Non - Smoking/Vaping debate

GaryRB

GaryRB

UTC Legend
Two items out this morning. Tobacco industry clearly looking after its own interests to lobby against the rise in vaping(though Im sure some vaping manufacturers would be owned by tobacco multinationals, that would be logical on their part)
www.bbc.co.uk

Tobacco firm calls for tougher rules on vapes

BAT wants sellers to be licensed, and sweet flavours banned.
www.bbc.co.uk


Meanwhile, the new New Zealand Govt are going to repeal previous decision to ban sales to those born after a certain date, a policy muted by Rishi as coming our way some time soon. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67540190

Concern under both scenarios would be issues around black market and fake cigarettes/vapes, causing more harm/deaths than what the proposals are intended to do. And of course, reduction in tax incomes...
 
GaryRB said:
Concern under both scenarios would be issues around black market and fake cigarettes/vapes, causing more harm/deaths than what the proposals are intended to do.
Click to expand...
That of course would only affect those choosing to actually do it. Whereas smoking in public affects everyone around them.

GaryRB said:
Tobacco industry clearly looking after its own interests to lobby against the rise in vaping
Click to expand...
Skim reading glance but not a mention on the disposable vapes with single-use plastic and everything that goes along with that...
 
Not my bag and don't really have a strong opinion on it. However, all the lithium the world is supposed to need, each throw away vape contains the stuff and it just ends up in landfill. Which seems a shame.
 
GaryRB said:
Two items out this morning. Tobacco industry clearly looking after its own interests to lobby against the rise in vaping(though Im sure some vaping manufacturers would be owned by tobacco multinationals, that would be logical on their part)
www.bbc.co.uk

Tobacco firm calls for tougher rules on vapes

BAT wants sellers to be licensed, and sweet flavours banned.
www.bbc.co.uk


Meanwhile, the new New Zealand Govt are going to repeal previous decision to ban sales to those born after a certain date, a policy muted by Rishi as coming our way some time soon. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67540190

Concern under both scenarios would be issues around black market and fake cigarettes/vapes, causing more harm/deaths than what the proposals are intended to do. And of course, reduction in tax incomes...
Click to expand...

Yes which is a strong argument for controlling/decriminilizing all substances tbh.

'War on drugs' black market causing more devastation, loss of life, crime,costing shed loads of money.

Use of substances is not going anywhere soon... in fact it's increasing. No main party will realistically add it to their manifesto though, as its too risky/taboo for many and likely too large a %aren't willing to discuss/engage on the subject in reasonable manner imo.' all drugs bad. Lock all users/dealers and throw away the key' type mentalities. As long as that's the case it will remain a murky business lingering in the shadows.

So sadly things will continu to escalate. The odd snipit in the news of how well the zero tolerance war on drugs is panning out, when they found a load of ecstacy tabs in someone's luggage or the odd shipment of coke on a plane from colombia lol.

As for vapes, I find the packaging/ marketing a little inappropriate tbh. Too 'sweet'/'treat' like imo, and we know who that appeals to.

Across generation Kids % of kids smoked haven't they, but cigarettes are more of an acquired taste aren't they. Can't imagine anyone liked their first one... its horrible.
I didn't enjoy that first Malboro light back in the Cage/Zoo.But it did become something I enjoyed soon after as become a social smoker for years. Sometimes partake now when out... usually vape though.

Imagine many kids tried them and thought it's not remotely nice/worth trying again. Whereas vape flavours are much more pleasant, particularly to kids.
 
Last edited:
northstandmark said:
Not my bag and don't really have a strong opinion on it. However, all the lithium the world is supposed to need, each throw away vape contains the stuff and it just ends up in landfill. Which seems a shame.
Click to expand...
Now you know why China has been taking over African infrastructure and mining for the deposits of the minerals like graphite, nickle cobalt all needed to make Lithium batteries.
 
MB1980 said:
As for vapes, I find the packaging/ marketing a little inappropriate tbh. Too 'sweet'/'treat' like imo, and we know who that appeals to.

Across generation Kids % of kids smoked haven't they, but cigarettes are more of an acquired taste aren't they. Can't imagine anyone liked their first one... its horrible.
I didn't enjoy that first Malboro light back in the Cage/Zoo.But it did become something I enjoyed soon after as become a social smoker for years. Sometimes partake now when out... usually vape though.

Imagine many kids tried them and thought it's not remotely nice/worth trying again. Whereas vape flavours are much more pleasant, particularly to kids.
Click to expand...
Cannot agree with this more, my most recent trip back to the UK I was amazed/disgusted with how blatant the marketing and low cost barrier entry was to kids.
Maybe it’s a case of cigs and binge drinking (thinking hooch, VKs etc) in my youth being somewhat substituted but it’s a “new” that I would have concerns trying to educate my boy about with all the opposing marketing.
 
Jacinda Arderns social engineering project of 'Smoke free by 2025' has been repealed by the National led coalition party that ousted Labour in the recent election.

You can't ban people from doing what they want.

Americas prohibition against drugs has worked well right?

Banning anything ends up in it being controlled by gangs and the black market.

Ardern hasn't set foot in New Zealand since she chucked her job in when she realised the tide was turning against he domestically.

Her true stardom was only recognised Internationally, so there she stayed.

The woman is not what she seems, despite the global hysteria surrounding the rhetoric she dished out.

People lapped it up with impunity.

