• Guntrigger@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    186
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everyone here is arguing the benefits of prohibition. I’m just interested to know how much money Rishi (and/or his family members/friends/donors) have invested in vaping and nicotine alternatives.

    • Jojo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      107
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It always confuses me to learn that when people want to ban smoking it somehow means ban “cigarettes” and not “nicotine”

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because smoking is WILDLY more harmful than vaping.

        Yes vaping has SOME health risks, but it’s like saying drinking tea and drinking four loko are just as bad because they both have caffeine

      • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well what’s wrong with nicotine? In itself it’s not worse than booze. It’s all the other crap they add that makes it so terrible

        • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hi from the depths of a nicotine addiction and struggling to quit. Its a worthless chemical that gets more expensive everyday and my brain SCREAMS at me for a fix if I try to go more than even a few hours. At least heroin gets you high.

        • Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean I’m no expert but I do have some knowledge on the subject.

          The difference is how you injest it. Our stomachs are much more resilient than our lungs. Your stomach is, for all intents and purposes, a sac of acid that dissolves mostly anything you put in it, your lungs on the other hand literally only do 1 thing all day and it’s breathe air. There are different qualities of air of course, and microparticles in it that could cause harm, but on the whole it’s more or less all the same.

          Its like dumping garbage into a sink vs. a paper bag. The sink will get disgusting, and you may end up with a clogged drain, messed up pipes, or worse. But at the end of the day if you just clean the mess and don’t do it too often it will probably be fine. The paper bag on the other hand is gonna get Soggy, gross, and start falling apart in your hands. You can dry it out but it will never quite be the same…

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the US it’s the opposite, which is absolutely bizarro land. Want to ban vapes but not cigarettes.

          • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            If addiction is a problem, should the general use of caffine be banned then? Thats why its kinda odd to specifically ban nicotine.

            Choosing to ban specifically nicotine and not caffine is as silly as the idea that cigarettes should be legal but weed shouldnt.

            • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Probably, yes. Even the age restrictions are kinda silly.

              I do think it’s ok to ban sale of “prepared smokables” like cigarettes. The harm level is known to be severe. But if someone wants to buy their own tobacco+papers and roll their own cigarettes, that’s on them.

              Of course, I don’t think it would be effective to ban cigarettes. Just ethically coherent.

          • Plopp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            If it’s not too harmful - what’s the problem with being addicted? I’m addicted to coffee and drink at least two cups per day, as do most people around here.

            • Goo_bubbs@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nobody out there is just buying Nicotine gum for the flavor. The overwhelming majority are struggling with an addiction that may one day kill them.

              Also, as a former smoker of over 20 years as well as a current coffee addict, I can tell you from personal experience that there is no comparison between the two. Some substances are simply more addictive than others. Nicotine is one of the worst on the planet.

              • nxdefiant@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                You say that, but even if there was a pill that instantly cured all addiction, I’d probably still crave coffee every day.

                • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  …because there isn’t a pill that instantly cures all addiction. Addiction is a complicated thing that combines a lot of factors between physical dependence, pleasure-seeking, memory formation, and a lot more.

              • gmtom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Idk man, I vaped for years many times a day and was able to quit very easily, but sugar and caffeine I just can’t, they’re so much more addictive to me.

            • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The problem with addiction is that it’s safe to say that NOTHING is good if used to excess.

              I used to be so hooked on caffeine I drank a 30-cup pot each day. It was giving me all kinds of issues, and I was only in my 20’s. I’m still addicted, but I’ve learned to moderate. It took me years. And my 4th latte of the day is telling me that I’m not exactly great at it.

              If I smoked/vaped Nicotine, I would have serious problems of taking too much all the time.

                • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Not at all. I don’t suggest any bans. I said elsewhere I would not oppose pre-rolled cigarette bans because they are especially dangerous and would not reduce access to the product itself. But I also don’t suggest pre-rolled cigarette bans.

          • Nobsi@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            The addicting part isnt the nicotine. Its everything atound it. The ritual, the friends the “doing something with your hands”.
            The psychological addiction is way stronger than the nicotine addiction that you can just overcome in 2 weeks.

        • Jojo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The full effects of vaping are not well understood, and while they’re almost certainly not as bad as cigarettes, they’re also almost certainly still bad for you, and they are indeed still addictive for the same reasons as cigarettes because they still use nicotine.

          Further, one main reason their risks remain as poorly understood as they do is that (again, because of the same active ingredient) people who vape often also use cigarettes. The two are closely linked, I don’t think my confusion should be so easily dismissed as that.

          • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh sorry, I was thinking nicotine supplements like gum and patches. In my mind, smoking and vaping are the same thing. “Don’t inhale particulate matter of any kind” is an excellent rule of thumb for all humans in all situations

            • Jojo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly my point. It always throws me for a minute when I realize people are treating them so separately.

            • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              So you’re against smelling flowers, too? And scented candles?

              The problem is that we “inhale particulate matter” all the time. Every day of our lives.

              • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, and it kills people.

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8140409/#:~:text=The World Health Organization estimates,PM2.5)%20in%20polluted%20air.

                You’re not that stupid. You know the difference between inhaling concentrated particulates from a cigarette or vape and smelling a fucking flower. (Which, by the way, pollen grains are average 10-20 microns, not 2.5.)

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7937385/#:~:text=Many studies have reported that,2020%3B Schober et al.%2C

                • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You’re not that stupid. You know the difference between inhaling concentrated particulates from a cigarette or vape and smelling a fucking flower

                  And you’re not that stupid. You know that fine particulate matter in the air every breath we take is different from someone vaping sometimes. There’s a reason your linked study doesn’t mention vaping AND why scientists are still saying the risks of vaping are unclear.

                  Your second study is more useful, but it really is not intellectually defensible to take it results as saying vaping is unhealthy. Instead, its results are saying that we need to keep regulations to control air quality with regards to vaping.

                  I’ll reiterate my original critique.

                  “Don’t inhale particulate matter of any kind” is an excellent rule of thumb for all humans in all situations

                  …is something I disagree with, like most extreme naive generalities.

          • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The full effects of vaping are not well understood, and while they’re almost certainly not as bad as cigarettes, they’re also almost certainly still bad for you

            That used to say that about artificial sweeteners. The question shouldn’t be “is it bad for you” but “is it worse for you than 99 other things you do in a day”. And vaping nicotine is “almost certainly bad for you” because of the nicotine, and nicotine is a known quantity - we know how bad it is and isn’t. We don’t have evidence that the mechanism of vaping is bad for you, and there’s no “almost certainly” on that.

            And the truth is, I have problems with people who lean on “poorly understood” for vaping. Evidence shows vaping as a mechanism (for THC as it were) going back over 2000 years to ancient Egypt. Widespread use of hookahs started in the 19th century and has tons mechanically in common with modern vaporization. There are some differences, but short of a few badly-designed vapes that let air reach the lungs while superheated, it looks a lot like people are saying “not well understood” because they cannot seem to “understand” bad things and they don’t want to say good things. We have TONS of research precedent around room-temperature air with vaporized herbs in it.

            If I were going to imbibe nicotine (or CBD or THC for that matter), I would probably prefer to vape it. I think the stigma against vaping needs to step aside for the vaccine research considering using vapes as an alternative to needle injection.

            • Jojo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hookah is pretty bad for you too, my friend. From Wikipedia, emphasis mine:

              The major health risks of smoking tobacco, cannabis, opium and other drugs through a hookah include exposure to toxic chemicals, carcinogens and heavy metals that are not filtered out by the water,[3][8][9][10][11] alongside those related to the transmission of infectious diseases and pathogenic bacteria when hookahs are shared.[3][9][12][13] Hookah and waterpipe use is a global public health concern, with high rates of use in the populations of the Middle East and North Africa as well as in young people in the United States, Europe, Central Asia, and South Asia.[3][8][9][10][11]

              If the best you can say is “it’s pretty much a mini hookah, don’t worry”, then I’m going back to the best you can say for it is that it’s poorly understood. Vaping doesn’t burn anything, unlike a hookah, but the vaporized oils still contain toxins and novel toxins not in the smoke from cigarettes or hookah. The health consequences of that are not well understood, but are probably not as bad as cigarette smoking. That’s the best we’ve got.

              • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said we have a lot more context than people want to pretend about vaping in general.

                And I’m not trying to say “it’s a mini hookah”, nor am I trying to say you should vape.

                Vaping doesn’t burn anything, unlike a hookah, but the vaporized oils still contain toxins and novel toxins not in the smoke from cigarettes or hookah

                If they contain toxins, we probably know quite a bit about those toxins right now. But what about pure vaporized solids? In the CBD and Cannabis community, dry herb vaporizing is the hot new thing specifically because 99% of complaints about vaping being unhealthy are irrelevant. All they do is get the herbs hot without burning it, run it through cooling, and inhale it. I laugh, but I used to do that with lavender with an aromatic herb heating unit.

                The health consequences of that are not well understood, but are probably not as bad as cigarette smoking. That’s the best we’ve got.

                Despite your incredulity, you really haven’t shown that. The consequences are not perfectly understood, but we understand enough to start making educated opinions about vaping. Even your points about hookahs work towards that, with the worst cons being that you still get Carbon Monoxide and the intensity of Nicotine is high. The problem is that we don’t want to tell people that the educated opinion is “probably better for you than that glazed donut”

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because probably it was defined as burning, not usage of nicotine

        • Jojo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          But why? The full effects of vaping are not well understood, and while they’re almost certainly not as bad as cigarettes, they’re also almost certainly still bad for you, and they are indeed still addictive for the same reasons as cigarettes. Further, one main reason their risks remain as poorly understood as they do is that (again, because of the same active ingredient) people who vape often also use cigarettes. The two are closely linked, I don’t think my confusion should be so easily dismissed as that.

          • Plopp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Banning nicotine would be going too far. Nicotine in and of itself isn’t that bad, it’s the delivery methods that can be problematic. In particular the ones where you inhale things into your lungs. But there are smokeless tobacco and there are types of tobacco smoking where you don’t inhale the smoke.

            • BluesF@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Who would want other nicotine options without cigarettes or vaping? No one is starting out with nicorette.

              • V H@lemmy.stad.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I tried to start with both a patch and gums years ago because of the stimulant benefits and the decent risk profile of nicotine on its own. I’ve never smoked, never will. Didn’t stick - it was too hard to get used to. If I could get it as a flavourless pill, maybe.

              • Plopp@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Many people. There are many different tobacco products that either are smokeless or that you don’t inhale that are common in different areas, like dip, snus, snuff, cigars, pipes and what have you. In some regions those are what people start using nicotine with.

              • PainInTheAES@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Actually I started with nicorette because of nootropics blogs and nasal snuff. I’ve only ever smoked 1 cigarette although I did partake in some hookah.

              • Plopp@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Psychoactive poison. Great argument there. List the negative effects of nicotine itself that you think are so bad that they require a ban instead of the problematic delivery methods.

              • V H@lemmy.stad.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s “psychoactive” in the same way that caffeine is. That is, it’s a stimulant. Using that term only serves the purpose of making it sound scarier. And it’s far less addictive on its own than when smoked. It’s not harmless, but it’s also nowhere near as big a problem in itself as specific product categories and delivery methods, and no worse than any number of other things we’re perfectly fine with people using.

      • V H@lemmy.stad.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nicotine is one of the safest stimulants we know, up there with caffeine in terms of safety. There’s little meaningful reason to ban nicotine. You’re more likely to harm yourself with any number of other things we readily allow.

        The addiction potential of nicotine alone is also far lower than people assume, because smoking is highly addictive both due to the rituals and the other substances involved. I tried to get used to nicotine via patches years back to use as a safe stimulant, and not only did I not get addicted, I couldn’t get used to it (and I was not willing to get myself used to smoking, given the harm that involves). That’s not to say you can’t develop addictions to patches or vapes etc. too, but much more easily when it’s as a substitution for smoking than “from scratch”.

        Restrictions on delivery methods that are harmful or not well enough understood, and combining nicotine with other substances that make the addiction and harm potential greater, sure.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You can go EU-way and say that all vapes should be rechargable(in both meanings), repairable and intercompatible. Basically opposite of what Big Tabacco does.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Disposable vapes should be banned.

          Though even the reusable ones generate a decent amount of waste between coil assemblies that get replaced and the plastic bottles the juice comes in. I mean, I hope we eventually get to managing waste at that level, though I’m not holding my breath since it would require huge changes to the way we handle food logistics, which eclipses vape juice waste by a lot per person.

          But the disposable ones are ridiculous.

          • Dontfearthereaper123@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can build your own coils and mix your own liquid. Me and my mate both do it it’s far cheaper and better for the environment, not too hard either once uve learnt the basics of materials and ohms n all.

            • uis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can build your own coils

              But you cannot use them in disposable shit. Selling and producing disposable shit should be banned.

              Glycerin costs 2.5$ for 1 liter bottle. And food flavoring about 6-10$ for 0.1 liter bottle.

              • Dontfearthereaper123@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Disposables could have a use assuming they were more like pods but made from biodegradable materials that are sustainably sources I,e wood or something but that wouldnt solve the coke bottles everywhere and those r worse. The problem isn’t smoking or vaping and it never was the problem is companies knowing they could get away with not being ecologically responsible and by putting the blame on disposables bring used, all you do is help them shift the blame away.

                • uis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  but made from biodegradable materials that are sustainably sources

                  Greenwashing.

        • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Halp! I have no idea how to recharge my cigar! Beyond that, i really have no idea how Big Tobacco would comply with these regulations.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            At all or while making insane profit and producing a lot of waste? At all simple: just look how vapes looked like before Big Tabacco came and enshittified them.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      That isn’t always the case though. Just look at climate scientists.

      Some just want to ban smoking because they see how much damage it has done in their community.

      But I’d also like to know if there was any vested interests.

      • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure what this has to do with climate scientists. What am I supposed to be looking at?

        Rishi has a history of making legislation to benefit the companies run or owned by friends and family. I would be extremely surprised if this didn’t also have a similar angle.

        • ours@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just some good old “whataboutism”. Maybe he sprinkles some climate-change denial into some prohibition discussion to distract us?

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          1 year ago

          Climate activists want to, among other things, pass extremely unpopular carbon taxes as they’re the most serious effort toward cutting fossil fuels usage

          Extremely unpopular ideas that inevitably favor certain products are not always moves to sell those products, is the point

          It’s pretty reasonable to assume no one outside the UK knows much about Sunak’s history with handouts to friends.

              • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                People who don’t understand we need to break our addiction to petroleum based fuel. Also People who make money off of petroleum based products.

                • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think you overestimate the size of these two groups. The group of people who care more about their own financials is likely a lot larger.

              • Spzi@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a matter of proper implementation. Tax & dividend! Distribute the tax revenue to the population per capita.

                That means:

                • If your emissions are average, you pay/earn net zero.
                • If you emit more than average, you pay. This will affect mostly rich people, since emissions strongly correlate with available money.
                • If you emit less than average, you net earn. This effectively rewards people with money gained for emissions prevented.

                Since money is distributed unequally in society, this means most people will have to pay less in such a system.

