this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
150 points (99.3% liked)

United Kingdom

4055 readers
123 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Mr_Blott 92 points 8 months ago (3 children)

For children's health?!? Should've been banned years ago for the planet's health ๐Ÿ˜ก

[โ€“] [email protected] 45 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If you ban it to save the children, you have the conservatives on your side.
If you ban it to save the planet, it becomes a leftist issue and people will resist the "wokeness".

[โ€“] ForgotAboutDre 19 points 8 months ago

Real conservatives, not proto-fascist populists or extreme neo liberals, would want to conserve the environment because they'd be interested in keeping the tradition of clean air and growing traditional crops. We see some of this in Teal movements (green/blue).

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The Tories don't care about saving the children unless it's a means to enacting some kind of dystopian police state. I wonder what their are motivation here is.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

So weird they are apparently doing it for the children. Maybe it's for a bigger impact or something, but it seems questionable as it was always about the environment with disposable vapes.

[โ€“] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

It may be two pronged.
"For the children" is a classic "you sure you want to block this legislation, mate?" move.
And the big tabacco companies have been rapidly pivoting to target vaping at children (to set up lifetime consumers), since we've made amazing headway reducing smoking.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah there is definitely a problem with big tobacco taking advantage of children. This looks like a proper legislation that I stand for. However, it's hard to not be skeptical as "for the children" is usually for malicious intents.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Sometimes you have to play the game to win, even if the game is not something you want in the first place.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

It seems like targeting vaping at children has worked for them. The handful of millennials I know who vape are people who started smoking at ~14 years old before transitioning to vaping instead. I don't personally know any millennials who went from being non-smokers to picking up vaping. And the millennials I know who vape all use the rebuildable, customisable ones, too.

The percentage of zoomers I see who vape is far, far higher. A lot of them have never smoked a cigarette in their lives, they just went straight to vaping. And it's almost exclusively disposable vapes, too.

I think vaping is preferable to smoking cigarettes, but I think not doing either is ideal. And I'm obviously dead set against disposable vapes.

So yeah, in this case, "for the children" actually seems to be appropriate. And not that Sunak really gives a damn about the environment, but I think framing this as "for the children" rather than for environmental reasons is the right approach for a conservative government anyway; left-wing people will support it for environmental reasons anyway, but the government directly saying it's for environmental reasons would probably upset a segment of right-wing people who think doing anything for the environment is "woke". This way, it's seen as a good thing for everyone (except the disposable vape buyers, I guess, but it is good for them, too, even if they don't agree now).

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah they're not banning vapes, and they don't appear to be increasing the age of purchase.

The problem with disposable vapes is that their disposable. In the sense that you can physically throw them away not in the sense that they're actually recyclable, not that we we will never know for sure because no one who has ever used one has ever put it in a bin, they just thrown it on the floor or in a canal if it all possible.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, sod the children.