General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsL.A. E-Cigarette Ban Approved
The L.A. City Council today voted unanimously to place use of e-cigarettes in the same category as cigarettes in city limits. That means puffing on so-called "vapes" or vaporizer pens will be banned on beaches, in parks, in markets, in most offices and in restaurants, even outdoor dining areas.
See also: Vapor Lounges Would be Legal Under L.A. E-Cigarette Ban
The vape industry was against the move, of course, saying the jury's still out on any possible harm caused by vaping. Some claim the water vapor from smoking nicotine is harmless and that the devices are priceless to those actually trying to quit cigarettes.
A pair of Columbia University public health professors wrote this in the New York Times recently.
... If e-cigarettes can reduce, even slightly, the blight of six million tobacco-related deaths a year, trying to force them out of sight is counterproductive.
http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/03/04/la-e-cigarette-ban-approved
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)And in L.A., where the air is otherwise pure!
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Not that I am recommending New Mexico, but I'll take it over California.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Wouldn't want a little puff of some vape screwing up that brown air.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . that was likely brought on by decades of smoking, I am certainly no fan of the habit. But I agree with you that this is potentially a very counterproductive move.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Counterproductive move, indeed.
Tikki
(14,559 posts)Nicotine leaves the body in 24~48 hours. Why replace it with more?
Tikki
I have a friend that's been smoking e cigs for a few years and the last 2 she smokes 0% nicotine blends.
Tikki
(14,559 posts)They said it was to help them quit
.I wonder how many have quit
would make a real argument for using e-cigarettes to quit.
Tikki
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . having lost two parents to lung cancer (12 days apart no less) that was likely brought on by decades of smoking, I am no fan of the habit. But I personally know several folks for whom e-cigarettes helped them to kick their tobacco habit entirely, so perhaps you might want to take a step or two back from your puritanical anti-nicotine moralism, eh?
Tikki
(14,559 posts)Quitting in large numbers would rebrand the e-cigarette as just that a tool for quitting
take a
lot of the coolness away from teens then.
Tikki
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)I can speak from experience that I haven't smoked in years, but I have vaped. I tried a cigarette one time after a couple of months of vaping and it tasted like Satan's farts after eating at Taco Bell.
I wondered what the hell could have possessed me to ever smoke.
Of course, that's just anecdotal, but I imagine my palate isn't all that different from most.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)Someone who uses e-cigs exclusively has quit smoking. Period. Why do some people want to pretend that isn't true?
Congratulations, by the way. Good job.
Tikki
(14,559 posts)Tikki
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Beaverhausen
(24,470 posts)it's all the chemicals and the smoke. My husband has been vaping for over 2 years and his health has improved greatly. He was able to get off his high blood pressure meds.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)E-cigs are a harm reduction measure. It's better for you to ingest nicotine through a vapor than a carcinogenic cloud of smoke.
I don't suppose you support providing birth control to students, because then they'll have sex.
Tikki
(14,559 posts)We are talking about an addictive substance.
You mention birth control, why?
Tikki
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)So can coffee, so can telling other people how to live their lives.
Tikki
(14,559 posts)Just a truth I was pointing out and why the L.A. City Council may have made the decision they made.
One I approve of every time a see a young ones face for the future.
Tikki
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Your kid is your responsibility. Not mine. Your kid gets a fake ID to get some smokes or a vape, that's not my damn problem.
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)because other people were having to breathe in those carcinogens that could adversely effect their own health, not because nicotine is addictive to the smoker themselves. This was for the safety of the non smoking public. If people are vaping instead, they aren't risking giving others cancer from 2nd hand smoke. Should we ban drinking coffee in public because caffeine is addictive? How about selling alcohol in restaurants and bars since alcohol can be addictive? Smoking bans had nothing to do with nicotine and all to do with 2nd hand carcinogens.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Who cares if someone enjoys an addictive substance if there's no significant health problems associated with it and no second-hand harm done to others? It's none of your business.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)After all, these terrible people started using an addictive substance. The penalty should be death. Long, slow and painful death.
That way as they spend their last years lingering in agony, they can know we do not approve of their choices.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)The additional excise tax on tobacco, which is not in place on e-cigs.
"Why, if smokers started switching to e-cigs, which are not as dangerous to their health, from tobacco, we'll lose a lot of tobacco tax revenue! Better ban the e-cigs!"