                The beautiful thing is, the financial incentive to emit less remains even for people who gain more than they pay. It’s also an incentive both for buyers and sellers, researchers and investors.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s Rishi Sunak. Of course he has a financial interest somewhere.

        It won’t work, though. Hell. He might be getting paid off by big Tabacco- make smoking edgy and rebellious again so more kids start up.

        It’s the kind of thing those ghouls would try.

      • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Rishi Sunak also just promised to ensure cars will be able to drive through heavily populated areas indefinitely and has pushed back plans to introduce electric-only cars. He absolutely does not care about peoples’ health.

  • Illecors@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see angry wankers want to moan for the sake of moaning.

    Eliminating smoking is a goos thing! I’ll take my wins whenever possible, doesn’t happen all that often.

    • evatronic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      But but there are other things that are also bad and if one proposal doesn’t solve everything it is complete trash!!!

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yea not everything is a partisan issue, and this seems like a good thing? Antismoking efforts have largely been successful in a lot of places.

      It’s not one of those things where someone is choosing to harm themselves only. Smoking affects the people around you

      • ThePenitentOne@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        So many people like to portray everything as a ‘personal choice’ while ignoring all said implications to others. Very rarely does something only actually impact you.

          • ThePenitentOne@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Too many people use it as a cop-out to avoid being accountable. It’s like when meat eaters say it’s a ‘personal choice.’ Like yeah, it is a choice you mean, but it also implicates other things not only you.

    • doublejay1999@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s gobsmacking what people will argue for. Shines a light in the general dimness of people.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean… I wouldn’t complain if megacorporation fast food restaurants that provide nothing but cheap, unhealthy junk were driven out of business…

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The difference being that cigarettes are always unhealthy, no matter how many you smoke, they procure zero benefits. McDonald’s is just a meal and becomes an issue if you eat too much of it, once every now and then won’t have any consequences.

    • kshade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Banning it for everyone is OK, telling some people that they can’t ever because they were born too late is silly, discriminatory and will inevitably create a flourishing black market.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      “If I don’t like it, then neither should anyone else!” - you

      • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “If it harms the people using it (and makes them addicted and unable to stop even if they wish to), the people around them, and the planet, I don’t like it”

        • actually me
      • chris@l.roofo.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I never have to smell cigarette smoke again and also no one ever uses the medical system to cure the consequences of smoking then I don’t care. Otherwise I am all for this.

    • 000999@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      59
      ·
      1 year ago

      First and foremost, people have the right to slowly kill themselves with cigarettes as long as it isn’t harming innocent bystanders.

      Arguably more importantly, the proposed ban is worryingly dystopian.

      Finally, agreeing with anything Sunak does is unforgivable. And in this case would reflect neo-liberal sympathies.

      • Alto@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        as long as it isn’t harming innocent bystanders.

        Considering that’s exactly what second hand smoke does, I really don’t see what point you’re trying to make.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          What they are trying to say is to ban it in public areas, but not at home.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except it doesn’t, less than 9% of the population in the USA uses tobacco in any form, including in that group is past smokers and vapers so it’s probably around 7% or less. Continually attacking a vice that’s basically done is just virtue signaling bullshit. Alcoholism has skyrocketed and kills way more people a year, and obesity is now our number one killer by miles. No one is dying from second hand smoke…you sitting in traffic is doing way more damage to your body than getting a random breeze of smoke from someone outside.

      • Otter@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        First and foremost, people have the right to slowly kill themselves with cigarettes as long as it isn’t harming innocent bystanders.

        That’s the thing with smoking though, second hand smoke is a big problem, especially for vulnerable people

          • Gabu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You may not know it because you’re a smoker (smokers’ noses are completely and irreparably fucked), but normal people can tell a cigarette was lit in a 10 meter radius, even on a windy day.

          • Anamana@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m surprised they can still walk around outside, when there are literally cars everywhere. Those are killing way more people on ‘second hand’ exposure than tobacco.

      • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except smokers always insist on slowly murdering everyone around them and littering everything in their path. If you want to smoke in a hermetically sealed room and not get close to me for at least 6 hours after, fine by me.

        • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, I understand that it smells really bad to non smokers. On the other hand, statements like this seem so ridiculously over the top that it makes me question you as a person.

          We live in car country - assuming you are German as well -, with a wide variety of unhealthy crap that you have to inhale on a daily basis. Smog, exhaust fumes, half the food we can buy is unhealthy.

          Honestly I don’t understand how people can be so worked up about smokers in that context. Is it because those are people you can bitch at and boss around, instead of nebulous corps and governments who ignore your calls for climate action and environment protection?

          Otherwise it makes no sense. Smokers are already segregated away from non smokers nowadays, what about their freedom to live (or die) as they want? Your freedom not to smell unpleasant things doesn’t trump that. Me farting in your vicinity doesn’t constitute harm to your individual rights.

          • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your freedom ends where mine begins. You are free to kill yourself, but not to blow cancerous substances on top of me - and yes, that should include cars.

            • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I generally agree, just that it seems cheap to pile on smokers like they are some sort of lepers. Also you are free to go somewhere else when around a smoker. Their habit doesn’t make them second class citizens, or should I say your freedom ends where theirs begins?

              If we want clean air we have to start with the actual polluters, not the easy pickings who are just random people. That’s like, obsessively worrying about your personal climate impact when the vast, vast majority of climate change is caused by just a handful of corporations.

      • mriormro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They’re literally cancer sticks…

        I guess we should allow people to sell antifreeze as both an industrial chemical and a soft drink. Arguably, people have the right to quickly and painfully kill themselves as well.

        • 000999@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          1 year ago

          Humans have been smoking tobacco for thousands of years. Banning it will only allow the black market to swell to an unimaginable size

          • mriormro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            These are cigarettes. Engineered to be as addictive as possible. We aren’t talking about hand rolled stogies here

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They absolutely are talking about any form of tobacco…hell track and trace in the EU has effectively destroyed the nasal snuff industry in Germany…a form of tobacco that has no deaths on its hands… literally. This is just ignorance being used in the name of “think of the children” hell that’s one of the main things everyone keeps bringing up in this thread.

              Meanwhile, smoking has been on a sharp decline for decades, is no longer a mass killer…while obesity is and alcoholism has grown 10 fold, so much so that they created a new label called social drinkers because it would put a massive amount of the population into alcoholic territory.

          • ABCDE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can imagine it, it would be less than the amount that is currently being smoked.

            • 000999@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not necessarily. People could actually start smoking more because tax free cigarettes are astronomically cheaper

              • ABCDE@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Are people smoking less weed now it’s legal in many US states?

                Where do you think tax free cigarettes are going to come from?

                • 000999@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They are either domestic bootlegs or imports. If cigarettes were actually fully banned, organized crime groups would begin mass cigarette smuggling and manufacturing operations. Sounds ridiculous, but it’s true

          • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            By that logic we should continue slavery. Aren’t you worried someone’s going to purchase one of your children on the black market!?

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    to create ‘smoke-free’ generation

    Of course, not counting the smoke, ash, and other toxic oxidized chemicals that will be kicked up by gas and diesel vehicles with his scrapping the HS2 Manchester line. What a fucking idiot. “Oh no, we brexited ourselves so hard that we’re poor now and can’t afford to build infrastructure that would stand to enrich multiple cities for hundreds of years!”

    Such classic smooth brained thatcherite conservatives. It’s mind numbing that people keep voting for them.

    • quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      Calling him smooth brained is looking past the fact that it’s just plain corruption. He has interests in the oil industry, and they are against public rail. Hold him to account for what he is, a criminal.

    • bob_lemon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, Sunak is a complete and utter bellend and cancelling half of HS2 is a ridiculous and nonsensical move.

      But I think that the good old idiom about broken clocks might just apply here. Smoking bans are a good thing.

      • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep, arresting a 47yo for smoking will be very on point for a broken clock.

        Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.

          This is the real answer right here - this is just another poverty tax/punishment.

          I don’t smoke, never have, but I know why people smoke, and it’s now (that it’s no longer seen as “cool”) almost exclusively to try and relieve a tiny bit of the mountain of stress that existing in the world today (especially as part of a marginalised group) brings, and there are a million better ways to reduce the need to smoke, and improve the health outcomes of smokers (eventually, hopefully, to the point where they are able to reduce smoking or stop altogether).

          Sunak is looking for a quick “win” for headlines and distraction, not to actually help people live healthier better lives (E: just seen his transphobic comments, which only reinforce this point). Why target the source of the problem when you can slap a band aid on it and bask in your own glory for a couple of days before your next bit of corruption is exposed?

          • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Counterpoint: A lot of people that smoke want to stop smoking. A lot of people would more easily stop smoking if it was banned or not so easily available.

            Also from the title of the article it seems that this would never apply to people that already smoke legally. The idea is that you set a minimum age and then you increase it every year. Meaning that in 100 years smoking is banned for everyone. But nobody was never banned from smoking when they were legal before. They were just never allowed to. So it prevents young people from picking up the habit.

            • DessertStorms@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So it prevents young people from picking up the habit.

              right, just like how it being illegal prevents young people from drinking and smoking weed… 🙄🙄🙄

              • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you really disagree that it reduces the amount of young people consuming those substances?

                • NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, For example, youth cannabis use halved in Canada after legalization. Also, when I was in HS, people were smoking even though it’s illegal under the age of 18. People would just buy cigarettes from reserves and sell them to each other. If made illegal, people will just find other means to get it.

                  Prohibition doesn’t work but better education does.

        • Jaarsh119@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The proposal is to raise the legal smoking age every year. Meaning each yearly increase, this hypothetical 47yo will also age a year and so will be able to smoke forever

          • Rubanski@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not if he wanted to pick up smoking one year before legal age. So he will be chasing that legal age forever and can’t smoke even if he’s 68

            • ////Edit: it seems like I need to give an example to explain this apparently very difficult problem: Person A is 17 , smoking is allowed from 18 Next year Person A is 18, he could under normal circumstances smoke with 18, but now smoking is legal with 19. Continue to age 68 but smoking is now allowed from 69. It’s even implied in the article
    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s mind numbing that people keep voting for them.

