You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
182 points

Everyone here is arguing the benefits of prohibition. I’m just interested to know how much money Rishi (and/or his family members/friends/donors) have invested in vaping and nicotine alternatives.

permalink
report
reply
101 points

It always confuses me to learn that when people want to ban smoking it somehow means ban “cigarettes” and not “nicotine”

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points
*

Because smoking is WILDLY more harmful than vaping.

Yes vaping has SOME health risks, but it’s like saying drinking tea and drinking four loko are just as bad because they both have caffeine

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points

Bro what tea are you drinking that has nicotine

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Well what’s wrong with nicotine? In itself it’s not worse than booze. It’s all the other crap they add that makes it so terrible

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

Hi from the depths of a nicotine addiction and struggling to quit. Its a worthless chemical that gets more expensive everyday and my brain SCREAMS at me for a fix if I try to go more than even a few hours. At least heroin gets you high.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I mean I’m no expert but I do have some knowledge on the subject.

The difference is how you injest it. Our stomachs are much more resilient than our lungs. Your stomach is, for all intents and purposes, a sac of acid that dissolves mostly anything you put in it, your lungs on the other hand literally only do 1 thing all day and it’s breathe air. There are different qualities of air of course, and microparticles in it that could cause harm, but on the whole it’s more or less all the same.

Its like dumping garbage into a sink vs. a paper bag. The sink will get disgusting, and you may end up with a clogged drain, messed up pipes, or worse. But at the end of the day if you just clean the mess and don’t do it too often it will probably be fine. The paper bag on the other hand is gonna get Soggy, gross, and start falling apart in your hands. You can dry it out but it will never quite be the same…

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

not worse than booze.

is not doing your argument any favors.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Are you kidding? Booze is incredibly harmful!

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

True, but people will never disconnect Nicotine from Smoking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

In the US it’s the opposite, which is absolutely bizarro land. Want to ban vapes but not cigarettes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Well, nicotine isn’t the part of smoking that causes cancer

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

But it’s the part that is addictive and keeps you smoking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The full effects of vaping are not well understood, and while they’re almost certainly not as bad as cigarettes, they’re also almost certainly still bad for you, and they are indeed still addictive for the same reasons as cigarettes because they still use nicotine.

Further, one main reason their risks remain as poorly understood as they do is that (again, because of the same active ingredient) people who vape often also use cigarettes. The two are closely linked, I don’t think my confusion should be so easily dismissed as that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Because probably it was defined as burning, not usage of nicotine

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

But why? The full effects of vaping are not well understood, and while they’re almost certainly not as bad as cigarettes, they’re also almost certainly still bad for you, and they are indeed still addictive for the same reasons as cigarettes. Further, one main reason their risks remain as poorly understood as they do is that (again, because of the same active ingredient) people who vape often also use cigarettes. The two are closely linked, I don’t think my confusion should be so easily dismissed as that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Nicotine is one of the safest stimulants we know, up there with caffeine in terms of safety. There’s little meaningful reason to ban nicotine. You’re more likely to harm yourself with any number of other things we readily allow.

The addiction potential of nicotine alone is also far lower than people assume, because smoking is highly addictive both due to the rituals and the other substances involved. I tried to get used to nicotine via patches years back to use as a safe stimulant, and not only did I not get addicted, I couldn’t get used to it (and I was not willing to get myself used to smoking, given the harm that involves). That’s not to say you can’t develop addictions to patches or vapes etc. too, but much more easily when it’s as a substitution for smoking than “from scratch”.

Restrictions on delivery methods that are harmful or not well enough understood, and combining nicotine with other substances that make the addiction and harm potential greater, sure.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

Nicotine is one of the safest stimulants we know, up there with caffeine in terms of safety. There’s little meaningful reason to ban nicotine.

this is from a 2015 article i found on the NIH library:

Nicotine poses several health hazards. There is an increased risk of cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal disorders. There is decreased immune response and it also poses ill impacts on the reproductive health. It affects the cell proliferation, oxidative stress, apoptosis, DNA mutation by various mechanisms which leads to cancer. It also affects the tumor proliferation and metastasis and causes resistance to chemo and radio therapeutic agents. The use of nicotine needs regulation. The sale of nicotine should be under supervision of trained medical personnel.

source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/

in case you think i might be cherry picking, here’s something from johns hopkins, and here’s a source from the cdc. here’s something recent from harvard for good measure.

edit: i should be clear that the other sources don’t say exactly the same things as the NIH one, but they do talk about how nicotine itself is very addictive, and they talk about some of the harm it can cause

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I tried to get used to nicotine via patches years back to use as a safe stimulant, and not only did I not get addicted, I couldn’t get used to it

Well of course not. You weren’t getting the dopamine rush of a large acute dose rushing from your lungs directly to your brain in a matter of seconds.

What the heck kind of hot take is this?

Regardless, the dangers – including ease of addiction – are well-known and are scientifically proven. Your anecdata of one does not change that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

A lot of the alternatives are already owned by Big Tobacco

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

You can go EU-way and say that all vapes should be rechargable(in both meanings), repairable and intercompatible. Basically opposite of what Big Tabacco does.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Disposable vapes should be banned.

Though even the reusable ones generate a decent amount of waste between coil assemblies that get replaced and the plastic bottles the juice comes in. I mean, I hope we eventually get to managing waste at that level, though I’m not holding my breath since it would require huge changes to the way we handle food logistics, which eclipses vape juice waste by a lot per person.

But the disposable ones are ridiculous.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Halp! I have no idea how to recharge my cigar! Beyond that, i really have no idea how Big Tobacco would comply with these regulations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-29 points

That isn’t always the case though. Just look at climate scientists.

Some just want to ban smoking because they see how much damage it has done in their community.

But I’d also like to know if there was any vested interests.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

I’m not sure what this has to do with climate scientists. What am I supposed to be looking at?

Rishi has a history of making legislation to benefit the companies run or owned by friends and family. I would be extremely surprised if this didn’t also have a similar angle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Just some good old “whataboutism”. Maybe he sprinkles some climate-change denial into some prohibition discussion to distract us?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-23 points

Climate activists want to, among other things, pass extremely unpopular carbon taxes as they’re the most serious effort toward cutting fossil fuels usage

Extremely unpopular ideas that inevitably favor certain products are not always moves to sell those products, is the point

It’s pretty reasonable to assume no one outside the UK knows much about Sunak’s history with handouts to friends.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

It’s Rishi Sunak. Of course he has a financial interest somewhere.

It won’t work, though. Hell. He might be getting paid off by big Tabacco- make smoking edgy and rebellious again so more kids start up.

It’s the kind of thing those ghouls would try.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Rishi Sunak also just promised to ensure cars will be able to drive through heavily populated areas indefinitely and has pushed back plans to introduce electric-only cars. He absolutely does not care about peoples’ health.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 288K

    Comments