A new product for smokers

[kourama]

I came up with a new product for smokers. It looks exaclty like a cigarette, and it lights the same. The only difference is that it kills you in about 30 seconds.

Of course, the package will contain all the legally required warning labels.

I figure 30 years, or 30 seeconds, what's the diff?

If the government decides that I shouldn't sell such a prodcut, then they'd be forced to explain why regular cigarretes are allowed and not my "Instant Satisfaction (tm)" cigarettes.

I could also get the Catholic corporation involved. They could bless the package or something, and by smoking one of them, you'd be agreeing to a binding contract that commits your soul to the Catholics.

Ah, the possibilities...

[Tricky]

How did you manage to cram 30 years of "smoking enjoyment" into 30 seconds?

[Tmy]

Its not like Phillip Morris wants smokers to die. Why would cigarette companies want to kill their customers? It's not intentional. If they coudl deliver the same product without the whole cancer side effect than they would.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tricky
How did you manage to cram 30 years of "smoking enjoyment" into 30 seconds?

I can tell someone here has never been to "Flavor Country."

[Tony]

Originally posted by kourama
I came up with a new product for smokers. It looks exaclty like a cigarette, and it lights the same. The only difference is that it kills you in about 30 seconds.

Of course, the package will contain all the legally required warning labels.

I figure 30 years, or 30 seeconds, what's the diff?

If the government decides that I shouldn't sell such a prodcut, then they'd be forced to explain why regular cigarretes are allowed and not my "Instant Satisfaction (tm)" cigarettes.

I could also get the Catholic corporation involved. They could bless the package or something, and by smoking one of them, you'd be agreeing to a binding contract that commits your soul to the Catholics.

Ah, the possibilities...

Whats next? The pizza that causes a heart attack in 20 mins.? The beer that causes alcoholism with one sip?

C'mon dude, this is stupid.

[kourama]

Originally posted by Tony


Whats next? The pizza that causes a heart attack in 20 mins.? The beer that causes alcoholism with one sip?

C'mon dude, this is stupid.

YEAH! Now you're thinking! Heh. :D

Of course, it's not a direct parallel, since eating a pizza doesn't make your spouse fat and drinking a beer doesn't get your kids drunk...

Its not like Phillip Morris wants smokers to die.

True. I just think the government's lines are drawn a little arbitrarily, that was the point of the satire here.

Using the product properly leads to death, I find that kinda funny.


I can tell someone here has never been to "Flavor Country."

I was very fortunate in that the first and last thing I ever tried to smoke was a "Century Sam" cigar in high-school. I could never have fathomed how sick that would make me. Never went near a tobacco product since.

[Tmy]

Not everyone who smokes comes down with lung cancer.

Does anyoen else have a problem with these "truth.org" anti smoking commercials. They dont seem to be all that truthful. Or worse, those silly anti-pot commercials. They are laughable.

[JeffR]

I was thinking about this after reading that other smoking thread. What would be wrong with developing a nicotine inhaler or some other delivery system that lets people get their nicotine fix without all the health and public nusiance effects? I don't see any technical obstacles, and think it could be done relatively cheaply.

I suspect the FDA wouldn't go for it, but I'm not sure why. Maybe because it would mean admitting that nicotine is a mood altering recreational drug. There would probably be lots of legislative resistance because you couldn't use the excuse that it's a public health problem to tax it.

So smokers, if you could get your nicotine fix this way rather than smoking, would you? If not, why?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by kourama



Using the product properly leads to death, I find that kinda funny.




Living leads to death.;)

[Mel]

Originally posted by JeffR
I was thinking about this after reading that other smoking thread. What would be wrong with developing a nicotine inhaler or some other delivery system that lets people get their nicotine fix without all the health and public nusiance effects? I don't see any technical obstacles, and think it could be done relatively cheaply.

I suspect the FDA wouldn't go for it, but I'm not sure why. Maybe because it would mean admitting that nicotine is a mood altering recreational drug. There would probably be lots of legislative resistance because you couldn't use the excuse that it's a public health problem to tax it.

