Titanate cigarette filter could be safer - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29628373]So it's the equivalent to reducing how many cigarettes you smoke, I don't see the problem. It's not like smokers will instantly start smoking more, they tend to have a certain amount they like to smoke on a set schedule.[/QUOTE] It goes back to how a drug works and the mentality of being told something is safer or healthier. Over time you gain a tolerance to nicotine, just like any substance, so you'll either force yourself to smoke the same or do what most people do and slowly increase your intake. The average person will read "SAFER CIGARETTES" as something along the lines of "SAFE CIGARETTES". Sure you can blame that on personal error or personal stupidity but that doesnt change the fact that there will be quite a lot of people who smoke more of them. It happened when the first filters were introduced and that didnt change anything. Its wrong to say its safer when in reality its still dangerous. Once again the same thing happens to people who read LOW FAT or NO FAT as I CAN EAT IT ALL I WANT. Thats the mentality of the average consumer. [QUOTE=Dan The Man;29628392]I can bet you don't support that though.[/QUOTE] nope, drink whatever or smoke whatever you want.

[QUOTE=DireAvenger;29627843]There are other, less harmful ways to pay for taxes in that sense. Buying a fucking shitload of chewing gum would achieve the same thing with slightly less unhealthiness.[/QUOTE] Actually, eating that much gum in order to equalize the taxes would probably kill you faster. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] I mean, quite a bit faster.

[QUOTE=Contag;29628428]Actually, eating that much gum in order to equalize the taxes would probably kill you faster. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] I mean, quite a bit faster.[/QUOTE] Ultimate suger rush.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;29628392]2-methyl-2-butanol is an alcohol analogue with no hangover. It lasts longer too. I can bet you don't support that though.[/QUOTE] oo tasty. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;29628458]Ultimate suger rush.[/QUOTE] Both ways!

so what has this discussion now turned into?

[QUOTE=Contag;29627218]How so? [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] Nope. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] It's applicable to a range of other things, not just cigarettes. Hard science is rarely useless. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] Besides, if people want to pay more for the chance to not be as likely to get cancer, while still smoking, let them. I'd support technology that allows people to have reduced - if any - hangovers, or PCP users not to go nuts and stab 20 children.[/QUOTE] The technology to get rid of hangovers has been around longer than us, water!

[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627502]Secondary smoke is harmful. Standing next to someone on the street and getting a a puff of smoke in your face now and again isnt going to kill you. The dangers of second hand smoke are blown way out of proportion. The real danger comes from living in a house with a smoker and breathing it in day after day. All the Government need do is put a label on these cigarettes stating that no matter what filter is placed on them they are still lethal. No lying required, but people should be informed that safe cigarette doesnt really mean safe. Definitely[/QUOTE] Second hand smoke is no more dangerous than living in a big city.

[QUOTE=gamefreek76;29628569]Second hand smoke is no more dangerous than living in a big city.[/QUOTE] Not if you live in a house with someone who smokes. You have a much higher chance of having diseases like Asthma or Emphysema when older.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29628208]You get smokes for 6.50? You lucky ass, I pay 10.40 generally. Growing up with a smoker changes your view of it a lot I think, I'm sure it increases the chance if nothing traumatizing happens.[/QUOTE] Pfft, I pay $17.50, equivalent to about $19 USD here. Yeah, my smoking certainly wasn't helped by the fact that my father and mother smoked, and are far healthier than they should be. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=superdinoman;29628584]Not if you live in a house with someone who smokes. You have a much higher chance of having diseases like Asthma or Emphysema when older.[/QUOTE] But it's also key to mention they have to smoke 24/7 and no windows open etc. Think a bar, for a bar worker. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Gareth;29628554]The technology to get rid of hangovers has been around longer than us, water![/QUOTE] Hah, if only. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Dan The Man;29628392]2-methyl-2-butanol is an alcohol analogue with no hangover. It lasts longer too. I can bet you don't support that though.[/QUOTE] Is that legal in Australia? Anyone want to check the SUSDP for me?

dungeons n dragonz

I support this invention for better gas masks and filtration systems. Not fucking fags. On the topic of prices here it's 2 USD for a packet of smokes.

This will only be for the rich either way due to the high costs of these cigs. Either way we already had the technology now we just applied it to cigs big whoop.

[QUOTE=imadaman;29627196]Somewhat worse idea: eCigs[/QUOTE] Those suck, the "smoke" burns (like alcohol, but in your [u]lung[/u]), you have to inhale really hard to get anything out of them, and they generally taste bad. I've only had one i liked but the battery on it was shit and it still had the burn.

