The FDA wants you to get cancer and die.

2009-04-20 13:00:07

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5595

https://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/HEALTH/03/13/ecigarettes.smoking/art.e.cigarette.cnn.jpg

This is an e-cigarette. It lights up on the end but it's not actually on fire. It's a small LED. There is no tobacco just pure nicotine liquid inside. The tube warms up the nicotine into vapor and you inhale the vapor and blow it out. It looks just like a light mist on it's way out.

Now Nicotine doesn't cause cancer, it's the tobacco that causes the cancer. Testing in Europe showed no side effects or risk. Awesome right? Not according to the FDA. They have been detaining any shipments of this stuff into the U.S. because they are unsure of the health risk. Seriously isn't anything really less dangerous then a cigarette? They would rather make you smoke cigarettes than smoke this alternative.

They want you to get lung cancer and die rather then try something new. Great right?

Fucking typo in title. Should be wants instead of wanys.

Last edited by Macbeth (2009-04-20 13:01:05)

2009-04-20 13:10:22

#2

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6503|N. Ireland

Macbeth wrote:
They want you to get lung cancer and die rather then try something new. Great right?

Here's a better idea: just don't smoke.

2009-04-20 13:12:41

#3

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5595

kylef wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
They want you to get lung cancer and die rather then try something new. Great right?
Here's a better idea: just don't smoke.

It calms my nerves and gives me something to do when bored. I like having something to relax myself from time to time.

2009-04-20 13:25:03

#4

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6691|Disaster Free Zone

My uncle has something like that.

2009-04-20 13:38:33

#5

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|5871

kylef wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
They want you to get lung cancer and die rather then try something new. Great right?
Here's a better idea: just don't smoke.

QFT

you smoke and get cancer, its the individuals fault

2009-04-20 13:40:44

#6

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5595

rammunition wrote:
kylef wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
They want you to get lung cancer and die rather then try something new. Great right?
Here's a better idea: just don't smoke.
QFT

you smoke and get cancer, its the individuals fault

Awesome, fuck having a slightly safer alternative on the market. Pff it's not like people have a right over their own bodies

2009-04-20 13:42:24

#7

Man With No Name: جندي; +148|5584|The Wild West

ill give you about a year before your realize how stupid this rant is

2009-04-20 13:42:34

#8

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|5871

Macbeth wrote:
rammunition wrote:
kylef wrote:

Here's a better idea: just don't smoke.
QFT

you smoke and get cancer, its the individuals fault
Awesome, fuck having a slightly safer alternative on the market. Pff it's not like people have a right over their own bodies

ok, the nicotine cigarette should be available, it is in Europe i think. im sure in America you can get nicotine chewing gum and patches. they still do the same thing in helping off smoking

2009-04-20 13:46:34

#9

motherdear: Member; +25|6661|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)

Macbeth wrote:
They want you to get lung cancer and die rather then try something new. Great right?

it's called testing and they are right to do it. imagine the scandal it would be for the FDA if this stuff was a health risk, let them run their tests and make sure it's safe enough for them to guaranty or come up with proof that they actually do have tests that clearly shows no health risks.
preferably i would like my own country to test the stuff before i'd use it, unless we actually had a shared medical approval agency for international approval, which i would approve off (imagine the savings it would make)

2009-04-20 13:48:59

#10

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6547|Long Island, New York

I saw them selling these or something like these in Florida. Interesting, to say the least..

The pharmaceutical industry is so corrupt...you have no idea. I've only heard the beginning of it all. For the rest, I prefer ignorance to be bliss.

2009-04-20 13:50:49

#11

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5595

motherdear wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
They want you to get lung cancer and die rather then try something new. Great right?
it's called testing and they are right to do it. imagine the scandal it would be for the FDA if this stuff was a health risk, let them run their tests and make sure it's safe enough for them to guaranty or come up with proof that they actually do have tests that clearly shows no health risks.
preferably i would like my own country to test the stuff before i'd use it, unless we actually had a shared medical approval agency for international approval, which i would approve off (imagine the savings it would make)

Like I said; how can it be any worse than cigarettes? It really can't, just holding it back from the market while you drag your feet with test that won't be finished for several years only to come to the obvious conclusion: This isn't as bad as cigarettes.

2009-04-20 13:54:12

#12

Brasso: member; +1,549|6640

Macbeth wrote:
motherdear wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
They want you to get lung cancer and die rather then try something new. Great right?
it's called testing and they are right to do it. imagine the scandal it would be for the FDA if this stuff was a health risk, let them run their tests and make sure it's safe enough for them to guaranty or come up with proof that they actually do have tests that clearly shows no health risks.
preferably i would like my own country to test the stuff before i'd use it, unless we actually had a shared medical approval agency for international approval, which i would approve off (imagine the savings it would make)
Like I said; how can it be any worse than cigarettes? It really can't, just holding it back from the market while you drag your feet with test that won't be finished for several years only to come to the obvious conclusion: This isn't as bad as cigarettes.

the FDA has an obligation to test everything. in theory, the e-cigarette may seems safe and logical (it sure does to me), but you never really know until tests have been done.

