2084



  • Thin end of the wedge:

    TL;DR Packs of ten cigarettes will be banned; minimum quantity of rolling tobacco 30g; certain "cult" ciggarrets will be banned.

    I can understand and accept - even get on board with uniform packaging but the above measures are a Law Too Far


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @loose Same-ish shit is being prepared here for e-cig fluid. Mandatory warnings on packages and all, fine. Legal restriction to age of buyers rather than seller's discretion, fine. Requirement to keep all of it hidden from view, which by extension means testing stands (bigger stores will let you taste test a product before buying) will go away, bullshit. Limiting minimal package to 15ml - :wtf: ?

    Also, something like this might be in effect here. 10-packs were a thing for a short while and now they are completely gone. I assumed it was just a market thing, but at this point I'm thinking it might be a stupid law somewhere after all.



  • @loose said in 2084:

    certain "cult" ciggarrets will be banned.

    Defined by their preparation/composition or singled-out by brand name?

    If the latter, then DEFINITELY too far.

    Our FDA just penned a plan to start regulating vaporizers the same way cigarettes are. Ignoring the fact that:

    1. People use vapes BECAUSE they're about 40,000 times healthier than cigs
    2. People use vapes to QUIT cigs and
    3. In fact there's no medical evidence that vapes are harmful in any way

    It makes me angry. This is the same FDA that still won't give a pass to States that have passed marijuana legalization laws, they maintain the right to send Federal jackbooted thugs into that Seattle pot shop at any moment and shut it down. Fuck them.



  • Still waiting for health warnings on McDonald's packaging


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blakeyrat said in 2084:

    In fact there's no medical evidence that vapes are harmful in any way

    A subset is. There's a compound called Diacetyl in some of them that has been linked to some lung diseases. I haven't read the papers related to that mind, so I don't know how concrete that is. It's used for binding the flavoring or somesuch. It seems it's mostly highly flavored ones that contain it, rather than "tobbaco-flavor" ones (they don't taste much like tobacco still, TBQH).

    It's still leagues better than actual tobacco though. Also, I personally use less stuff now than when I started so...



  • @blakeyrat said in 2084:

    In fact there's no medical evidence that vapes are harmful in any way

    Liar. They typically still contain nicotine, which is just as carcinogenic and just as addictive as it is in cigarettes.

    They probably are safer than cigarettes, and it's a step in the right direction for cigarette smokers to switch to vapes instead. But the healthiest option is to not use them at all.

    By lying to people and telling them that vapes are perfectly harmless, they might be more inclined to start using them when they otherwise wouldn't. And that is a bad decision either way. It might be less bad than starting cigarettes, but it's still bad.



  • @anotherusername said in 2084:

    Liar. They typically still contain nicotine, which is just as carcinogenic and just as addictive as it is in cigarettes.

    Addictive, yes. Carcinogenic? If you have evidence of that, then publish, you'll get a doctorate for sure.



  • @blakeyrat said in 2084:

    Carcinogenic? If you have evidence of that, then publish, you'll get a doctorate for sure.

    Okay, apparently the jury's still out. I've always heard that it was, but apparently they're still trying to figure out whether it is or not.


  • area_pol

    @loose said in 2084:

    Packs of ten cigarettes will be banned; minimum quantity of rolling tobacco 30g

    Why are cigarettes in packs of non-10 healthier than in packs of 10?
    Why do they specify a MINIMUM amount of tobacco, not a MAXIMUM? One would assume the more tobacco, the more toxicity.

    @blakeyrat said in 2084:

    Or FDA just penned a plan to start regulating vaporizers the same way cigarettes are. Ignoring the fact that:

    They could be encouraged to do that by the traditional cigarette companies, who try to eliminate competition.



  • @Adynathos My understanding is that regular tobacco companies have pretty much already given-up on the US market, now they make like 99.5% of their revenue in China and elsewhere to the point where they've basically stopped fighting any US anti-smoking initiatives because it simply doesn't make strategic sense for them.

    Maybe that's changed.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Adynathos said in 2084:

    They could be encouraged to do that by the traditional cigarette companies, who try to eliminate competition.

    Also, probable taxation reasons. I don't know how it's split up in US, but over here something like 95% of tobacco products price are various taxes.



  • @Adynathos said in 2084:

    Why are cigarettes in packs of non-10 healthier than in packs of 10?

    I guess it's because when you are young and/or poor, a pack of 10 is more accessible (cheaper)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat The bulk of the evidence seems to point to vaping being much safer than smoking (though not as safe as not consuming the products at all; you're still putting stuff in your lungs that doesn't really belong there) to the extent of not needing a long-term study to conclude that; the immediate difference is really profound. What's more, it seems to be not something that acts as a gateway to encourage non-smokers to start using at a significant level; it does for a few people, but not enough to worry anyone.

    The lack of the tars and carbon monoxide associated with smoking is the big deal. That hugely reduces the level of known carcinogenic material, irritation of the mouth and airways, etc. There would need to be a vastly nasty sting in the long-term tail for this to be as bad for users as smoking.

    I wish some of my colleagues would switch. :no_smoking:


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @dkf said in 2084:

    the immediate difference is really profound

    Can confirm.

    @dkf said in 2084:

    What's more, it seems to be not something that acts as a gateway to encourage non-smokers to start using at a significant level; it does for a few people, but not enough to worry anyone.

    My personal experience as a long-time smoker: switched to vaping pretty much instantly, and within days the taste of regular cigarettes was no longer something I could enjoy. After something like 2 weeks I started noticing cigarette smoke smell much more distinctly, in a way I haven't in years. So yeah, I don't see many people switching the other way around since it's not really that appealing in comparison.

    Note: I'm not one of those assholes that quit smoking and will now preach to smokers about this stuff. I just notice it again after many years.



  • @Adynathos I think it is to do with availability. Generally a pack of 10 is half the price of 20 (as a side issue: some brands sell packs of 19,18,17 etc in order to keep the price down). Currently a 20 pack can cost from @£7.00 to £10, 12, 15+ depending on Brand Quality.

    Rolling tobacco can be got in 10/12 , 25 or 50gm packs. It is @£8.00 for 25gms: you could get 50 ciggs from 25gm.

    Across all of this country's various "similar" administrations the thinking is that high purchase prices deter purchase. I reckon that THIS ban on the legal availability of tobacco products in small / cheaper quantities is the result of the warm comfy feeling they get by justifying that it will deter younger, new smokers based on the seriously mistaken belief that young people (kids) have limited access to finances. I also believe that any claims of it being an indication of a move from the Nanny State to a Police State will be deflected because of the emotive "force" of the deterrent for kids argument.

    Edit: @TimeBandit OP trumps :hanzo: :) besides, I was still typing my response when you replied with the simple version :p


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Adynathos said in 2084:

    Why are cigarettes in packs of non-10 healthier than in packs of 10?
    Why do they specify a MINIMUM amount of tobacco, not a MAXIMUM? One would assume the more tobacco, the more toxicity.

    I think the logic behind that is that people who are starting to smoke would rather buy smaller packs, especially teenager who don't have much money. Also, as soon as you buy a large pack of cigarettes, you're basically admitting to yourself that you're becoming addicted to nicotine. Not sure if banning small packs actually stops anyone from starting to smoke, though, I doubt it has a measurable effect.



  • @asdf What they should set is a minimum price. So even if you buy a single cigarette, it still costs the $12 that a 20-pack would.



  • @Onyx said in 2084:

    My personal experience as a long-time smoker: switched to vaping pretty much instantly, and within days the taste of regular cigarettes was no longer something I could enjoy.

    Took me a while longer - vaping wasn't getting me satisfied enough when I was forced to do it in five-minute breaks at work. It was more than enough at home, when I could just sit around with a weak liquid and keep smoking for hours.

    By the way, the EU is off to get the vapes regulated too... Luxury taxes, limits on bottle capacity, strength, some ideas were being thrown around about completely forbidding taste additives, but I'm not sure that last one went anywhere.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj said in 2084:

    By the way, the EU is off to get the vapes regulated too...

    There's a lot of argument over that. The big one was whether vaping would act as a gateway to smoking; evidence seems to be that it doesn't, but some people have really got on some high horses over it and hate backing down over anything.



  • @blakeyrat said in 2084:

    My understanding is that regular tobacco companies have pretty much already given-up on the US market, now they make like 99.5% of their revenue in China and elsewhere to the point where they've basically stopped fighting any US anti-smoking initiatives because it simply doesn't make strategic sense for them.

    Hell, British American Tobacco has made their own e-cig. I think Philip Morris was cooking something too.

    @dkf said in 2084:

    There's a lot of argument over that.

    I heard there is in the UK specifically, while the rest of the EU is mostly like "hey, we can tax this shit? Why not?"

    @dkf said in 2084:

    The big one was whether vaping would act as a gateway to smoking

    From what I know a lot of people are picking up vaping because it's cool, without smoking before. I can see how that's bad, and I can maybe see how regulating the sales to minors would be in order (stationary shops have mostly self-regulated themselves, but there's always online shopping or just that one guy willing to make a quick buck), but other than that it just looks like the governments shitting their pants bcause there's a market they haven't carefully regulated yet.

    I mean... aside from the taxes, most of the proposals seem like they're designed to piss people off more than help them.



  • @Maciejasjmj I just want some scientific proven harm before the Government gets involved, I don't think that's too much to ask.



  • @blakeyrat said in 2084:

    I just want some scientific proven harm before the Government gets involved, I don't think that's too much to ask.

    Problem is, there's much more proof for the lack of harm. Certainly anything that's in e-cigs and is harmful has been found in much, much worse concentrations in regular cigarettes, and usually also in the regular city air.

    Well, except for nicotine, but that is mostly harmless aside from the addictivity.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj said in 2084:

    I heard there is in the UK specifically

    Not really from what I've heard. It seems to vary quite a bit between countries. The UK is quite strongly encouraging vaping at the moment; it attracts lower taxes (our cigarette taxes are very large) and the government is not changing this at the moment because of the improvements to public health that ensue.

    I can't remember which countries are more anti.



  • @dkf said in 2084:

    I can't remember which countries are more anti.

    From what I gather, the whole Polish parliament, from the socialists to the liberals, is in full THINK OF THE CHILDREEEEEEN! mode about it.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj I think we've just this week (or maybe last?) had official guidance from the Chief Medical Officers of the UK that vaping is strongly preferable to smoking. There doesn't even seem to be much of a gateway effect here. Given that they'd previously been trying for years (with poor success) to cut the harm from smoking using things like nicotine patches, this is quite a change.

    Not that I'm about to start using nicotine at all. ;) It is just nice that it makes stations a lot less unpleasant.

    Our politicians are too busy with the idiotic Brexit referendum bullshit right now to bother contradicting the doctors over this sort of nanny-state-ism.



  • @dkf said in 2084:

    Given that they'd previously been trying for years (with poor success) to cut the harm from smoking using things like nicotine patches, this is quite a change.

    Oh, those things just kinda fly past the radar here.

    @dkf said in 2084:

    Brexit

    Don't you dare, I'm hoping to move to the UK in a few years. If we don't get kicked out first, at least...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj said in 2084:

    Don't you dare

    I've made my position clear. I wait to see how many of my countrymen and -women are utterly insane.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blakeyrat said in 2084:

    This is the same FDA that still won't give a pass to States that have passed marijuana legalization laws

    Wrong agency. The DEA, Department of Health and Human Services, and Congress control that.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @dkf said in 2084:

    Brexit

    That would hurt your banking sector badly, and banks are basically your only source of income. (Yeah, I know, slight exaggeration, but not entirely untrue.)

    @Maciejasjmj said in 2084:

    If we don't get kicked out first, at least...

    IIRC, kicking a country out isn't even possible, the EU can only cut the payments. But your current government is definitely on its best way to pissing everyone off and doing irreparable damage to your country.



  • @blakeyrat said in 2084:

    I don't think that's too much to ask.

    From governments, it is. Evidence points governments exist to make our lives more miserable.

    And doctors exist to make our life both longer and more uncomfortable.



  • @Onyx said in 2084:

    Note: I'm not one of those assholes that quit smoking and will now preach to smokers about this stuff.

    We in the US need to encourage smoking and keep people away from vaping. It's probably our best hope of popping the coming Medicare bubble.



  • @boomzilla In Dwarf Fortress, dwarves often smoke for a while following a dragon attack.



  • @ben_lubar I have a similar experience when grilling steaks.



  • @dkf said in 2084:

    The big one was whether vaping would act as a gateway to smoking; evidence seems to be that it doesn't, but some people have really got on some high horses over it and hate backing down over anything.

    These must be the same kind of people that believe marijuana is a gateway drug to other drugs.

    Every time someone tells me that bullshit, I tell them "well, every heroin addict started by drinking milk, we should outlaw that too." :wink:



  • @TimeBandit The funny thing is, nicotine on its own seems to be even more harmless than marijuana. As long as you don't take enough to have an instant heart attack. Marijuana shows long-term usage effects (that stoner laugh, for example) that nicotine doesn't.



  • @boomzilla said in 2084:

    It's probably our best hope of popping the coming Medicare bubble.

    I have a soft spot for retirement motorcycles. Cancer kills you fairly expensively, motorcycles are cheap.



  • @blakeyrat said in 2084:

    @TimeBandit The funny thing is, nicotine on its own seems to be even more harmless than marijuana. As long as you don't take enough to have an instant heart attack.

    The only harm nicotine seems to have is addiction.

    Marijuana shows long-term usage effects (that stoner laugh, for example) that nicotine doesn't.

    I've read something about that, but can't remember it :wink:



  • I think this exemplifies the spirit of the Thread:

    TL;DR It not so much about what he done, or even why, but the fact that an "Expert Witness" declared that the fish died in the guy's stomach due to the lack of oxygen and that it would have suffered a lot of pain in the process.

    What caused it to catch my attention was the awareness of this story a week ago:

    I appreciate the the fish swallowing thing was initiated some time ago, however, there is a growing public concern about the trend of the RSPCA's tendency to resort to litigation at the slightest provocation. This is not to say that I think that they are right or wrong, but it indicates to me that the time when there is a 50/50 (or worse) chance of being prosecuted by somebody or organisation for "something" every other time you make a move or decision; is approaching at an uncomfortably quick pace (that it is even approaching is bad enough).


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @loose said in 2084:

    This is not to say that I think that they are right or wrong, but it indicates to me that the time when there is a 50/50 (or worse) chance of being prosecuted by somebody or organisation for "something" every other time you make a move or decision; is approaching at an uncomfortably quick pace (that it is even approaching is bad enough).

    Is there evidence of this, or just media bias in how they report (and how they love to borrow each other's reporting)?



  • @dkf I have no idea if there is any evidence of this. "This" is a poorly expressed personal opinion. What I tried to express was my concern about the way things / society are moving. And by saying society, I mean UK Society because I have no experience of any other and, perhaps, by throwing this out there I might get some feedback.

    I will try and encapsulate something that I think is typical of this drift, and I will try and link it to what I consider to be the "larger issue". And, because it is atypical of me I will say that I have no solution - where normal I (generally) only "announce" a problem if I have something (acceptable) to offer as part of the solution:

    For the benefit of non-UK members: There are organisations in the UK that have oversight of "things" they are known as Ombudsmen. There is a Financial Ombudsman and "he" is the goto guy when you have issues with financial organisations that you have been unable to resolve locally - and that condition is important (and possibly is wrong, but I can see why it is). For the general public this would normally be problems with the way that debts are collected. HOWEVER, there a few organisations / debts that are not within the remit of them; these include Council Tax (Local Government mandatory taxation).

    Those organisations that are subject to review and censure are, on the whole "well behaved" because they know that they can be called to account. Local Authorities and the Agents they employ know that they are not. Over the years they have become increasing more aggressive and threatening in the collection, they add "fees" with or with the impression that these are Court Fees, they issue letters that would require a lawyer to identify that that they did not originate from a court. Agents imply that they can remove property and possessions without a court order etc etc etc. I know this because I have been a "victim". Recently there was this news article:

    Now for the other thing: Some years ago there was an article in the news that a family had accused a Local Authority of hounding their aging father / grandfather to his death over council tax arrears. The Local Authority investigated themselves and found "...no case to answer for..." and accompanied their "findings" with a whole load of blurb about how good and important they are etc.

    Occasionally there are stories of people being sent to prison for failing to pay their Council Tax. I think it would be reasonably to say (because it is consistent with the way this country does these things) that this is intended to intimidate. Equally are there stories of people who have paid the tax for these imprisoned criminals.

    In short: Government, especially Local Authorities are Civil Servants. They are un-elected - they are employed, and it is they that make the rules. Local Governments pay considerably below the market rate for the equivalent role in the Private Sector, so this should tell you something about them.

    That said, not all are bad. Some are there for genuine reasons but eventually (before their soul has been eroded too much) they will leave. Unless they leave in order to be re-employed in the same role as outsourced contractors.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @loose said in 2084:

    The Local Authority investigated themselves and found "...no case to answer for..." and accompanied their "findings" with a whole load of blurb about how good and important they are etc.

    I believe you can apply for a judicial review if you believe that they have acted improperly. That's major “see a lawyer” time though.



  • @loose Farscape didn't do a lot of Star Trek-esque "social commentary" episodes, but I liked the one where Chiana and Rygel get stuck on the planet where the population is 95% lawyers.



  • @dkf LOL Don't get me started on the Justice System :) it's enough (for the moment) that I'm taking a pop at the LA.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blakeyrat Wasn't it Chiana and Rygel saving Zhaan who was stuck? I wouldn't usually nitpick about that, but it makes it even a better story that those two lying, scheming characters are the only ones able to save the day, rather than usually diplomatic and calm Zhaan.



  • @Onyx Yeah Zhaan was drugged and framed for a murder, IIRC.

    And they saved the day by lying and scheming, more or less.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.