      Well recent polling would suggest that they no longer will be voting for them.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          He’s still an MP, so those in his riding would have voted for him, and the Tory party members voted for him, and the rest of the country voted for members of his party that include Lettuce Head and BoJo, so they did vote for a numbskull from his party to be in power.

          • shuzuko@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fact that I have no idea what her name is but still know exactly who you’re talking about when you say Lettuce Head is endlessly amusing to me.

  • superkret@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah yes, because making drugs illegal has worked so well in the past.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Setting age limits on substance use is a little different from criminalizing possession/use. In the case of smoking, it has helped reduce rates. This is something backed by people working in public health, who also support decriminalization for possession and bringing in safe consumption sites. It’s all about finding the right approach for an issue.

      I’d rather focus on calling out the OTHER bad stuff his government is doing, instead of turning this one partisan based on which party introduced it

      • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not really an age limit when you’ll never reach it, it’s just gradual criminalization.

        • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not true. It’s a ban on the sale not possession or consumption. The end user is not being criminalized.

          Theoretically there’s nothing stopping from importation (barring implementation of another law).

      • betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        But this isn’t am age limit, its using an age limit as a hack to basically grandfather in a smoking ban. It is about finding the right approach, and this ain’t it.

          • betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            For the same reason prohibition of alcohol didn’t work, for the same reason the drug war didn’t work, for the same reason prescription requirements for medically useful narcotics doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter what the law is, people will make their own choices, and if the things are available, legally or not, people that want to use them will use them.

            Look at the US. For all it’s faults, it has handled smoking very very well. The younger generation basically doesn’t smoke cigarettes. They’re not banned from it for life, they just were informed about it and so they find it disgusting and don’t really do it. You can’t even really get a date anymore with someone if you smoke cigarettes and you’re under like 40.

            • Risk@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Whilst I agree with you in that I don’t think this is an optimal approach, at the same time I’m curious as to whether this would create a significant black market for cigarettes.

              Anybody already addicted will continue to have access. Anyone not addicted has to overcome the barrier of acquiring it illicitly, which works in tandem with education about the harm it does.

              Considering how bulky cigarettes are compared to most other drugs, I wonder whether most dealers would carry around loads of cigarettes - particularly if they’d be at risk of being prosecuted for having them (which I don’t think is the case here, though).

              However, it would probably increase the rate at which weed is cut with tobacco as it increases the addictiveness and ensures customer dependency for the dealers.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28850065/

                ASH surveys showed a rise in the prevalence of ever use of e-cigarettes from 7% (2016) to 11% (2017) but prevalence of regular use did not change remaining at 1%. In summary, surveys across the UK show a consistent pattern: most e-cigarette experimentation does not turn into regular use, and levels of regular use in young people who have never smoked remain very low.

                Except it doesn’t. Vapes are super easy for kids to get, yet somehow they don’t stick with it.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Raising age limits on smoking has not reduced rates, making tobacco use taboo in society and knowing how dangerous it is for you has. In the US like 9% use any form of tobacco (which it’s more likely around 7% or less because they include people who have smoked in their lives and quit as well). At this point no one is really smoking… going after tobacco still is just stupid.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Read the article for fucks sake.

      They’re not making the drug illegal, just cigarettes. People who want nicotine still have other options.

      It’s like how no one goes out of their way to make/sell pure ethanol, because you can still buy beer or vodka.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s still prohibition… it’s flat out dumb. A kid isn’t smoking a $10 cigar…

  • gencha@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Smoking is redundant today. Kids are getting enough cancer from the environment already.

    • smellythief@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not redundant. Harms compound. It’s not like people max out their carcinogenic index or something. 🙄

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That law is an excellent example of knowledge vs wisdom. Knowledge is knowing that some substances may be carcinogenic. Wisdom is knowing that the dosage of a carcinogen is so low it hardly poses any risk.

        To be fair though that’s hard to put on a warning label and harder to explain.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not a fact though, but I’m glad we can both agree it wasn’t funny or clever.

          Just hyperbole.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol, why do you people always get upset when someone says something isn’t funny?

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It was just a rude and aggressive thing to say intended to make someone feel bad about IMO a valid (or at worst innocuous) comment.

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not really. It’s to show them the reality that some people think what they said wasn’t funny.

              You seem to think that it’s only acceptable to say a joke is funny, but not that it isn’t.

  • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Great goal but like with all other narcotics, wouldn’t this just create a huge black market and thus massively fund criminal organizations?

  • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    So we would eliminate smoking the same way we eliminated drug use…by making it illegal.

    /S if necessary

  • zik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Smoking’s already dramatically fallen out of popularity with younger people, being replaced by vaping. So I don’t think it really matters what they do at this point - smoking’s a dinosaur waiting to die.

  • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    From someone who has smoked and quit, I was really blind sided by how addictive nicotine was. People talk about adults and what they put in there body but nicotine really is a different monster

  • Sagrotan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or do it like Germany: make vaping extremely expensive so people go back to smoking. Stupid.

  • ZILtoid1991@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    One problem: most smokers start as teens, all while it’s forbidden to sell kids the cancer sticks.