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)The more people quit smoking, the less tax money comes in.
I have often wondered who is going to pick up the tax slack from all the people that have quit smoking. I know a lot of people that have used the ecigs to quit. They puff on the thing only very occasionally and haven't bought any cigarettes either. Maybe in this case, the lost revenue should be spread out to all of LA.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I think the addiction to the sin tax by government is EXACTLY the problem.
For example, if pre-K is so good, and I believe it is, why should only smokers fund it? Shouldn't everyone?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Which is how I view e-cigs. Yes, you are still addicted to nicotine, but without all the illness-inducing tars and chemicals in smoke.
The argument goes like this:
We would rather you not be addicted to nicotine/have teenage sex.
But if you are going to be addicted to nicotine/have teenage sex, we want you to do it in the least harmful manner.
Therefore we oppose bans on e-cigs/support providing birth control to teenagers.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)eggplant and peppers.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)If smokers could smoke real cigs and never harm anyone else, none of it would matter to me.
It's not the nicotine, it's the smoke getting in other people's lungs who didn't ask for it.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)They're addictive
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)What about caffeine?
Do you perceive ANY limit to your powers over others?
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)other people how and when they quit smoking?
Maybe rehab and AA should be eliminated too.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)Eating certain foods are bad for you too. Should we go after those? Should we go after products that have caffeine due to their addictive nature? I get the bans on real smoking and support them in most cases because they affect others, but I fail to see how e-cigs fall into that category.
alp227
(32,046 posts)taking in nicotine often involves forcing others to breathe your filth. Most junk food eaters aren't force feeding others.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)both are about the same amount of harmful
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100422/Stopping-smoking-may-be-harder-than-quitting-heroin.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html
"In theory, what you'd expect to happen is the receptors would just die off," Piper said. But a 2002 study in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology showed after quitting smoking cold-turkey, feelings of depression and tension remained, even 31 days after the last puff of smoke was taken.
http://www.livescience.com/35062-tobacco-addiction-why-hard-quit-smoking.html
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/QuitSmoking/YourNon-SmokingLife/Why-is-it-so-hard-to-quit_UCM_324053_Article.jsp
If you've never quit smoking or attempted to quit smoking, you'll never know how hard it is for most smokers to quit. I've quit once, about 15 years ago and it took me months to get to the point where I wasn't constantly craving a cigarette. So, if something like e-cigs can help me quit smoking and leave me without the tar from smoking real cigarettes (which is what's so bad for your lungs), that's a path I'm willing to go down.
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)Well for me quitting cigs was like a picnic in teddy bear park compared to the hell that was opiate withdrawals, but that's just me. I do agree though, if one can find a safer delivery system for the one thing that keeps them smoking the system that delivers thousands of carcinogens, I'm all for it! My husband quit smoking using an e-cig. Well ok, for people like Tikki - he quit using the harmful delivery system and uses the safer one.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)He deserves to be congratulated. It's really weird how some people are so hung up on the relatively harmless nicotine. They should be jumping up and down with happiness that so many people have stopped smoking with these things. Instead, they want to give people who use them a hard time.
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)He never thought he'd be able to quit. He gave up the element of the habit that was the dangerous part, it was never the nicotine that I worried about, it was the burning of tobacco causing him to take in all these carcinogens. I don't understand the problem here either. When it was smoking, they didn't want others breathing in the harmful smoke and I get that. Banning e-cigs, that just seems like a power and control thing to me. Then you have the sanctimonious attitudes of certain people who have to be complete killjoys about the whole thing. Just be glad people are doing themselves less harm, but then they wouldn't be able to lecture anymore, would they?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)And force them to follow their one true belief.
Those who are not like me must be forced to be like be because of freedom. Or something stupid like that.
Tikki
(14,559 posts)quitting being addicted by ingesting something addicting.
Sometimes doctors will recommend patients stop their caffeine intake. Why?
I have no idea how sex and religion got into this discussion.
Tikki
PS it is your right to be addicted
just don't make it easier for another generation to become addicted to nicotine.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Cigarettes and the vape things are kept behind the counter. You have to show an ID to get both. Parents should dig through the little darling's crap to make sure that they don't have fake IDs.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)But I believe people have that right to. I don't own a gun and I want people to be allowed to do so.