Another ridiculous policy she implemented, was the 'Road to Zero'

No single traffic death caused to a pedestrian or a road user, by 2050.

If that isn't social engineering, and pie in the sky nonsense then I'm not quite sure what is.


Setting goals that aren't attainable when you're long gone as a Prime Minister, suggests she thought her citizens were more gullible than she an ideologist.

A detestable woman, whom 70 per cent of New Zealanders will attest to, despite the otherwise global worship she has falsely enjoyed.
 
dragonm8 said:
Jacinda Arderns social engineering project of 'Smoke free by 2025' has been repealed by the National led coalition party that ousted Labour in the recent election.

You can't ban people from doing what they want.

Americas prohibition against drugs has worked well right?

Banning anything ends up in it being controlled by gangs and the black market.

Ardern hasn't set foot in New Zealand since she chucked her job in when she realised the tide was turning against he domestically.

Her true stardom was only recognised Internationally, so there she stayed.

The woman is not what she seems, despite the global hysteria surrounding the rhetoric she dished out.

People lapped it up with impunity.

Another ridiculous policy she implemented, was the 'Road to Zero'

No single traffic death caused to a pedestrian or a road user, by 2050.

If that isn't social engineering, and pie in the sky nonsense then I'm not quite sure what is.


Setting goals that aren't attainable when you're long gone as a Prime Minister, suggests she thought her citizens were more gullible than she an ideologist.

A detestable woman, whom 70 per cent of New Zealanders will attest to, despite the otherwise global worship she has falsely enjoyed.
Click to expand...

Of course you can ban people from doing what they want. The prisons are full of people who wanted to rape and murder people, which is banned.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Of course you can ban people from doing what they want. The prisons are full of people who wanted to rape and murder people, which is banned.
Click to expand...



Sone theories out there inficate that the zero tolerance 'war on drugs' is not working at all and is potentially costing much more in terms of money/people's lives, than if (certain?) Illicit substances weren't pushed underground and into the hands of cartels, gangsters etc.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Of course you can ban people from doing what they want. The prisons are full of people who wanted to rape and murder people, which is banned.
Click to expand...
That's a silly argument. We're talking about lifestyle choices here that only really impact those that partake. LSD, opium etc. used to be legal and now that stuff is in the hands of criminal gangs. Prohibition in The States was a gift to the gangsters. The list goes on.
 
stanthevan said:
That's a silly argument. We're talking about lifestyle choices here that only really impact those that partake. LSD, opium etc. used to be legal and now that stuff is in the hands of criminal gangs. Prohibition in The States was a gift to the gangsters. The list goes on.
Click to expand...

I guess people dont need to wear seatbelts either?

As long as any medical treatment resulting from drink, drugs etc does not fall on the NHS I guess you have a point... :hmmm:
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
I guess people dont need to wear seatbelts either?

As long as any medical treatment resulting from drink, drugs etc does not fall on the NHS I guess you have a point... :hmmm:
Click to expand...
I actually think that banning smoking is a wonderful idea and it will save lives. I think it should be illegal for people to kill themselves by sticking needles in their veins. I also think people should be forced to wear seat belts and crash helmets. The point being made is that you will never stop determined people from abusing their own bodies and the criminals will take advantage of it. As Derek says, rape and murder are illegal but both happen on a daily basis.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
I guess people dont need to wear seatbelts either?

As long as any medical treatment resulting from drink, drugs etc does not fall on the NHS I guess you have a point... :hmmm:
Click to expand...

It's scale of balance/risk isn't it?

In the same way most people that drink alcohol don't become 'addicts' or end up in hospital or assaulting others, causing criminal damage.

Some good books that imdicate the cost to society would be much lower if many illicit substances were regulated, rather than forced underground. And that many would use substances in a similar way to alcohol, without become a burden to public services.
 
stanthevan said:
That's a silly argument. We're talking about lifestyle choices here that only really impact those that partake. LSD, opium etc. used to be legal and now that stuff is in the hands of criminal gangs. Prohibition in The States was a gift to the gangsters. The list goes on.
Click to expand...

Chasing the Scream is a superb thought provoking book on the subject.

Intersting how and why the 'War on drugs' was introduced. Apparently main driver/use was initially mainly around comtrolling/punishing minorities in the US... according to the book, rather than protecting the general population from destroying themselves...

Chasing the Scream: The inspiration for... by Hari, Johann

Buy Chasing the Scream: The inspiration for the feature film The United States vs Billie Holiday by Hari, Johann (ISBN: 9781526608369) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.
www.amazon.co.uk
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
I guess people dont need to wear seatbelts either?

As long as any medical treatment resulting from drink, drugs etc does not fall on the NHS I guess you have a point... :hmmm:
Click to expand...
First sentence is not a good answer. You can allow legalized drugs and still have guardrails like seatbelts.

Second sentence is one that I agree with. Where does personal freedoms start and end when there are still others either directly or indirectly impacted by your "freedom"
 
USCherry said:
First sentence is not a good answer. You can allow legalized drugs and still have guardrails like seatbelts.

Second sentence is one that I agree with. Where does personal freedoms start and end when there are still others either directly or indirectly impacted by your "freedom"
Click to expand...
The first sentence is a response to the point that if no one else is impacted then the state should allow it. I used seatbelts as an example. If you legalise drugs why stop people from driving without a seatbelt? The two philosophical positions dont match up there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;