described on that web site.

If snake-creatures from the star system Rigel were to land on earth and make me king, the first thing I would do* would be to outlaw all smoked and smokeless tobacco products; I would require all addicts to either quit or to use a pure nicotine product like the one you mentioned.

The tobacco industry for many decades actually funded research on analogs of tobacco (compounds similar to nicotine) and some of these analogs have been reported to make people feel good without any detrimental effects. Unfortunately, since these substances don't exist in nature, they would be classified as drugs and are, therefore, unavailable. We seem to have a built-in cultural bias against even considering the use of such substances.

[*The second thing I would do would be to use our armed forces, not to protect one group of desert nomads from another, but to seal off the borde

send green star

When I read this kind of article, I wonder how can people who have access to the Internet, magazines and TV still smoke. Also, cigarettes show the system at its best: it's OK to poison people, as long as it makes them get addicted and keep buying our products!

send green star

Again and again I see the pseudo-argument, "don't pick on us because there are other bad and more evil things" in the world. Are we supposed to ignore the burglars because there are murderers? On second thought, though, is tobacco use that innocuous?

In fact, tobacco use is extremely deadly: twenty times as many Americans die each year as the result of tobacco use than as the result of homicides. Five times as many Americans die as the result of tobacco use than as the result of alcohol use. Tobacco use kills more Americans each year than have all illegal drugs in our entire history. Tobacco use kills 150 times as many Americans each year than were killed in the 9/11 attack.

Worldwide, about 5 million people die each year as a result of tobacco use. That makes Hitler look like St. Theresa. Let's do something about it instead of just talking. Let's devote proper resources to eliminating this menace.

send green star

Nobody has mentioned the number of fires that smokers cause, or the deaths as a result of those fires, usually caused by smokers falling asleep while smoking. Could it be that nobody is concerned about smokers killing themselves more directly and immediately, as a result of fire, than killing themselves indirectly and years and years down the road, as a result of smoking diseases?

A separate issue that several commentators have touched on is the issue of the health hazard to companion animals. Tobacco smoke condenses on environmental surfaces, including animal fur and feathers. Animals that preen themselves, such as cats do to an extraordinary extent, absorb the tobacco smoke residue off of their fur. That residue is highly carcinogenic, which is why cats of smokers have such a high rate of malignant lymphoma. This is a different risk factor than that of inhaling the second hand smoke.

So not only can you not condone smoking if you value the sanctity of human life, but you cannot condone smoking if you value the sancity of your companion animals--your pets, your dogs, cats, birds, etc.

send green star

What we call "statistics" are commonly misunderstood. We cannot go up to anyone and say, you, sir, will get lung cancer if you start smoking or continue to smoke. We cannot say that you individually will die sooner and get this or that other disease as a result of smoking. We can say, when we look at hundreds of thousands of people, that it is just as certain as the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow that smokers--on average--are going to die a lot sooner and get more diseases; some will get lung cancer.

There are no recorded cases of lung cancer in medical history prior to the introduction of tobacco. There are other causes of it now, but the vast majority are still due to tobacco.

One of the most common excuses for allowing smoking is something like, "Aunt so-and-so lived to be a hundred and was never sick a day in her life and smoked 3 packs a day." Does the fact that some people survive gunshots mean that you should expose yourself to gunfire? I think not.

I gave my mother's graveside service and when I spoke, I specifically stated that I did not want the fact that she lived to be 82 despite smoking almost one million cigarettes to be used as an excuse by anyone for smoking. She suffered, but she would leave her oxygen to smoke a cigarette.

The damage caused by tobacco smoking is not just a matter of statistics: it can be reproduced in the laboratory on animals and cell cultures. If you value the sanctity of human life, you cannot condone smoking.

send green star

PLEASE!
STOP MAKING THEM FROM NOW ON!

That would't be the wisest decision ever!!!!

send green star