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


  • BINNED

    @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 - undefined ?

    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


  • BINNED

    @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.


  • BINNED

    @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. 🚭


  • BINNED

    @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 undefined 🙂 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.


Log in to reply
 

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