1 edit
@suzianne saidIt is true I don't care for the health of folk that vape, as it is for mchill. I believe whatever health hazards there are have been massively over stated. A much more likely scenario is that some competitor for the nicotine dollar is looking to enlist the goobermint mafia to set up a protection racket on their behalf.
More malapropisms from the expert.
You describe me as "running away". I would describe it as no longer wishing to speak with you as long as you continue with the malapropisms.
And no, I do not absolve you of failing to care for your fellow man just because you don't feel like it. That doesn't absolve you at all. All that means is you don't care, and you don't care th ...[text shortened]... ally can't be bothered to care about anyone but yourself. You're not on the moral high ground here.
But that I don't care for my fellow man? That is a misunderstanding on your part. Please post some quote to show us how you came to this conclusion and I will assist you in correcting it.
In the meantime do you believe it is wrong to apologise for something yet in the same breath do it anyway, does that not make the apology hollow?
@mchill saidHere in Michigan our governor banned the sale of flavored vape. Vape businesses sued the governor for putting them out of business.
If the vape folks want to knock years off their life, by inhaling this stuff, then let them. Health departments and funeral homes have the facilities the dispose of them. Sorry to sound so uncaring, but, you can't legislate taste.
Nicotine is a drug and an addictive one. Some of the vapes contain chemicals that are nasty. Not sure why they were tolerated in the first place. Seems like the result of poor regulation standards to me.
1 edit
Banning vaping paraphernalia is not the answer, as it will only drive people to the black market, and it appears that counterfeit vape products are what are behind the recent spate of lung illnesses.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/vaping/counterfeit-dank-vapes-among-products-linked-lung-illnesses-n1059616
If legitimate products are banned, that leaves only the counterfeit products, which the black market will happily supply to all comers with cash in hand, regardless of age.
Regulate the vaping industry by all means, but ban it? Has the US learned nothing from its futile and wasteful war on cannabis over the last century?
Criminalizing youth has long been a favorite blood sport in the US. Legalize and regulate weed, lower the drinking age to 18, and keep vaping legal (but better regulated).
@metal-brain saidNo s---. Talk to your president, who decided early on that every new regulation must sunset two others.
Here in Michigan our governor banned the sale of flavored vape. Vape businesses sued the governor for putting them out of business.
Nicotine is a drug and an addictive one. Some of the vapes contain chemicals that are nasty. Not sure why they were tolerated in the first place. Seems like the result of poor regulation standards to me.
@soothfast saidI agree with everything here, except the vaping. It needs to be regulated to death.
Banning vaping paraphernalia is not the answer, as it will only drive people to the black market, and it appears that counterfeit vape products are what are behind the recent spate of lung illnesses.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/vaping/counterfeit-dank-vapes-among-products-linked-lung-illnesses-n1059616
If legitimate products are banned, that leaves only the count ...[text shortened]... alize and regulate weed, lower the drinking age to 18, and keep vaping legal (but better regulated).
There is zero benefit to vaping. It only harms people.
The recent legislation in several states to cease selling the flavorings is a big step forward, as this discourages the young to pick up the habit. We need less people addicted to nicotine, not more.
@suzianne saidThere is no benefit to drinking alcohol, or rock climbing, or sky diving, or any number of other risky activities, save that subsets of the population get pleasure from such activities. We should not devalue individual freedoms based on their perceived "benefit" to society, and subordinate all earthly pleasures to the needs of the economy or the state.
I agree with everything here, except the vaping. It needs to be regulated to death.
There is zero benefit to vaping. It only harms people.
The recent legislation in several states to cease selling the flavorings is a big step forward, as this discourages the young to pick up the habit. We need less people addicted to nicotine, not more.
An economy should serve the people, not the other way around. Freedom does have a price, and unless we are to become joyless automatons we have to accept that people will want to do things that may cost society some money and inconvenience.
