OK. Sure. I'm an addict. All addicts deserve this treatment, I guess.
But what I -- and most other addicts I'd wager -- most object to is being treated like idiots.
We know.
We know smoking is bad.
It's expensive. It stinks. It burns holes in our clothes. It stains our teeth.
It makes us sick and if it doesn't kill us, will probably contribute to our deaths or long-term ill-health.
It may harm people around us, hence self-ostracization.
We know all that.
But we are addicted to nicotine.
We try to quit. Alternate nicotine delivery systems -- patches, gum -- have deficiencies of two main types.
1. They are not like smoking: no warmth, no fiddle-factor, no-"I'm having a break"-factor.
2. The nicotine dose is not adjustable to the user's mood and need.
The fiddle-factor is surmountable. The dosage problem is not so easy.
If I light a cigarette and decide I don't really want one now, I put it out.
If I put a patch on and immediately want to puke (which is what patches do to me), I rip it off.
If I light a cigarette and get involved in reading something and forget about the cigarette, it burns away.
If I chomp down on a piece of nicotine gum, get involved in reading something, forget about the gum and chomp down a few more times absent-mindedly, I want to puke (see above).
Enter e-cigs. Dosage is variable. With added fiddle-factor fun.
They're not perfect, but they are definitely a huge advance.
But guess who doesn't like e-cigs?
Big Pharma who wants to sell us patches and gum -- outrageously over-priced patches and gum.
And Big Tobacco who doesn't want us to quit smoking.
And Nanny Staters. Who, according to Sweetie, have an addiction problem of their own. They are addicted to telling others what to do.
Viz.
The optics of the e-cig concept: a controlled nicotine delivery system. Why would anyone expect that to be well received in the gen public?
— Dr. Brian Goldman (@NightShiftMD) August 26, 2014I don't watch much telly any more. But I remember ads with people smugly patting their upper arms: "I've got the patch." Did people go insane over that "optic"?
.@NightShiftMD Why not? It's way better than the nicotine patch that Big Pharma makes a ton of $. I can't use patch because of indigestion.
— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) August 26, 2014Oh but wait. Maybe patting the upper arm sends the "right message" whereas Nanny Staters worry about the "wrong message."
@AureliaCotta @fernhilldammit I don't disagree. But do billboards of famous people inhaling nic vapour send the right message?
— Dr. Brian Goldman (@NightShiftMD) August 26, 2014You mean like this?
From the same source, a succinct summary of the issue.
No matter how you feel about the product or the industry, electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco and lack virtually all of harmful chemicals found in cigarettes. THEY SHOULD NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS SUCH or be limited by the same harsh restrictions. So far, no adverse health effects have been associated with electronic cigarettes, yet the alcohol industry is responsible for at least 80,000 deaths each year and the media seems unconcerned about their marketing techniques. Most people acknowledge that kids should not have access to these devices, but comparing electronic cigarette companies to the tobacco industry of the past is not only unfair – it’s inaccurate. Electronic cigarettes help smokers quit and expose them to significantly less health risks. For now, consumers have a wide array of choices and full access to these products, but if the government, pharmaceutical and big tobacco companies have their way, that may be a thing of the past.
My succinct summary: Fuck right off, Nanny Staters.
ADDED: from Anonymous in the comments: UN doing Big Pharma's bidding. Again.
Study of second-hand effects of vapours. No apparent risk.
Added: deBeauxOs' response as a non-smoker:
No reply from Dr Goldman yet.
0 Yorumlar