Disposable vapes ban

[CharlotteB]

On 11/9/2024 at 7:06 AM, CharlotteB said:

 

Normally I'd just move myself and my family away, and not be too bothered, but there are some situations like Glastonbury where you're packed into a crowd and it's just not feasible to move. Then someone in front of you lights up and forces fifty people to breathe in their smoke. So selfish.

 

...and this was literally my first post on the subject. It's all I want, and I don't think that's unreasonable. The person next to me having a pint doesn't stop me enjoying Nick Cave.

 

Your first post in this seems to be in favour of banning disposable vapes, or at least traders selling them. Are you in favour of banning certain disposable plastics too? I would completely agree with you on all of that. Some things should be banned, shouldn't they? I don't consider that a breach of people's freedom, it's just sensible.

Edited yesterday at 01:06 AM by CharlotteB

[Alvoram]

8 minutes ago, CharlotteB said:

 

Tbh, I just don't want people smoking next to me when I'm in a dense crowd. It sets off my asthma, and I can't easily get away (nor should I have to give up my spot just because someone needs to soothe their addiction). No regard for people with medical issues shown. That's all I'm saying. The rest of the things said are just your bullsh!t 🤣😅🤣😅

If I was still a smoker, and somebody mentioned this to me politely, I'd genuinely go out of my way to accommodate them. 

Although I know there are dickheads out there unfortunately.

(Cara, my OH, has severe Asthma, her scores on that breathing test thing, they make you go for regularly, are COPD level apparently, but they don't want to diagnose her with COPD as they're hopeful these scores are temporary, due to the fact they believe her asthma was / is allergy related / triggered initially. She still sleeps with the dogs that triggered her asthma!!! 🙈)

P.s the bullsh!t bit was uncalled for, I've said nothing I can't back up with sources, unlike others... 😞 But I 'think' it was tongue in cheek, given the emojis, so I'll take it anyway... 🤣

[Alvoram]

14 minutes ago, CharlotteB said:

 

...and this was literally my first post on the subject. It's all I want, and I don't think that's unreasonable. The person next to me having a pint doesn't stop me enjoying Nick Cave.

 

Your first post in this seems to be in favour of banning disposable vapes, or at least traders selling them. Are you in favour of banning certain disposable plastics too? I would completely agree with you on all of that. Some things should be banned, shouldn't they? I don't consider that a breach of people's freedom, it's just sensible.

Yes, I'm in favour of banning anything that harms the planet unnecessarily. I'm also in favour of restricting anything from causing any level of harm to third parties or their property. So smoking in some places. 

I'm not in favour of the total ban, on anything like smoking, vaping, alcohol, drugs, dangerous sports, etc, even if it's dressed up in something like increasing the age limit each year, as I believe it sets a dangerous precedent. I don't believe the government should be dictating what we put in, or do with, our own bodies, and I am against giving them that remit. And it's a known fact that prohibition causes more harm than good anyway. 

[CharlotteB]

8 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

Yes, I'm in favour of banning anything that harms the planet unnecessarily. I'm also in favour of restricting anything from causing any level of harm to third parties or their property. So smoking in some places. 

I'm not in favour of the total ban, on anything like smoking, vaping, alcohol, drugs, dangerous sports, etc, even if it's dressed up in something like increasing the age limit each year, as I believe it sets a dangerous precedent. I don't believe the government should be dictating what we put in, or do with, our own bodies, and I am against giving them that remit. And it's a known fact that prohibition causes more harm than good anyway. 

 

I feel a lot of what you said is bullsh!t though, especially as you're trying to put beliefs onto me that I don't hold, and trying to make me defend thins I haven't said.

 

But like it's been said before, you get nothing out of smoking unless you get addicted to it. Doesn't that seem evil to you? A gradual ban is a protective measure.

 

Ok, here's some BS coming back your eay. Cigarette butts are bad for the environment too. They are non-biodegradable, harm wildlife, and are a bugger for us litter pickers to get rid of. What are your thoughts on that? Similar to disposable vapes?

Edited yesterday at 01:27 AM by CharlotteB

[Alvoram]

22 minutes ago, CharlotteB said:

 

But like it's been said before, you get nothing out of smoking unless you get addicted to it. Doesn't that seem evil to you? A gradual ban is a protective measure.

 

Cigarette butts are bad for the environment too. They are non-biodegradable, harm wildlife, and are a bugger for us litter pickers to get rid of. What are your thoughts on that? 

I enjoyed smoking when I did it. I never wanted to quit, because I really enjoyed it, I did so for my health and wallet. 

The stimulant, nicotine, is very similar to caffeine, but better, if that makes sense. The suggestion that you get nothing out of it, is naive, and despite the fact I ignored it earlier in the thread, that was because I didn't want to pick apart every detail, and because, compared to alcohol or other substances, the effects are 'practically' nothing, just like with coffee. Not 'nothing' though, and enough to make quitting a difficult decision for me, and countless others, before you even get to the actual quit day, and difficulties of addiction. 

I'd much prefer education over outright bans, coupled with taxation and protecting people from passive smoking in more places. It's worked to get us this far in terms of smoking reduction, and means those smokers that do persist, as is their right to choose, are paying way more over their lives than any treatments will cost. The average 20 a day smoker pays around £4700 a year in extra tax, that would be £47,000 over ten years, except it won't because that number will keep rising sharply!

(If there are any smokers reading this, let that sink in, at current rates, which will only go up, 50 years of smoking 20 a day will mean you pay quarter of a million pounds in extra tax to the government!!! Quarter of a million pounds!!!) 

Why are people not discarding their cigarette butts sensibly? They are indeed harmful, and should be discarded with care. I'd put mine in empty beer cans if I was still smoking. (I know that's not ideal, as these will be burnt off when the cans are melted down, which is bad for the environment in itself, but certainly better than dropping them on the floor, I think?) But then I also stick my empty cans in my backpack after sets to take them to the bins, clearly not everybody does, so I don't know what can be done about it honestly.  

Edited yesterday at 01:48 AM by Alvoram

[CharlotteB]

7 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

I enjoyed smoking when I did it. I never wanted to quit, because I really enjoyed it, I did so for my health and wallet. 

The stimulant, nicotine, is very similar to caffeine, but better, if that makes sense. The suggestion that you get nothing out of it, is naive, and despite the fact I ignored it earlier in the thread, that was because I didn't want to pick apart every detail, and because, compared to alcohol or other substances, the effects are 'practically' nothing, just like with coffee. Not 'nothing' though, and enough to make quitting a difficult decision for me, and countless others, before you even get to the actual quit day, and difficulties of addiction. 

I'd much prefer education over outright bans, coupled with taxation and protecting people from passive smoking in more places. It's worked to get us this far in terms of smoking reduction, and means those smokers that do persist, as is their right to choose, are paying way more over their lives than any treatments will cost. The average 20 a day smoker pays around £4700 a year in extra tax, that would be £47,000 over ten years, except it won't because that number will keep rising sharply!

(If there are any smokers reading this, let that sink in, at current rates, which will only go up, 50 years of smoking 20 a day will mean you pay quarter of a million pounds in extra tax to the government!!! Quarter of a million pounds!!!) 

Why are people not discarding their cigarette butts sensibly? They are indeed harmful, and should be discarded with care. I'd put mine in empty beer cans if I was still smoking. (I know that's not ideal, as these will be burnt off when the cans are melted down, which is bad for the environment in itself, but certainly better than dropping them on the floor, I think?) But then I also stick my empty cans in my backpack after sets to take them to the bins, clearly not everybody does, so I don't know what can be done about it honestly.  

 

The moral of the story is we all have contradictions in our thought processes then. I'd be happy to leave it there.

[Alvoram]

2 minutes ago, CharlotteB said:

 

The moral of the story is we all have contradictions in our thought processes then. I'd be happy to leave it there.

Yep, I don't think we're actually as far apart on this as the last few pages might suggest. It's mostly that I have very strong opinions / lines in the sand when it comes to what powers we should give our government, and people's rights to do whatever they want with their own body, so long as it doesn't harm others. Whilst you guys (understandably, given A Particular Grey Chihuahu's history with smoking, and your asthma) have very strong opinions on smoking, and a desire to save people from the evils of the tobacco industry. (Something I've not once disagreed with, if you notice, the evil that is big tobacco!) 
 

None of us have bad intentions, so I'm more than happy to just agree to disagree. 🙂 

(I would add that we both need sleep too, but I know I aint sleeping until tomorrow afternoon, and I'm guessing you're still here for the same reason. 🙈🤣)

[Skip997]

On 11/16/2024 at 3:39 PM, A Particular Grey Chihuahu said:

 

So what legislation coming into effect are you actually against? Because you seem to be in favour of banning smoking in most public places (which isn't a far cry from preventing it in, say, the Pyramid Field at Glastonbury).

 

Are you against the government phasing smoking out over the next few generations? That would be a strange thing to be against. Because if people never smoke, then they won't want to smoke. Smoking isn't like a drug that gives someone an instant high or anything. People only want to do it because they've become addicted.

 

And I think you should drop the smoking vs drinking comparisons, because it sounds a bit silly. Obviously smoking is much worse in all the categories you listed. Yet again, you're choosing to drag another thing that you say is "bad" into the conversation to justify another thing that's "bad". If you're intent on doing that all the time, at least do it convincingly. 

 

You're reeling back your argument too. I don't think many here would be in favour of a total ban (apart from a gradual phasing out, which would be brilliant). I don't have a problem with someone smoking in their own home🤣

I presume you aren’t really against people getting stoned while watching an act on the Pyramid but happy with people turning into twats due to alcohol. 
 

And no smoking isn’t worse in all categories, I’m fairly sure alcohol causes more violence, domestic abuse and fatal road accidents 

[Skip997]

23 hours ago, CharlotteB said:

 

 

But smoking is just way worse than alcohol in every way. So much so that they're not comparable. 

Absolute nonsense, see my previous post 

[Skip997]

16 hours ago, CharlotteB said:

. The person next to me having a pint doesn't stop me enjoying Nick Cave.

 

But it could stop me enjoying an act. Firstly there is a chance they’ll be acting like a twat due to alcohol and a chance they will spill their beer on me which will negatively affect the rest of the day.

 

 I had to move and then leave Jungle at WH this year due to pissed up idiots, smokers would never have that effect. 
 

There’s a reason beyond musical taste as to why I prefer venues such as The Temple at Glastonbury 

[CharlotteB]

9 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

But it could stop me enjoying an act. Firstly there is a chance they’ll be acting like a twat due to alcohol and a chance they will spill their beer on me which will negatively affect the rest of the day.

 

 I had to move and then leave Jungle at WH this year due to pissed up idiots, smokers would never have that effect. 
 

There’s a reason beyond musical taste as to why I prefer venues such as The Temple at Glastonbury 

 

Is alcohol the reason you're acting like an idiot now? 😅🤣 (Joking, kind of, but read a room. We don't agree on this, and I think you're talking just as much nonsense as what you think I'm talking. But life is too short. Take it up with the hundreds of bars on site).

Edited yesterday at 05:48 PM by CharlotteB

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, CharlotteB said:

 

Is alcohol the reason you're acting like an idiot now? 😅🤣 (Joking, kind of, but read a room. We don't agree on this, and I think you're talking just as much nonsense as what you think I'm talking. But life is too short).

Kinda pointless, because you’ve probably already worked it out, but I haven’t touched alcohol for around 10 years. It’s a horrible drug.

[steviewevie]

I hate it when people are near me and they're chatting too much whilst drinking their lattes.

[Alvoram]

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

I hate it when people are near me

Could have stopped there for me... 

[DeanoL]

On 11/14/2024 at 10:56 PM, stuie said:

 

I think we all know prohibition doesn't have a good history of working.  But sure, let's give organised crime another massive revenue stream and push the tobacco market underground. 

It actually works remarkably well. It doesn't eliminate it no, but it does massively reduce it. As ever with these things, it depends what the aim is. 

[DeanoL]

On 11/16/2024 at 4:14 PM, Alvoram said:

Last thing I'm going to say on the matter is this... We do not elect governments to control what we do with our own bodies... Prohibition does not work, whatsoever, under any circumstances. 