    Addition: I would punish the selling of tobbaco products to kids even more, including the ability of suing the adults for damages in the future (If it won’t cause a cobra problem later on), and also give the ability to non-smoking workers to sue their employers if they give smokers more breaks.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      My 13-year-old daughter already has friends who vape. That’s how insidious it is and how deeply embedded in the public consciousness nicotine-based products are.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        39
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most kids aren’t vaping anything with nicotine in it. Most are vaping 0mg juices and trying to look cool blowing clouds. Nicotine isn’t a super addictive chemical, it’s about as addictive as caffeine. Smoking cigarettes and vaping are habit forming, it’s why almost all smoking cessation forms fail multiple times for people.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100713144920.htm

            https://www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/news/nicotine--no-more-harmful-to-health-than-caffeine-.html

            Nicotine is not incredibly addictive, the habit of smoking is. It’s why NRT have basically a 95% failure rate.

            Habits forming actions like biting your nails, are also incredibly hard to stop and their is no underlying drug there.

            The who nicotine is bad for you and causes cancer is also bullshit. The bad science that was used against smoking and still used today was done for the public good. It’s why a lot of studies are starting to come out that, nicotine isn’t what’s the issue…the inhalation of smoke and the habit of doing so are.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry but no. habits generally take weeks to months to form. that smoking becomes habitual certainly makes quitting harder. there is no doubt there. but, if smoking was far less addictive, it would be far less likely to ever develop as a habit. Remember, that nicotine from smoking (or vaping) starts affecting your brain essentially instantly, creating a dopamine hit, as well as the other affects. it is that which makes nicotine addictive. not some random associated habits that developed over weeks or months.

              Also your sources aren’t very good. In the first, there’s no direct link to the studies in question, but based entirely on what was said int he article… I’m doubting very much they took into consideration the use of alternatives by flight attendants- patches and gums are extremely common among FA’s that smoke; specifically to manage the cravings while they’re forbidden from smoking. And from what I can tell with a quick search (I’m far from authoritative here,) snuff has been used as an alternative to smoking on shabbat… from pretty much the first time it was brought to Europe, so I would have to assume patches are also a viable method of controlling cravings there as well.

              In any case, nobody really says that nicotine causes cancer. At least, no one even remotely honest.

              tobacco use causes cancer. As RSPH notes:

              Nicotine is harmful in cigarettes largely because it is combined with other damaging chemicals such as tar and arsenic,

              however it goes on to be wrong about one thing:

              Electronic cigarettes and Nicotine Replacement Therapy (gum, lozenges, and patches) contain nicotine but don’t contain the harmful substances found in cigarettes.

              vapes frequently contain toxic chemicals. many are frequently contaminants from extraction; some are added as flavoring or turn into toxic chemicals because of being vaporized, which changes chemical structures. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

              Nobody really knows for sure what the long term impacts of vaping is- even if the vape juice is just water; we don’t really know if it’s safe or not. One thing people do know is that Nicotine is addictive, and that you keep saying it’s ‘not that bad’ makes me think maybe you’re trying to justify something. I don’t care if you smoke or vape. nobody here does. But I do care that you’re spreading misinformation about things.

              Talk to any one whose tried quitting both caffeine and nicotine. there’s really no comparison between the two; and saying there’s not is patent bullshit.

        • 𝔹𝕚𝕫𝕫𝕝𝕖@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just quit vaping like a week or two ago and it was fucking miserable for a week straight. Caffeine isn’t nearly as bad when I’ve quit that, but nicotine withdrawals are fucking horrible and they feel like they last forever.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I quit caffeine and it took me 2 weeks of shakes and fevers to get over it. The withdrawals were horrible. I smoke cigars and pipe tobacco regularly and quit every winter with no issues.

            • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That sounds like some D.A.R.E. bullshit. If that’s the case then I’d be perfectly fine trying heroin once because I won’t get addicted to it. I’ve tried nicotine a few times, now, and I have less than zero interest in trying it again. You can make your point without being hyperbolic

              • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You probably wouldn’t get addicted to heroin on the first try… Have you never taken opiate painkillers? Were you immediately addicted after your first dose? Sounds like DARE failed you as well.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You do not get the same high with nicotine as you do with heroin. It’s a bullshit lie told to kids to keep them from smoking. So many of you seem to have swallowed this crap hook line and sinker.

            • Risk@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              links single paper supporting point amongst the hundreds that refute it

              paper is written by a guy on the payroll of a tobacco company

              Lmfao.

            • angrystego@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The review study I linked says vaping doesn’t have higher success rate when it comes to stopping.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes the same FDA who pushes for NRT…the same NRT that have people failing to quit…and committing suicide while on them…also no where in your link does it show what mg kids are vaping.

            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28850065/

            ASH surveys showed a rise in the prevalence of ever use of e-cigarettes from 7% (2016) to 11% (2017) but prevalence of regular use did not change remaining at 1%. In summary, surveys across the UK show a consistent pattern: most e-cigarette experimentation does not turn into regular use, and levels of regular use in young people who have never smoked remain very low.

            1% is what your looking at for kids that get addicted to vaping…

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          What evidence do you have that this is not detrimental to their health and development? Because as far as I know, no major studies have been done.

        • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That isn’t true, Elf bars and Lost Marys are so easy for kids to get hold of and it is 100% what they’re using.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28850065/

            ASH surveys showed a rise in the prevalence of ever use of e-cigarettes from 7% (2016) to 11% (2017) but prevalence of regular use did not change remaining at 1%. In summary, surveys across the UK show a consistent pattern: most e-cigarette experimentation does not turn into regular use, and levels of regular use in young people who have never smoked remain very low.

            • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That data is 6 years out of date and times have massively changed. Seriously, just go walk down the street after the kids have finished school for the day and your eyes will be opened.

              This report is from 2 years ago so still out of date, but you can see the change that happened just in the 4 years between this and the one you linked:

              https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vaping-in-england-evidence-update-february-2021/vaping-in-england-2021-evidence-update-summary

              Under half (43.0%) of 11 to 18 year olds who were current and former vapers reported always using vaping products that contained nicotine – 17.3% reported always using nicotine-free products. Three out of five (61.3%) 16 to 19 year olds who had vaped in the past 30 days used nicotine in their current product – 17.3% said their product did not contain nicotine.

              Over half (58.2%) of 16 to 19 year olds who had vaped in the past 30 days did not feel addicted to vaping but 38.5% said they felt a little or very addicted.

              Just under a fifth (18.4%) of current vapers aged 11 to 18 reported experiencing urges to vape almost all the time or all the time.

              More 11 to 18 year olds who had tried vaping said they had:…

              tried a vaping product and never tried smoking (28.9%)

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks, troll, for mixing valid points with blatant bullshit.

          Also caffeine is neurotoxin.

    • Zellith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but then ultimately it becomes illegal for everyone to own them. Meaning shops cant sell them.

      • Risk@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, honestly I think it would make more sense to increase the age at which it’s legal to sell to 25 (under the justification that supposedly that’s when your brain has finished developing), and then allow it from there on to prevent it becoming a way to support illegal activity.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think New Zealand implemented a similar measure some years back, it should probably be good to see how well it works there. Hopefully this doesn’t create a black market for tobacco.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes we did. Have not heard anything about it since… so it’s probably working as intended.

        We’re currently freaking out about vape shops springing up every ten feet.

        • Dontfearthereaper123@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          My first cig was illegally imported and sold by a dealer involved with gangs. All its done is make people get tobacco from their dealer rather than the guy outside the shop.

    • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      And where does teens get the idea to smoke from? Is it from grandpa that coughs louder than a jet engine? Or is it the older cooler teens who got the idea from older teens, who got the…

      You get the point.

      I smoked as a teen because some of my friends did, they smoked because some of their friends did. And you don’t have to look very far to find the 18-20 year olds who provided them.

      Luckily, I never smoked much and mostly kept it to social smoking which made it very easy for me to quit once I grew up and developed some brain-cells that enjoyed co-operating with eachother.

    • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah but the 18 year old buys for the 15 year old-- brothers, sisters, upperclassmen, etc.

      The more that gap becomes larger, the less likely they have social interaction and access. How many 40 year olds buy for 15 year olds today? In 20 something years, 40 year olds will be the youngest purchasers.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      also give the ability to non-smoking workers to sue their employers if they give smokers more breaks.

      Yeah, one of the best bits of WFH is that I can take as many breaks as my nicotine obsessed colleagues.

  • prtm@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Finally something sensible from this guy. Last week it was all big auto lobby nonsense.

  • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    He should also star making crimes illegal so that they can live in a society without crime /s.

  • Sharp312@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel we’ve done a good enough job at making smoking undesirable, effectively banning it is excessive. It would be better to focus on doing what was done to cigarettes to vapes. Kids arent smoking nearly as much but theyre vaping like mad. I see kids as young as 13-14 doing it. Vapes are allowed to look appealing, combine that with their nice smell and flavour, ofc young people are going to gravitate toward them instead.

    Make it so vape packaging is bland and has similar warnings as cigarretes, and actually teach kids about addiction instead of just a hard “dont touch these”. Everyone with a braincell knows that if you ban something from young people, theyre gonna do it more

    • yesdogishere@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      the problem is there’s actually zero evidence vapes alone (without nicotine etc) do any harm. The vapes which the industry is moving towards is just largely the same as steamed and cooling water vapour. It’s totally harmless.

      • Sharp312@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sadly though, vaping is associated almost entirely with nicotine. I know plenty who vape, but no one who vapes 0% juice. I havent personally done much research about them but inhaling any fumes is a net negative. Although vapes are far less harmful tham cigarettes, nicotine addiction is still there, and these kids are getting it. Im one of the few of my generation that used vapes for their original purpose, quitting smoking and they work great, but its depressing af seeing kids caning vapes just knowing its already an addiction for them

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean I very recently got diagnosed with polycythaemia that was caused by excessive vaping. Which has seen marked improvement since I stopped.

        The problem is its still too new to do long term (10+ year) studies on vaping and health institutions still don’t collect data on vape usage.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s plenty of evidence that vapes are harmful not as harmful as cigarettes but still.

        • Alto@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s zero evidence! (just ignore the mounds of evidence saying that it’s still fucking awful for you)