The base arguments put forth are the same ones people use in religion - do what I think is best for you, remove your choice, because I don't like what you like.
It is about controlling others and their choices. I think soda is bad for people and can be addictive. Ban it. Fast food, the same. Alcohol - yeah a lot of people can be addicted to that. Ban it.
Pro-choice isn't just for one thing imho, it is an ideal and a belief in freedom over your own body and choices.
I don't see it as progressive to want to remove freedoms and choices.
superpatriotman
(6,252 posts)nt
meow2u3
(24,767 posts)If vaping is outlawed, only outlaws will vape. You'll have to pry my box mod out of my cold, dead hands.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Way to go California!
Asses.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I lived there for 21 years.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)with their candy flavors.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Why must we adults have to cater to "the children". I'm sick and tired of it. Tired of watching TV being bleeped for kids who parents and kids from school teach them the bad words. I love the Vanilla vapor stick. Tough shit about kids.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Yeah, we don't care if more kids get addicted to nicotine, do we?
Just as long as the adult addicts can get their fix.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)You need an ID to buy smokes and vape stuff because it's all kept behind the counter. It's not my problem if your kid has a fake ID. It's past time for the kid's parent's to take some responsibility here.
It's your kid, you figure it out. I did.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)if the vapers get their way.
beevul
(12,194 posts)At least though when they're vaping, those candy and fruit flavors smell better lol
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)OwnedByCats
(805 posts)but no lol. Oh how about dill pickle flavored e-juice? I love that smell but I bet others would not lol!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)And if you are very nice, you can have "menthol" (whatever the hell that may be).
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I can't say the phrase exactly brought "tree stumps" to mind but, well, maybe sometimes.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"And if you are very nice, you can have "menthol" (whatever the hell that may be)."
That was a typo, in their rules release.
They meant methanlol.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)She went on a rant about flavors before. It was epic.
I now only vape the following flavors, out of concern for children:
1. Fried Liver and Onion
2. Rutabaga Turnip
3. Gorgonzola
4. Prune
NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)and since i'm such an adult i only use adult appropriate absorption, like scouring pad, or crown of thorns.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Now there's an adult flavor!
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)have been with us for centuries and in most cultures have been considered a privilege of adults. I don't understand therefore the need to label such "flavors" as "children's flavors".
My middle eastern friends smoke such flavored tobaccos in their hukkā and it is not new but rather ancient and intended for adults.
I see the vape flavors merely as an extension of the hukkā tradition but in a far healthier form.
Hell, my grandfather smoked cherry tobacco in his pipe and he was no child.
Whomever is spreading this "children's flavor" meme is apparently an idiot that knows nothing about tobacco use and it's traditional flavorings throughout the centuries. Or is perhaps simply what my sister used to call a "shit starter".
Such an idiot should be forced to eat only pies flavored for adults
1. Fried Liver and Onion Pie
2. Rutabaga Turnip Pie
3. Gorgonzola Pie
4. Prune Pie
As cherry, apple pie and the like appear to be an attempt to lure children to obesity and diabetes with their non adult flavorings.
Lord knows adults only like bitter flavors and abstain from eating fruit and chocolate which only children enjoy.
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)If adults want to vape caramel/chocolate coffee or vanilla raspberry, why do automatically assume that means they are marketing to kids?
This isn't the first time you have made this claim, but your only support for for this is that they have flavors that YOU associate with children.
It isn't logical.
Are you suggesting that consenting adults who wish to vape may only use pnwmom approved flavors of tobacco and menthol and maybe turnip/rutabaga, broccoli and cabbage soup, grass clippings flavored juices?
Have you considered that maybe the adult palate might enjoy variety and that is the reason they have different flavors rather than jumping to the conclusion that it must be marketing to children?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What are the odds?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)The Monty Pythonesque nature of this subthread demands I try and stoke some more outrage!
And think of all the "candy" flavored coffee!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I find that rhubarb is surprisingly effective.
I show up and give them some free rhubarb, and within days they come looking for me.
Then, bam, I hit 'em with the ecigs.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"I'd have more sympathy for the manufacturers if they weren't marketing to teens with their candy flavors."
We've gone over this before. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. You've been informed that after a time, most people who quit smoking and vape instead, don't want to taste tobacco...which leaves them...non tobacco flavors...which include...*gasp*...sweet flavors. The horror!!
You've also been shown:
and
and never been able to reconcile your claim with those things.
Clearly marketed to teens, right?
One can only wonder, those being the facts, why you continue to say what you're saying here.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)penultimate
(1,110 posts)As in, why do you believe they should be banned? Do you believe they cause harm via second-hand vapor? Do you think that they are unhealthy for individuals and that individuals shouldn't be able to do unhealthy things?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)and haven't been proven to be safe -- so people who don't want to be exposed to other people's exhaust shouldn't have to be.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Why should I be subjected to your car's exhaust and your kid's school bus exhaust.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Water. 100% pure, clean, not-even-chlorinated water.
Drinking too much at once will kill you. It screws up the electrolyte balance that makes the nervous system work.
The metric should not be "proven to be safe". Because nothing is safe. The metric should be "proven to be dangerous".
Beaverhausen
(24,470 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Cars have been the worst polluter of the air in LA. Alcohol is also addictive. Close the bars and wineries.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)You can pull it out, puff on it, then put it back in your pocket or purse. The vapor would dissipate by the time someone got to you, or 'told' on you. It's not like a cigarette that you commit to for 5 or 7 minutes, with it burning the whole time. And there's no left-behind odor. This ban is unenforceable. Vapers need not worry.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)fine the business owners $500/offense. A fine or two and business owners become strict enforcers.
Demit
(11,238 posts)The vapor dissipates immediately, so there's no lingering smoke (because it's not smoke in the first place). There is no smell. There is no burning stick that a person is holding. You can take a puff then put the device right back in your pocket.
So there's no evidence of anything. The only scenario I can envision is some puritan running to someone & saying, "That person was vaping! I saw it, I swear!!!" But I can't picture what comes next. Walk me through it, if you can. What exactly would "they" (do you mean a policeman?) or the business owner, do next?
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)and have had numerous complaints from customers about vape "smoke". We've now officially banned vaping in the shop and will ask vapers to go outside. If there is a fine associated with smoking or vaping, then you bet businesses will force them to go outside.
Demit
(11,238 posts)There is no smell, there is no smoke. There is nothing that lingers. I am betting your customer complaints are knee jerk reactions from people who refuse to be educated, and will (b/c they want to) continue associating vaping with smoking. So much more satisfying to be able to act out their need to be self-righteous.
But you didn't address my question. What's the scenario that results in a city official coming around & slapping you with a fine? One customer complaint to whoever is the enforcement agency? Five? Ten? The off-chance that the official himself is dining at your restaurant and sees a customer take a puff?
This ban is unenforceable. By the city or by you.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)thankfully, 99% of customers have courtesy and just go vape outside. If you need to go into a bathroom so you can satisfy some sick fetish you have of flaunting rules, then so be it.
To answer your question, the smoking ban is designed to be self enforced. The business owner or the smoker can be fined $500 if caught by police or fire department officials.
Demit
(11,238 posts)And you'll never know if your customers are breaking them. The ban is unenforceable. That's what makes it a silly rule.
You still haven't given me a sample scenario of what would have to happen to get this fine assessed. A policeman walking by the window of your restaurant & glancing in? You calling the fire department to tattle on a customer? And why would you call the fire dept anyway, there's no smoke involved. No smoker, either.
You haven't given me an example of a real world sequence of events that would lead to a fine because you can't. So to save face, you resort to saying I have a "sick fetish." Well, nyah nyah to you too. When I was a smoker I would go outside of a restaurant to smoke. Now that I'm a vaper, I can grab a puff whenever I want. This ban can't stop that. And unless you decide to put cameras in your bathroom stalls, neither can you.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I believe the question asked, and for which you probably have a good answer if you can calm down a bit, is - how do you get caught?
Someone in the restaurant sees someone vaping, calls police, and then the police come and hand you a ticket?
Just as a point of practicality, how does this work?
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)That's the question. These e-cig bans are purely to punish people enjoying nicotine, and have nothing to do with public health.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)There is no way you are going to be able to catch people using it inside like you can a cigarette. This is about taxes only. The county is mad that they are losing money from all the people not buying cigarettes.
