The Times banned cigarette ads from its pages back in 1999 "because of concerns about the harmful effects of cigarette smoking," the paper reported at the time. Earlier this month, a Times editorial called for stricter government regulation of electronic cigarettes, citing "increasing evidence that the electronic cigarette industry is targeting children and young people who have never smoked before."
So it's surprising to see an article in the Times Men's Fashion magazine glorifying a tobacco consumption device called the Firefly, about which one writer the Times hired to review the gadget wrote, "Thanks for getting me hooked on tobacco again after 12 years of not smoking. This is the sleekest thing I've ever owned. I'll use it till the day I die, and that may come sooner thanks to this device." The other writer the Times asked to review the item wrote, "I think it's a clean way to smoke...it's cool."
So the Times position is that the stuff is too dangerous to advertise and so dangerous that the government should step in to make it harder to obtain, but nevertheless should be glorified in the newspaper's "fashion" section as "cool"?