So smokers, if you could get your nicotine fix this way rather than smoking, would you? If not, why?

Nicotine is already found in patches and gum but with the express purpose as a quitting aid.

It IS an interesting idea.... just to see how the HMO's would jump on the 'bash smokers bandwagon' and declare that smokers have no right to use nicotine for sheer "pleasure."

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by JeffR

So smokers, if you could get your nicotine fix this way rather than smoking, would you? If not, why?

'Smoking' Is a lot more than an addiction to nicotine. If it was just the nicotine, it would no longer be a problem, since, as others have pointed out, other forms of nicotine are available.

It involves a lot of the same elements of other ' compulsive obsessive ' behavior/disorders.

[kourama]

JeffR: hmmmm. If you can get the same nicotine fix from a patch, you could avoid the stigma of being a "smoker".

Maybe it's the psychological gratification of sucking on them or something?

Not everyone who smokes comes down with lung cancer.


Not everyone who buys a lottery ticket loses. Not every guess a psychic makes is wrong.

What's the point? If my cigarrettes don't kill every person within thirty seconds, just, say 60% of them, then does that change anything?

I have seen some dopey anti-smoking commercials. I think the tobacco companies, when they settled their court cases, forced the litigants to agree not to run certain kinds of anti-smoking ads. Ironically enough, the one's they can't use are the most effective. I saw something about it on 60 minutes at some point.

Tried pot. Twice. I am one of those lucky individuals who don't seem to be affected by it, at least, not at the dosage I received. I remember my mum telling me that when she was a girl she was immune to the cocaine that the dentists used to use at that time. (This was in the U.K., by the way).

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mel


Nicotine is already found in patches and gum but with the express purpose as a quitting aid.

It IS an interesting idea.... just to see how the HMO's would jump on the 'bash smokers bandwagon' and declare that smokers have no right to use nicotine for sheer "pleasure."

Weren't (are?) some of the nicotine ' stop smoking ' products available only by prescription?

That's realy ironic, huh?:confused:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by kourama


What's the point? If my cigarrettes don't kill every person within thirty seconds, just, say 60% of them, then does that change anything?




What is your point?

[JeffR]

Silly me. I thought nicotine gums and patches were prescription only, but I see they're available over the counter.

$28 for 48 pieces of Nicorette gum at drugstore.com. They suggest chewing between 12 pieces minimum and 30 maximum at first, so maybe it costs about $10 to $15 a day. I don't know what cigarettes cost now days but I didn't think they were that expensive.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by JeffR
Silly me. I thought nicotine gums and patches were prescription only, but I see they're available over the counter.

$28 for 48 pieces of Nicorette gum at drugstore.com. They suggest chewing between 12 pieces minimum and 30 maximum at first, so maybe it costs about $10 to $15 a day. I don't know what cigarettes cost now days but I didn't think they were that expensive.



The idea is that you will quit smoking and not chew nicotine gum the rest of your life...

The savings in that case would be considerable...

[kourama]

Originally posted by Diogenes


What is your point?

Well my point originally was that if a product that kills you if used properly is legal, then does it matter how long it takes to kill you? If so, then what logic determines the length of time? If not, then my fictional product could and should be just as legal as cigarettes.

[Tony]

Originally posted by kourama


Well my point originally was that if a product that kills you if used properly is legal, then does it matter how long it takes to kill you?


The fallacy in your whole line of thought is that cig. smoking doesnt kill EVERYBODY that smokes.

[JeffR]

kourama, all you gotta do is make your fictional product so that the user has the same odds of dying from using it as he would from habitually smoking cigarettes.

[Tony]

Originally posted by JeffR
kourama, all you gotta do is make your fictional product so that the user has the same odds of dying from using it as he would from habitually smoking cigarettes.

That product already exists, its called GHB.

[Scorpy]

How about this product for anti-smokers. It consists of a plastic bag and a piece of string. The user puts the bag over his/her head, pulling the opening down around the neck, then the string is tied around the neck and bag sealing the bag air-tight.
There you have it - No more need to worry about second-hand smoke.