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"

2009-04-20 13:54:29

#13

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|5871

Macbeth wrote:
motherdear wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
They want you to get lung cancer and die rather then try something new. Great right?
it's called testing and they are right to do it. imagine the scandal it would be for the FDA if this stuff was a health risk, let them run their tests and make sure it's safe enough for them to guaranty or come up with proof that they actually do have tests that clearly shows no health risks.
preferably i would like my own country to test the stuff before i'd use it, unless we actually had a shared medical approval agency for international approval, which i would approve off (imagine the savings it would make)
Like I said; how can it be any worse than cigarettes? It really can't, just holding it back from the market while you drag your feet with test that won't be finished for several years only to come to the obvious conclusion: This isn't as bad as cigarettes.

america may not have the "red LED" cigarettes yet, but europe has moved on

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … g-ban.html

2009-04-20 13:58:50

#14

henno13: A generally unremarkable member; +230|6358|Belfast

rammunition wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
motherdear wrote:
it's called testing and they are right to do it. imagine the scandal it would be for the FDA if this stuff was a health risk, let them run their tests and make sure it's safe enough for them to guaranty or come up with proof that they actually do have tests that clearly shows no health risks.
preferably i would like my own country to test the stuff before i'd use it, unless we actually had a shared medical approval agency for international approval, which i would approve off (imagine the savings it would make)
Like I said; how can it be any worse than cigarettes? It really can't, just holding it back from the market while you drag your feet with test that won't be finished for several years only to come to the obvious conclusion: This isn't as bad as cigarettes.
america may not have the "red LED" cigarettes yet, but europe has moved on

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … g-ban.html

Yeah, I noticed it in the news last year. The BBC did some special report. But I think that there was a blue LED one

Last edited by henno13 (2009-04-20 13:59:22)

2009-04-20 14:06:26

#15

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6503|N. Ireland

Macbeth wrote:
It calms my nerves and gives me something to do when bored. I like having something to relax myself from time to time.

World's greatest paradox.

2009-04-20 14:09:32

#16

CC-Marley: Member; +407|6838

rammunition wrote:
kylef wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
They want you to get lung cancer and die rather then try something new. Great right?
Here's a better idea: just don't smoke.
QFT

you smoke and get cancer, its the individuals fault

Usually true but Dana Reeves never smoked and died of lung cancer at 44.

2009-04-20 14:11:26

#17

Man With No Name: جندي; +148|5584|The Wild West

George Burns smoked most his life and died at 100

2009-04-20 14:19:31

#18

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|5871

CC-Marley wrote:
rammunition wrote:
kylef wrote:

Here's a better idea: just don't smoke.
QFT

you smoke and get cancer, its the individuals fault
Usually true but Dana Reeves never smoked and died of lung cancer at 44.

im not saying its the individuals fault for getting cancer through doing no harm but getting it by doing harm thats proven and known, its the individuals fault

2009-04-20 14:24:22

#19

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|6606|Seattle

I'm still pissed about these fire safety cigarettes. They taste like shit and they keep going out. GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!

/Hulk Smash Puny Human!!!

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2009-04-20 15:05:33

#20

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6630|London, England

Meh, people who are addicted to cigarettes are a lost cause. The best course of action that governments should take is encouraging/preventing non-smokers from taking up smoking. I think that's the direction our government is going towards and IMO it's the only reasonable way to go about the problem of cigarettes. It's all about education and prevention, just like with alcohol and other drugs. The lost cause are the lost cause, fuck them and let them do what they want

2009-04-20 15:07:32

#21

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5595

Mekstizzle wrote:
Meh, people who are addicted to cigarettes are a lost cause. The best course of action that governments should take is encouraging/preventing non-smokers from taking up smoking. I think that's the direction our government is going towards and IMO it's the only reasonable way to go about the problem of cigarettes. It's all about education and prevention, just like with alcohol and other drugs. The lost cause are the lost cause, fuck them and let them do what they want

You make it sound like smokers are as bad as heroin addicts robbing and killing for a fix.

2009-04-20 15:09:57

#22

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6630|London, England

No I don't, I'm just saying there's no point in trying to stop people smoking who are already addicted as it's just a waste of time and money, and is just going to piss people off, and that instead they should just focus on preventing people from smoking in the first place.

2009-04-20 15:10:49

#23

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6629|Mhz

My mum actually has one of those things, she says it's ok but it's nothing like as good as a ciggy.

(I don't smoke BTW, horrible habbit).

2009-04-20 15:12:51

#24

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6414|North Carolina

The FDA doesn't want you to get cancer.

They want you to keep buying cigarrettes because tobacco lobbyists pay the government to make sure alternatives are either expensive or less satisfying.

2009-04-20 15:24:19

#25

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5595

Turquoise wrote:
The FDA doesn't want you to get cancer.

They want you to keep buying cigarrettes because tobacco lobbyists pay the government to make sure alternatives are either expensive or less satisfying.

I know the title was a bit of sarcasm, would have made more sense if it said "The FDA would rather have you get cancer and die."
Could have sworn the FDA was a independent government agency unable to be lobbied.

BF2S Forums The FDA wants you to get cancer and die.

Macbeth wrote:

kylef wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

kylef wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

rammunition wrote:

kylef wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

rammunition wrote:

kylef wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

motherdear wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

motherdear wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

motherdear wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

rammunition wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

motherdear wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

rammunition wrote:

kylef wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

rammunition wrote:

kylef wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer