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.
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?
Read this.
Articles mentioned in there:
I will could you answer my question about fog machines though?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
It’s a lot easier to avoid fog machines than it is people vaping. I’ve never seen a fog machine at the train station…
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)_/¯
If it was up to me, alcohol would be banned as well but such a ban would be largely impractical and there would also be a large black market formed just by how easy the stuff is to make—it literally used to be a learning exercise in year 12 chemistry in QLD. When it comes to driving when unhealthy or tired, there is generally a choice to not drive and if you do crash you will almost always be identified as being at fault. So it’s not like there is no recourse for those poor decisions. With vapes the user cannot stop anytime they want, they’re addictive and there are companies exploiting that.
This is completely off topic from what I was talking about with the other person, I really don’t know what you’re chiming in here for.
Last time we had a disagreement you labelled me obtuse, asked if I was thick, then called me a “right wing troll” who was interacting in “bad faith”. In this thread you asked for sources, asked for more sources, refused to read any of them and instead repeatedly deflected with a whataboutism. So no, I don’t think you’re “just curious” and I think it is pretty understandable why I would disengage from the conversation when you appear to be taking it down exactly the same route again.
Oh you’re that dipshit. Makes sense that you’re pearlclutching