[Baker]

Originally posted by kourama
I came up with a new product for smokers. It looks exaclty like a cigarette, and it lights the same. The only difference is that it kills you in about 30 seconds.

Of course, the package will contain all the legally required warning labels.

I figure 30 years, or 30 seeconds, what's the diff?

If the government decides that I shouldn't sell such a prodcut, then they'd be forced to explain why regular cigarretes are allowed and not my "Instant Satisfaction (tm)" cigarettes.

I could also get the Catholic corporation involved. They could bless the package or something, and by smoking one of them, you'd be agreeing to a binding contract that commits your soul to the Catholics.

Ah, the possibilities...


Well that’s odd I have known people who have smoked for over 50 years and are quite healthy.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by kourama
I came up with a new product for smokers. It looks exaclty like a cigarette, and it lights the same. The only difference is that it kills you in about 30 seconds.

Of course, the package will contain all the legally required warning labels.

I figure 30 years, or 30 seeconds, what's the diff?

We all die in a hundred years.

I figure 100 years or 100 seconds, what's the diff? Why not just kill any newborn?

Kourama, I don't smoke, but I see an enormous difference between living 30 years longer or die now. Don't you? If not, why don't you just stop now and save the cost of staying alive? :p

[a_unique_person]

Was it "Waiting for Godot" that had the line about life being like a women astride a grave giving birth?

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Was it "Waiting for Godot" that had the line about life being like a women astride a grave giving birth?
Speed the film up really fast and you are right. :D :D :D

[fishbob]

The fallacy in your whole line of thought is that cig. smoking doesnt kill EVERYBODY that smokes.
Shooting yourself in the head with a 357 magnum is not 100% guaranteed to kill you either. The only difference is the odds. OK the two differences are the odds, and that you annoy more people by smoking. And the cig companies make a fortune off you.

Most people would say the 357 option is a bad risk. Some people say the cig option is a bad risk, others think it is OK. If you make an informed choice to take the risk, I guess that is OK. If you choose without full knowledge of the consequences, for either option, it is very hard to change your mind later.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by kourama


Well my point originally was that if a product that kills you if used properly is legal, then does it matter how long it takes to kill you? If so, then what logic determines the length of time? If not, then my fictional product could and should be just as legal as cigarettes.

O.K.. Point understood..

As a few have pointed out, it does seem to matter to some people whether they live 30 seconds or 30 years...


I hope Shemp doesn't see this.. Sounds like the basis for a poll...

[Tmy]

If second hand smoke is so bad, how come no one gets addicted to it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tmy
If second hand smoke is so bad, how come no one gets addicted to it.

Because the nicotine level is not sufficient.. And because the addiction is more complex than the craving for nicotine.
This is apparent from the fact that having a supply of nicotine, is more often than not, ineffective in curbing the desire to
inhale the smoke from a burning tobacco product.

Anyway, smoking is not bad for you because it is addictive..

It is bad for you and addictive..

[Ladyhawk]

Kourama:

I'm a reformed smoker and let me tell you, it is without question one of the most difficult things I've ever done. And, believe me...no matter how long you've quit, you still get cravings. I think I'll have them for the rest of my life.

What bothers me about these discussions is what appears to be the total, complete disdain that non-smokers hold toward smokers. You gotta remember that, back in the day when I started smoking, it was completely and socially acceptable! Then, one day the Surgeon General announces that it's not a good thing. Next, smokers are bad people. Second hand smoke, et al.

I loved what former "drug czar" William Bennett said a few years ago...I may not have this quote exactly, but it's pretty close:

"If only this administration were as intolerant of drugs as it is of smoking"

And, don't kid yourself. My drinking a beer may not make YOU fat, but depending on how many I drink and what part of the road you and I travel that night, I could make you very dead.

Given that example, why aren't people as intolerant of alcohol as they are cigarettes? Alcohol cripples, maims and kills, distorts decision making ability....what's the difference, do you think?

:confused:

[kourama]

Originally posted by Bjorn
We all die in a hundred years.

I figure 100 years or 100 seconds, what's the diff? Why not just kill any newborn?

Kourama, I don't smoke, but I see an enormous difference between living 30 years longer or die now. Don't you? If not, why don't you just stop now and save the cost of staying alive? :p

Personal choice is the difference here. Newborns can't make decisions.

Knowing that the product can kill you with a certain statistic regularity is the parallel.

Of course, the same applies to driving a car, or taking a bath, but what exactly are you selling in a cigarette? Pleasure? I dunno.

Well that’s odd I have known people who have smoked for over 50 years and are quite healthy

Sure, and I know soldiers who survived front-line battles. Smoking is one part of the big picture. There are genetics, lifestyle and luck to consider when working out the possibility of death. So, let's add a statistical characteristic to the product.

Each of these fictional cigarettes has a probability of killing you in 30 seconds, that, if applied with the regularity of smoking a regular cigarette, over time gives you the same odds of constributing to your death.

[heath]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

What bothers me about these discussions is what appears to be the total, complete disdain that non-smokers hold toward smokers.
[/b]

In my experience it's reactionary. If people constantly pissed against my leg while I was at pubs or restaurants I'd distain them a bit for that too. Especially if they were constantly saying "it's not harming you" like smokers do. Or "there's a no pissing section" where the growing puddles of pee could freely wash over my shoes but I'm meant to be thankful that it isn't down the side of my trousers.

The habitual littering of smokers gets me too. I work for a big company with a good reputation and am expected to act in a manner that befits my role. I am really exasperated by people that smoke outside my building (we own the whole thing so it's not people from other companies doing this) and throw their butts on the ground. I can't complain because the global head of my division is one of them...

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

And, don't kid yourself. My drinking a beer may not make YOU fat, but depending on how many I drink and what part of the road you and I travel that night, I could make you very dead.

Given that example, why aren't people as intolerant of alcohol as they are cigarettes? Alcohol cripples, maims and kills, distorts decision making ability....what's the difference, do you think?

:confused: [/B]

Because my drinking a beer doesn't get you drunk. If I then drive a car or cause a fight while pissed that is not the same as being a danger to you simply by drinking in your presence. I am always surprised by people that claim not to get the distinction.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Tmy
If second hand smoke is so bad, how come no one gets addicted to it.

No one gets addicted to power plant effluent either. :rolleyes:

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by heath


Because my drinking a beer doesn't get you drunk. If I then drive a car or cause a fight while pissed that is not the same as being a danger to you simply by drinking in your presence. I am always surprised by people that claim not to get the distinction.

Actually, I think you're making my point for me. You're drinking a beer doesn't get ME drunk, true. But, I am still endangered because you could be anywhere ...on the road, especially. If I stand next to a smoker, at least I have the opportunity to identify him/her as such and move away. However, I can't always tell who has had too much to drink and may pose a threat to my safety...you see what I'm getting at?

[heath]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Actually, I think you're making my point for me. You're drinking a beer doesn't get ME drunk, true. But, I am still endangered because you could be anywhere ...on the road, especially. If I stand next to a smoker, at least I have the opportunity to identify him/her as such and move away. However, I can't always tell who has had too much to drink and may pose a threat to my safety...you see what I'm getting at?

Drinking and then driving are 2 actions that in combination may result in danger to others. BOTH are required to be a danger (and both together do not guarantee a danger). Smoking is a danger in itself (equivalent to any airborne pollution).

That is why drinking and driving has always been illegal (at least in my lifetime) because of the risk it poses. That is also why smoking in public is becoming increasingly illegal...

[Tmy]

Originally posted by NightG1


No one gets addicted to power plant effluent either. :rolleyes:

What i mean is that you hear that 2nd hand smoke kills X amount of people a year. How do they figure that out? If 2nd hand smoke is so powerful wouldnt you get addicted to it.

I dont see it as a health issue as much as a nusance issue. No one is stopping you from smoking. Just do it outside instead of in my face while Im eating. Why should my clothes stink like cigarettes. If i threw beer on you should i be "ah well, you chose a restraunt where there's beer."

