France Hates Pappa

[FBM]

The gun derail will be split off if it continues. Please take it to the appropriate thread(s).

[pErvinalia]

Is there a 'gun derail' law here, equivalent to the Godwin?

[JimC]

Is there a 'gun derail' law here, equivalent to the Godwin?

Gnus to me...

[Blind groper]

Who the fuck are you, or the NEJM, to interfere in the free choice of the individual to end his or her life?

Mind your own fucking business, Mr. Nosy Parker.

This is not so much a gun derail, as a side excursion into a discussion of suicide.

Before anyone diverts this, I would like to answer Seth's very callous and uncaring remarks.

There are several mental illnesses that result in the sick person mutilating him/herself. Physicians routinely take measures to prevent this happening. Suicide is not different in principle.

Sine the majority of those who attempt suicide (and fail, as 90%of all such attempts fail) felt an impulse to suicide that was temporary and passed within minutes or up to a couple of hours, the failure is seen by the would-suicide as a blessing.

Since the majority, in hind sight, do not really want to die, then giving them the means to kill themselves in that short time period during which they are temporarily psychotic, can be seen as homicide.

[MrJonno]

Smoking in most places where a non-smoker is forced to breathe in the smoke of a smoker has already been banned (and yes working somewhere does count as forced).

Waiting for a kid to sue his parents for smoking around them, only a matter of time and good luck to them in their case

[Pappa]

E-cigarettes are hugely cheaper than cigarettes or tobacco. The initial outlay is less than £50 and it costs at most about £5 a week after that. You get less nicotine out of it than smoking, though I only realised that recently when I smoked a cigarette and got a huge nicotine rush. While nobody knows for sure if there are any risks to using them, it's very unlikely they are significantly carcinogenic, and to answer one of Coito's questions earlier, they are much easier on the chest than smoking, though not quite as good as giving up completely. You can also get e-cigarettes that look like cigars and pipes.

[Seth]

Who the fuck are you, or the NEJM, to interfere in the free choice of the individual to end his or her life?

Mind your own fucking business, Mr. Nosy Parker.

This is not so much a gun derail, as a side excursion into a discussion of suicide.

Before anyone diverts this, I would like to answer Seth's very callous and uncaring remarks.

There are several mental illnesses that result in the sick person mutilating him/herself. Physicians routinely take measures to prevent this happening. Suicide is not different in principle.

Sine the majority of those who attempt suicide (and fail, as 90%of all such attempts fail) felt an impulse to suicide that was temporary and passed within minutes or up to a couple of hours, the failure is seen by the would-suicide as a blessing.

Since the majority, in hind sight, do not really want to die, then giving them the means to kill themselves in that short time period during which they are temporarily psychotic, can be seen as homicide.

That may be true, but the problem is that you try to use the suicides of 38,364 people (preliminary 2011 data from the CDC) as an excuse to ban one particular and specific (but not all or even a few) inanimate object capable of causing a suicide's death for NON-suicidal people on the false and ridiculous premise that the need to interfere in a potential suicide's attempt justifies impairing the rights, interests, preferences and desires of the other 300 million Americans to have and use such objects.

As I've said before so many times, we do not consider the acts of 38,364 insane people, however temporarily insane they may be, as a rational or even constitutional justification for denying a fundamental right (as is the case here in the US, according to the Supreme Court) to 300 million other people. It's flailing away at gnats with a wrecking ball on a crane. It doesn't matter what the implement of death is, be it drugs or plastic bags and rope (the prime method of suicide for children), we do not set public policy based on the acts of the insane. We try to protect them if we can, but in the end anyone who is determined to commit suicide will do so no matter what you do to try and stop them, and they have a perfect and absolute constitutional right to end their lives any time the mood strikes.

You may choose to intervene on the premise that they'll get over it, but you cite no legal or constitutional basis for interfering with the sovereign right of the individual to end his or her own life. So what is your rational basis for interfering with the decisions of another about how to live, or not live their life? By what authority or ethical or moral basis do you presume to do so?

Moreover, by what ethical, moral or legal basis do you presume to interfere with the rights of all OTHER citizens to enjoy their lives as they see fit based on the actions of the insane?

That being said, this discussion should be spun off into a "Suicide, rational or otherwise: is it a civil right?" thread because I'd like to delve deeper into the issue of rational suicide and the basis for interfering with the individual's decisions.

Mods, if you would kindly do so...

[Seth]

E-cigarettes are hugely cheaper than cigarettes or tobacco. The initial outlay is less than £50 and it costs at most about £5 a week after that. You get less nicotine out of it than smoking, though I only realised that recently when I smoked a cigarette and got a huge nicotine rush. While nobody knows for sure if there are any risks to using them, it's very unlikely they are significantly carcinogenic, and to answer one of Coito's questions earlier, they are much easier on the chest than smoking, though not quite as good as giving up completely. You can also get e-cigarettes that look like cigars and pipes.

They won't be as soon as tax revenues on tobacco start to fall. I guarantee you that they will start taxing E-fags out the ass quite soon, as soon as they figure out what's going on.

Just look what the states over here are contemplating for electric vehicles. Because they don't pay gas taxes, which pay for highway maintenance and construction, they're working on levying a separate tax for "green" autos.

[JimC]

E-cigarettes are hugely cheaper than cigarettes or tobacco. The initial outlay is less than £50 and it costs at most about £5 a week after that. You get less nicotine out of it than smoking, though I only realised that recently when I smoked a cigarette and got a huge nicotine rush. While nobody knows for sure if there are any risks to using them, it's very unlikely they are significantly carcinogenic, and to answer one of Coito's questions earlier, they are much easier on the chest than smoking, though not quite as good as giving up completely. You can also get e-cigarettes that look like cigars and pipes.

I thought you could vary the nicotine levels - I'm sure I read a post by FBM where he initially had it set way to high, and was getting palpitations...

[Pappa]

It depends on the model.

[FBM]

Mine doesn't have settings, exactly. I just bought the juice with the highest available amount of nicotine per ml. Then I developed the habit of keeping the thing in my mouth constantly instead of treating it like regular cigs and spacing it out.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

[Xamonas Chegwé]

While nobody knows for sure if there are any risks to using them, it's very unlikely they are significantly carcinogenic

Actually, there is evidence that nicotine alone is carcinogenic - although nowhere near as bad as the tar and other bi-products of smoking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Toxicology

On the whole, e-cigs are a far safer way to get your fix.

[Rum]

E-cigarettes are hugely cheaper than cigarettes or tobacco. The initial outlay is less than £50 and it costs at most about £5 a week after that. You get less nicotine out of it than smoking, though I only realised that recently when I smoked a cigarette and got a huge nicotine rush. While nobody knows for sure if there are any risks to using them, it's very unlikely they are significantly carcinogenic, and to answer one of Coito's questions earlier, they are much easier on the chest than smoking, though not quite as good as giving up completely. You can also get e-cigarettes that look like cigars and pipes.

Why not quit altogether Pappa? You'll be doing yourself a huge favour.

[Pappa]

I did quit. I didn't smoke for 5 years and had no desire to smoke again. For some reason I started again during my divorce, and I've just not been able to shake the things off.