To draw a line somewhere in regards to a certain activity, I usually start with this question: does indulging in the activity directly imperil the livelihood or well-being of others? Rock climbing does not. Vaping does not. Alcohol comes close, but it is more reasonable to simply ban people who are under the influence of alcohol from undertaking certain activities such as driving.
Tobacco cigarettes are tightly regulated. There is no reason whatsoever that vaping cannot be placed under a similar regulatory regime. I am quite progressive, but at the same time I am wary of the inexorable encroachment of nanny state nonsense that infantilizes adults, or abridges their freedoms, because of arguments along the lines of "Think of the children."
Cannabis was solidly banned throughout the US for three-quarters of a century, but studies have repeatedly shown that kids could always easily get the stuff if they wanted it. They network. They know people who know people. You ban something, and you just hand all the power to the black market. Cannabis prohibition has destroyed far more lives than cannabis itself ever has.
@suzianne saidThe benefit is that it is pleasurable - as with the
There is zero benefit to vaping. It only harms people.
other activities which soothfast has pointed out.
But what is the harm?
We don't know.
Nicotine is highly addictive and vaping is being heavily pushed onto the
youth. I'm in favour of legalising ALL drugs given that we have sufficient
understanding of its health risks and that those risks can be communicated
to potential users. Freedom of choice based on information.
@wolfgang59 saidPortugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, and in the ensuing years that country's considerable drug crisis has eased significantly.
The benefit is that it is pleasurable - as with the
other activities which soothfast has pointed out.
But what is the harm?
We don't know.
Nicotine is highly addictive and vaping is being heavily pushed onto the
youth. I'm in favour of legalising ALL drugs given that we have sufficient
understanding of its health risks and that those risks can be communicated
to potential users. Freedom of choice based on information.
https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
The drug policy of Portugal was put in place in 2001, and was legally effective from July 2001. The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison as possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than a ten-day supply of that substance.
Decriminalization is, of course, not the same as legalization, but treating drug addiction as a criminal matter rather than a health issue has always been counterproductive madness.
1 edit
@wolfgang59 said"...unless we are to become joyless automatons we have to accept that people will want to do things that may cost society some money and inconvenience. "
The benefit is that it is pleasurable - as with the
other activities which soothfast has pointed out.
But what is the harm?
We don't know.
Nicotine is highly addictive and vaping is being heavily pushed onto the
youth. I'm in favour of legalising ALL drugs given that we have sufficient
understanding of its health risks and that those risks can be communicated
to potential users. Freedom of choice based on information.
As Soothfast wrote, yes, death does cost money and yes, it's an inconvenience.
But these deaths came AFTER it was heavily pushed as "safe". It's like the SG coming out and saying that beyond the dangers some people face of alcoholism, alcohol is generally safe, and then hearing of people dying of alcohol poisoning from drinking vast amounts.
This is a public hazard.
1 edit
@soothfast saidBut what we have now (the current crisis) is people dying after it (vaping) was deemed "safe".
Decriminalization is, of course, not the same as legalization, but treating drug addiction as a criminal matter rather than a health issue has always been counterproductive madness.
These people didn't sign up for this.
@soothfast saidI'd be a bit wary of that. The tobacco industry has a long history of spreading misinformation about the health effects of tobacco. There is no reason to believe that the vaping industry will behave any differently. As noted above doctors in the UK cannot recommend vaping as a substitute for smoking as the health effects are unknown. Anyone vaping is taking an uncontrolled risk. Smoking is a controlled risk in the sense that we know what the risks are: Lung and other cancers, HF, COPD, etc..
Banning vaping paraphernalia is not the answer, as it will only drive people to the black market, and it appears that counterfeit vape products are what are behind the recent spate of lung illnesses.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/vaping/counterfeit-dank-vapes-among-products-linked-lung-illnesses-n1059616
If legitimate products are banned, that leaves only the count ...[text shortened]... alize and regulate weed, lower the drinking age to 18, and keep vaping legal (but better regulated).