[fidiot]

Originally posted by Tmy
Does anyoen else have a problem with these "truth.org" anti smoking commercials. They dont seem to be all that truthful.

You'll like this ---> Click here (http://www.labproductions.com/news/Stories/2002/07/29/102797863218.shtml).

[heath]

Originally posted by Tmy


What i mean is that you hear that 2nd hand smoke kills X amount of people a year. How do they figure that out? If 2nd hand smoke is so powerful wouldnt you get addicted to it.



re adicted to 2nd hand smoke: see the earlier comment from somehone else. No is the short answer.

below is in answer to your first 2 sentences.


That's actually a tough one. The results that X (whatever it is) people die from second hand smoke is hotly contested.

It's one of these probable rather than definite statistical things that leaves people enough room to let their bias affect which way they lean on it. It's difficult to prove conclusively because of confounding factors (like everybody is genetically different, has different lifestyles, etc) that make it quite difficult to tease out effects this small (yes small - after all only a small fraction of smokers die as a direct result of smoking, an unknown number get sick, live shorter lives etc, very messy stuff to prove conclusively). It's also a politically (economically) hot point as well, leading to lobby groups and research teams who actively try to discredit any negative research, publicity etc for economic rather than purely search-for-knowlege reasons - that doesn't happen (to the same extent) for other forms of air pollutions with similarly suble effects.

For me an easy distinction is:
Drinking beer increases your chances of getting X cancer by Y amount. But I like to drink.
Eating barbequed food increases your chances of getting M cancer by N amount. But I like BBQ, I'm australian (see drinking)
Being exposed to 2nd hand smoke increases your chance of getting A cancer by B amount. But I hate cigarette smoke...

It's ok if it's my choice.


Originally posted by Tmy

I dont see it as a health issue as much as a nusance issue. No one is stopping you from smoking. Just do it outside instead of in my face while Im eating. Why should my clothes stink like cigarettes. If i threw beer on you should i be "ah well, you chose a restraunt where there's beer."

Yeah. The nuisance issue is more easily quantified. I go to a bar - my eyes sting, I cough, I go home stinking of smoke. Easy.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by heath
[B]

Drinking and then driving are 2 actions that in combination may result in danger to others. BOTH are required to be a danger (and both together do not guarantee a danger). Smoking is a danger in itself (equivalent to any airborne pollution).[B/]

That is why drinking and driving has always been illegal (at least in my lifetime) because of the risk it poses. That is also why smoking in public is becoming increasingly illegal...

[I] Regarding point # 1. Not true necessarily. Either can be, in and of itself, dangerous. Tolerances to alcohol vary among individuals, so, one drink for one person can have the same effect as six for someone else. An inexperienced driver is dangerous; under the effects of alcohol, he/she is even more so.

Regarding point # 2. Agreed. But, you're still not answering my question. Why do smokers get harassed more than drinkers? When is the last time you heard someone say, "Hey, Joe's beatin' up the old lady again..he's had one too many smokes.." Alcohol is in greater use among teenagers than cigarettes. How many times have you heard about "binge smoking" on college campuses?

I'm not making light of your points; they're valid. And, as I've said, I'm a reformed smoker. But, I know how tough it is to quit, particularly when chided by well meaning folks who lecture on the adverse effects of your behavior on their health when you know they get wasted every weekend and jeopardize themselves, their families and others... why isn't society as worked up about that???[I/]

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I'm not making light of your points; they're valid. And, as I've said, I'm a reformed smoker. But, I know how tough it is to quit, particularly when chided by well meaning folks who lecture on the adverse effects of your behavior on their health when you know they get wasted every weekend and jeopardize themselves, their families and others... why isn't society as worked up about that?

For the same reason society doesn't get worked up over automobile drivers not wearing crash helmets as they do about motorcycle drivers, even though it would save thousands of more lives.

I'ts a large group of people forcing their percieved solution, to a problem, created by a small group of people.

