this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024

31 points (94.3% liked)

Australia

3651 readers

39 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Policy banning vape sales outside of pharmacies to go before Senate, health minister says (www.youtube.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What are people's thoughts here? I could understand removing all the lolly flavours and regulating like other tobacco products. I am an ex-smoker but I personally feel like this is govt over-reach. That might be an out-dated mindset of my time & generation (genX), however. So I'm interested to get some insight into how the broader population view this issue, particularly the younger generations, in both an overall opinion, but also in regards to such govt controls of recreational substances vs an individual's right of freedom to choose.

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I don't see why they shouldn't be treated exactly like cigarettes.

From October that'll pretty much be the case, except only purchasable at a pharmacy. I can't see why they shouldn't be sold at servos, etc., but I don't think it's a massive problem in terms of personal freedoms. It'll give pharmacies a cash boost, and maybe even cause expansion of their opening hours in some cases, which could be helpful.

In any case, I think that the deal the Greens got is probably the best one Labor were ever going to give.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I don't see them as any different to cigarettes personally. Just one more way for giant corporations to get people hooked on addictive shit with no upside. Fuck Jool. Fuck Philip Morris.

These companies spend millions knowingly breaking the law over and over and then get to keep operating regardless? Their executives should be in prison.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

The giant corps are the ones massively involved in the black market :(

It's probably not realistic to say no upside, as people usually do stuff for reasons even if it's terrible overall. Like a bizarrely high proportion of people with schitzophrenia take nicotine so there probably is something it's doing that helps in the moment.

There's gonna be a market one way or the other. IMHO the government should step in to make it tightly controlled and low profit (if not nationalised). Also we should lynch everyone who's ever taken a dollar of tobacco money but idk how broad support for that is.

[–] Fuck_The_Karlings 6 points 6 months ago

I'm a Millennial.

I found the idea of banning vapes to be pretty hypocritical of the government.

Like the idea that we don't want children getting addicted to nicotine is a good goal to strive towards, However to ban the only source of nicotine dependence that doesn't get taxed by the government while leaving cigarettes alone felt really dodgy to me.

[–] Outsider9042 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

As a non-smoker, I find vapes far less obnoxious in terms of odour.

The main problem I had with it all is the waste. Seeing cigarette butts and single use vape cartridge litter the streets makes me mad.

I’m a big fan of do what you want as long as you don’t make it my problem.

Ban cigarette filters, ban single use vapes. The rest I couldn’t care less about.

[–] breadsmasher 4 points 6 months ago

Ban single use vapes

I really hope this becomes a worldwide ban. Disposable vapes are hugely wasteful

[–] eatthecake 4 points 6 months ago

If prohibition doesn't work then why ban vaping? If prohibition does work then why not ban smoking? The billions in tax money is why.

[–] FmbyMF 2 points 6 months ago

I think now would be a great time to figure out how to 3d print them and profit.

[+] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Is it worse than actual smoking, though?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

A study measuring the aerosols from two vape users and comparing it with secondhand cigarette smoke found vapes produced a much lower level of ultrafine particles, but a much higher level of nanoparticles. It is not clear what risk these pose. Another study found vape use increased fine particles in a room’s air.

From SMH: Is secondhand vaping a growing threat or ‘fake news’?

It would seem the science is still not in on just how dangerous it is, but further in the article it says:

The question, says Demaio, is whether we should wait for conclusive evidence before taking action.

“We don’t have any long-term studies on the safety of these products, or on the safety of secondhand exposure. It took us 20 years to realise it [tobacco] was causing damage in the next generation of kids who were living with others who smoked.

“My worry is we take another two or three decades to realise the same thing.”

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The problem is this applies equally well to stuff like eating fast food or not doing cardio 3x a week.

I'm an ex smoker for context, I hate this fucking shit but we don't offer any real support to prevent addiction and just punish people for it.

I'm 100% plain packaging and selling behind counter (for all drugs, all products really ought to have advertising bans and plain packaging but I'll never win that one). I'm also in favour of making addicting stuff boring. But after that people are ultimately free to make bad choices (I write, sprawled with terrible posture, a glass of wine, and some chips) and leaving the TGA to authorise these will mean none get approved and a black market will be created anyway.

[+] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oh but don't they?

People who don't do cardio might be more likely to have a heart attack while driving, or otherwise drive at a lower level of alertness (cardio improved cognitive performance and slows decline) hence increasing their chances of hitting someone.

Or perhaps they cost the state more in health (tbh probably like smokers they cost less but this is the common justification for the sin tax on smoking) which damages your ability to get your health issues attended too.

People drinking alcohol are more likely to engage in violence, and do actually pose a risk to people around them statistically.

Obvs this stuff is reaching, but so is most of the health stuff on vaping so far (most harm demonstrated is due to 'popcorn lung' which is basically a result of lack of regulation meaning a certain flavour got used despite this known side effect) and the point is we need to consider degrees.

We live in a society and there aren't super clear boundaries on what we ought to be able to do. The current proposed law, which again I'm broadly in favour of, does massively fuck up by placing vapes under the TGA. That means they need to be regulated as medical devices which means unless you can show a vape has a medical reason to be on the market it wont be approved.

Since that will never happen (except, maybe as a cessation tool but the TGA will have high standards of evidence) this is still a ban on vaping, just the long way round. Note how CBD is legal and OTC except there are no approved CBD products for OTC.

[+] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What is the immediate health effect of a nearby vaper? Like seriously I actually don't know of any solid evidence. In it's most basic formulation it is literally just a fog machine.

[+] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

For both of our convenience I would really appreciate it if you just listed the specific concerns you had in mind, along with a primary source.

If a primary source is too much because you believe something is "common knowledge" (e.g. asking for a primary source on why to look both ways before crossing the road is a bit pedantic) a relevant Wikipedia page about the immediate health concern would be fine.

Let's exclude popcorn lung (diacetyl damage) for aforementioned reasons.

I'd also like to ask, are you concerned about fog machines which also make a vapour of vegetable glycerine? Or are your concerns limited to flavour compounds and trace nicotine exposure?

[+] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I will could you answer my question about fog machines though?

[+] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

That is a separate issue. I'm trying to understand what their specific health concerns are, why it is they feel any amount of vaping represents an antisocial immediate health hazard distinct from say driving while unhealthy, tired or whatever or taking drugs known to increase violent tendencies like alcohol.

There is something they feel is different and I'm trying to unpick what it is. Like is there a specific chemical they believe even trace vaping exceeds safe limits of? a class like VOCs but are they also afraid to be around a stove etc? Is it fear of lack of regulations meaning unknown contamination could be present? Is it lack of precedent of characterised harms? (e.g. standing next to a stove while cooking seems about as unhealthy as being near most* vapes but we tend to be comfortable with poorly ventilated stoves and not with vapes because stoves are boring).

They unfortunately seem to thing my curiosity represents some hostility, despite having stated that I am in favour of regulation and basically just have a couple of quibbles with this law ¯_(ツ)_/¯