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Post removed
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Me included. I don't smoke. I don't use E cigs, but I'm failing to see a problem with somebody on a beach smoking an ecig. When I go to the beach, there is plenty of space and I'm not forced to breath in anybody's vapors.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)It seems every post about smoking is an opportunity for that poster to ridicule and mock people dealing with serious, life changing addiction. It's been disgusting to witness and I'm happy others have taken notice.
Demit
(11,238 posts)Nothing gets combusted in e-cigarettes. It's going to take awhile, but eventually people who take their pleasure in sneering at others, like you, will come to learn the facts about vaping, and will have to satisfy their need in some other way.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)It sure isn't the open minded and cutting edge LA I lived in once upon a time. Very sad, that it's changed this much.
They'll be repealing this before too long. Because it's just wrong. They should know better in the first place though.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)people can still vape... we're just banning it indoors.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)When you were learning patience, did that not include reading something before commenting on it?
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)and the vaping ban will extend to them too. Smoking should be banned in all crowded areas... just because you are outside, to smokers think their smoke doesn't stink and bother the person standing three feet away?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)apparently not.
Demit
(11,238 posts)There is no smell. There is no smoke. Vaping is not smoking. I can take a puff standing three feet away from you and you would never know. This ban is meaningless.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)That's the deal.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)I know it doesn't have the smoke, but it still puts nicotine and chemicals in the air. Breathing that in for 40 hours a week at work can't be good for anyone. Keep in mind in this terrible economy saying "get another job" doesn't cut it. I support this law.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)people in a confined indoor space should have to be subjected to others vapor.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)It looked like a cigarette though. He sucked in air and exhaled just his breath Would that bother you too because he LOOKED like he was smoking? I suppose since he ate a lot of garlicy foods, just the sight and SMELL of his breath would be enough of a health hazzard to you?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Th1onein This message was self-deleted by its author.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Outdoor bans?? Seriously??
Stupid.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)E-cigs are a helluva lot better than the alternative.
SirRevolutionary
(579 posts)Nicotine is not what kills people who smoke. For the people who are scared of the small possibility of accidentally walking by a tiny wisp of vapor with nicotine in it on a crowded, polluted LA beach or park, I hope you don't eat potatoes, tomatoes, eggplants or other nightshade family veggies or you'll have yourself some nicotine unwittingly.
What about those of us who vape 0% nicotine? What's the argument then? That guy looks like he's smoking and enjoying it, but he's really puffing on water vapor, lets ban ecigs. Completely brilliant, not.
What we need is more Puritans banning the things they don't like, so we can focus more on the chemcial-laden products they approve of so we can assimilate better into society.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)I didn't see a disclaimer....
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)To ban them in the same way as cigarettes is to spectacularly fail to recognize that they have very, very little in common with cigarettes.
It is the smoke produced that makes 2nd hand smoke an issue.
These produce no smoke.
All this does is make it clear that nazi-like puritans are that way irrespective of logic. It is a moral issue. It is a control issue. It is an ego issue.
Fuck anyone that says e-cigs should be restricted in the same way as actual cigarettes. Why? Because they just don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves apparently.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)This is puritanical. And I hate cigarettes. Smoking bans are supposed to be about preventing second-hand smoke affecting others. There's no real excuse for this.
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
ZombieHorde This message was self-deleted by its author.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Congratulations to the quit or die crowd...for making quitting more difficult.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Do they enjoy the thought of 400000 or so people dying from coffin nails every year? I know many smokers trying to save their lives with these things and its mind boggling that anyone could be against it!
The vapor they put out is harmless and smells good unlike filthy stinking second hand cigarette smoke which causes cancer and heart attacks.
So yeah lets ban them and ostracize the people trying to kick this deadly habit! DUHHHH! Freakin idiots!
rudolph the red
(666 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)I spend so much time trying disprove the nanny stateist stereotype, yet we go and do something like this.
I feel like both parties have a strong puritan wing.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Nanny statism at its finest: I object to smoking so much that even the appearance of smoking offends my sensibilities.* Now stop calling my moral crusade a moral crusade.
*Yes, I know some people think the nicotine in the vapor is going to totally make their legs fall off, but we can more or less ignore them the same way we ignore people that think cameras and mirrors can steal their souls. It's irrational to the point of absurdity.