4 ms·
Banning them in favour of vaping seems smart. Doing so with an arbitrary cut off seems irrational.
by LatteLazy 4y ago
Banning them in favour of vaping seems smart.
Doing so with an arbitrary cut off seems irrational.
- permo-w 4y agoit’s very clearly not irrational from a practical political perspective
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoWhat would be the process for choosing a non-arbitrary cut-off?
- viraptor 4y agoI think it makes sense for people already addicted. If they can't handle dropping smoking and solutions like nicotine patches are not enough, they're at risk of going broke buying more and more expensive illegally imported cigarettes. Essentially this says "we've already allowed you to mess up your body so we're not going to make your addition illegal".
- LatteLazy 4y agoIf you already smoke, just move to vapes...
- viraptor 4y agoThere's still people who try vapes and go back to smoking. Or do both and increase the nicotine intake https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/cigarette-smokers-trying-to-quit-often-end-up-vaping-and-smoking/ https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/cigarette-smokers-trying-to-... It doesn't seem to be something everyone can just do.
- LatteLazy 4y agoDo they go back to smoking because they're physically unable to use a vape or just because of habit/style/supply etc?
- viraptor 4y agoNo idea, sorry. I knew of one case so checked if it's more common. But i don't know anything about their motivation.
- LatteLazy 4y agoSorry, my question was quite blunt... I think if they're banning cigarettes that's fine but why not start where it might make a difference: with people who actually smoke. banning 13 year olds from taking up the habit will have a lot less effect than moving people from smoking to vaping and I don't think there is anyone who legitimately cannot do that.