While I'd agree that there is a slight moral hazard with saying smoking is slightly more healthy, there's no harm in the drive of making them more healthy. If such a day comes where smokers can actually smoke and not die, the first step is decreasing, if ever so slightly, their likelihood of being dead. You could make the same argument about helmets and seatbelts, well, i have a seatbelt therefore i must drive like a jackass (although this one actually was slightly true, so, yeah i guess that's not a great example). That doesn't mean helmets and seatbelts aren't a good thing provided people are informed and know that this doesn't mean you should increase your exposure to risk just because that risk is slightly reduced by a very small margin.

[QUOTE=Contag;29628606]Pfft, I pay $17.50, equivalent to about $19 USD here. Yeah, my smoking certainly wasn't helped by the fact that my father and mother smoked, and are far healthier than they should be. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] But it's also key to mention they have to smoke 24/7 and no windows open etc. Think a bar, for a bar worker. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] Hah, if only. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] Is that legal in Australia? Anyone want to check the SUSDP for me?[/QUOTE] seriously just drink a fuck load of water when you stumble home drunk and it'll stop you chundering in your bed and waking up feeling like your brain is giving birth.

[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627255]No matter what filters you smack on cigarettes they will always be lethal. I said its a waste in regards to cigarettes not in regards to its other practical uses.[/QUOTE] That's a completely unfounded lie and it stems from a lack of knowledge about how cigarettes actually cause cancer. Carcinogens cause cancer, and they're produced anytime something is burned. If you can create a filter that completely blocks out carcinogens (the filter mentioned in the OP is nowhere close to being able to do that) you also reduce the cancer risk to an absolute 0%. Ecigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the process of burning, are carcinogen free and thusly cancer free. That's it, no questions asked, no scientific debate on the subject at all. It's straight forward and accepted, which is exactly why I look forward to seeing how you argue with what it, and you will.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29627667]You're dumb If people want to smoke let them smoke, making it safer can't possibly be a bad thing[/QUOTE] They're are exhaling smoke into my face. That's something that bugs me, because I don't want to smoke. Ban smoking.

[QUOTE=superdinoman;29628409]It goes back to how a drug works and the mentality of being told something is safer or healthier. Over time you gain a tolerance to nicotine, just like any substance, so you'll either force yourself to smoke the same or do what most people do and slowly increase your intake. The average person will read "SAFER CIGARETTES" as something along the lines of "SAFE CIGARETTES". Sure you can blame that on personal error or personal stupidity but that doesnt change the fact that there will be quite a lot of people who smoke more of them. It happened when the first filters were introduced and that didnt change anything. Its wrong to say its safer when in reality its still dangerous. Once again the same thing happens to people who read LOW FAT or NO FAT as I CAN EAT IT ALL I WANT. Thats the mentality of the average consumer. nope, drink whatever or smoke whatever you want.[/QUOTE] no one's implying this is making smoking safe, that's why your argument is so pointless.

[QUOTE=superdinoman;29628343]In terms of cigarettes not really. Even this nanofilter will let certain harmful particles through, nicotine alone is a toxin. You're still at a large risk for all the same diseases as regular cigarettes, sure you may not get cancer by 60, instead youll get it by 65. You still end up with cancer, emphysema, a stroke, a heart attack, or some other shit disease. :smith:[/QUOTE] you do realize not all smokers end up with these things, right

I do hard drugs but I do not smoke. I am fine.

[QUOTE=DrLuke;29637992]They're are exhaling smoke into my face. That's something that bugs me, because I don't want to smoke. Ban smoking.[/QUOTE] I don't want to breathe car exhaust so don't make me ban cars

I occasionally smoke, not enough to produce any hugely negative effects but nonetheless, knowing many habitual smokers this is still awesome.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29628283]Except person B is showing compassion and progressive ideals while person A is advocating purposely keeping something dangerous in order to prevent a reduction in health problems caused by it[/QUOTE] as if keeping it dangerous is going to discourage smoking half the appeal of smoking is that it's dangerous.

[QUOTE=Ca5bah;29627770]Hey, militant anti-smokers, fuck you. When I spend 6.50 on my smokes I pay the taxes to support your schools and playgrounds.[/QUOTE] Okay, now pay for all the stubs you dump all over the place and damage to public health

I am so glad this got posted yesterday(well now it's yesterday...). Topic for my chemistry paper due today? I think so.