It's nearly impossible to get good cough suppressants in the UK these days because they're all mildly hallucinogenic so have been forced off the market. That's another negative consequence of prohibition, for sure. But it also demonstrates that it does work. I doubt your dealer could get me a cough suppressant.

 

What ends up available illegally tends to just be the most in demand stuff. Which I why I don't think we'll see a huge black market in cigarettes. Nicotine is a sh*t drug. And if it's just the drug you want, you can get those patches. The appeal of smoking isn't in the drug, for most people, at least as far as I can tell. It's the oral fixation / social element. And that they're legal.

 

It's not the same as banning actual good drugs 😄

[Alvoram]

17 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It's nearly impossible to get good cough suppressants in the UK these days because they're all mildly hallucinogenic so have been forced off the market. That's another negative consequence of prohibition, for sure. But it also demonstrates that it does work. I doubt your dealer could get me a cough suppressant.

 

What ends up available illegally tends to just be the most in demand stuff. Which I why I don't think we'll see a huge black market in cigarettes. Nicotine is a sh*t drug. And if it's just the drug you want, you can get those patches. The appeal of smoking isn't in the drug, for most people, at least as far as I can tell. It's the oral fixation / social element. And that they're legal.

 

It's not the same as banning actual good drugs 😄

I could give you some Glycerine for your cough and sore throat, I have plenty of it around from making my e-liquid. 🤣

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you btw, as neither of us can predict the future. But did you see what happened when they banned tobacco products in R.S.A for a while? Probably wouldn't get quite that crazy, as it'd be phased. But that's our only real life point of reference to my knowledge. 

Anyway, I've not seen a good drug for at least 15 years... Just can't get 'em nowadays, as far as I know, not the same as they were anyway. 

 

[Skip997]

3 hours ago, DeanoL said:

It actually works remarkably well. It doesn't eliminate it no, but it does massively reduce it. As ever with these things, it depends what the aim is. 

Prohibition is actually the main cause of drug problems. 
 

I don’t expect you to believe me, but there is plenty of research and evidence out there. Again I recommend the book “Chasing the Scream”.

 

Here’s one example, for a brief period a number of opiate addicts in Liverpool were prescribed heroin. They all became fully functioning members of society, held down jobs, maintained healthy family relationships etc.

 

The drugs were withdrawn and within weeks all reverted to their previous state and several were dead.

 

 

[Skip997]

2 hours ago, Alvoram said:
Anyway, I've not seen a good drug for at least 15 years... Just can't get 'em nowadays, as far as I know, not the same as they were anyway. 

 

Interestingly cocaine and MDMA purity and strength are at an all time high in the UK. (according to government research) and weed is definitely stronger than ever 

[Alvoram]

26 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Interestingly cocaine and MDMA purity and strength are at an all time high in the UK. (according to government research) and weed is definitely stronger than ever 

MD is?

Anyway, it's not strength that's an issue really, if you can get the actual stuff, that's great, but are there not still a lot of bad ones around, PMA, BZP, 2-CB etc? 

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, Alvoram said:

MD is?

Anyway, it's not strength that's an issue really, if you can get the actual stuff, that's great, but are there not still a lot of bad ones around, PMA, BZP, 2-CB etc? 

Not sure, my sources are good, I don’t buy of random strangers. Anyway drug info and testing organisations such as The Loop are regularity finding pills which are 4x the recommended dose. 

[Alvoram]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Not sure, my sources are good, I don’t buy of random strangers. Anyway drug info and testing organisations such as The Loop are regularity finding pills which are 4x the recommended dose. 

Absolute madness when they effectively banned those drug testing services from legally operating at festivals. Has that been reversed yet?

[Skip997]

2 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

Absolute madness when they effectively banned those drug testing services from legally operating at festivals. Has that been reversed yet?

No. It’s totally irresponsible as it certainly prevent deaths. 
 

Some festivals have back office testing and some will release information if deemed necessary. A few years back I remember getting a text to crew at Shambala warning of a dodgy “legal high”

Edited 1 hour ago by Skip997