Antismoking did not gain much headway until the smokers became a significantly smaller portion of the adult population.

A large majority of the adult population are occasional drinkers, and do not want to rock a boat, that might find them under pressure to give up, or severely restrict their ability to drink at will.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Diogenes


For the same reason society doesn't get worked up over automobile drivers not wearing crash helmets as they do about motorcycle drivers, even though it would save thousands of more lives.

I'ts a large group of people forcing their percieved solution, to a problem, created by a small group of people.



Dont forget a strong lobby! There are many states that have no cycle helmet laws yet they have mandatory seatbelt laws. Makes no sense. Unless you throw in a strong motorcycle lobby.

[kourama]

I'm a reformed smoker and let me tell you, it is without question one of the most difficult things I've ever done. And, believe me...no matter how long you've quit, you still get cravings. I think I'll have them for the rest of my life.

I didn't mean to imply disdain for smokers. The target of the satire is the attitude that a deadly product is OK, if the death is spread out over many years. It seems silly.

Not to seem impertinent, but, I remember ads for condoms when AIDS was everyone's biggest fear that went along the lines of "No one ever died of embarassment"; couldn't you also argue "Quitting smoking is easier than dying of cancer"....or am I stretching it here?

related anecdote: I have asthma, and when my parents would smoke in our tiny little renault-5 with the windows rolled up when I was a kid, I came close to puking on many occasions. I would bitch and moan and complain and cough, but my parents would just get tired of hearing it. They quit smoking many years ago. Recently my father was riding in a truck with an acquaintance who was a heavy smoker, and he told me it was agony. He imagined what it must have been like for me as a kid, and he was on the verge of tears when he apologized for it. Of course, I'd forgotten all about it. Anyway, I guess he did his pennance.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by kourama


I didn't mean to imply disdain for smokers. The target of the satire is the attitude that a deadly product is OK, if the death is spread out over many years. It seems silly.

Not to seem impertinent, but, I remember ads for condoms when AIDS was everyone's biggest fear that went along the lines of "No one ever died of embarassment"; couldn't you also argue "Quitting smoking is easier than dying of cancer"....or am I stretching it here?

No offense taken. I guess I just went off tangent a bit...(but, I wasn't alone! Honest! They made me follow them....)

Anyway, as for quitting smoking being easier than dying of cancer, I'm sure it is. But, I gotta admit, I still have days when I wonder.

Guess I'll go have a smoke and give it some thought ;) :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by kourama
....couldn't you also argue "Quitting smoking is easier than dying of cancer"....or am I stretching it here?


"... stretching it?"
Semantically, definitely....


Choosing to smoke in the face of certain( even if it were.. certain..) death may be irrational, but ' easier ', seems to be a poor choice of words.

It is a lot easier to die than it is to choose any number of irrational alternatives.

I suspect you are not a former smoker.

To say that quitting (smoking) is ' easier ' than anything, does not sound like the voice of experience.

[kourama]

Originally posted by Diogenes


<snippity-doo-dah>

I suspect you are not a former smoker.

To say that quitting (smoking) is ' easier ' than anything, does not sound like the voice of experience.

True 'nuff.

hmmm. I wonder....if quality of life is more important than quantity of life, then could an argument be made that smoking makes your life better if shorter?

Choosing to smoke in the face of certain( even if it were.. certain..) death may be irrational, but ' easier ', seems to be a poor choice of words.


OK, how about "Quitting smoking is easier than curing cancer."

no...'easier' is the problem. Oooh! How about:

"No one ever smoked out a tumour".

ick. these sound really awful.

[Bjorn]

Personal choice is the difference here. Newborns can't make decisions.It wouldn't matter. They would be dead in 100 years anyhow.

So, '100 seconds or a hundred years, what's the diff'?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by kourama
.... snip

Personal choice is the difference here. Newborns can't make decisions.



Thanks Bjorn, I was looking for that quote... I had wanted to comment...


I would have to say that anyone who is blowing smoke into the face of a newborn, if it is their own, is probably giving us the benefit of a little gene pool skimming..:D