Policy banning vape sales outside of pharmacies to go before Senate, health minister says : australia

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 12 points 4 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.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I understand the Greens position on vapes. Are they pro-tobacco or something? or is it about creating a black market?

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Greens have always been against prohibition more broadly, but they can articulate their reasoning better than I can: https://greens.org.au/news/media-release/greens-secure-amendments-vaping-legislation-and-will-support-passage-through

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago

Thanks for linking that, their position makes a bit more sense now, at least by restricting them to pharmacies there won't be as much of a black market

[–] Fuck_The_Karlings@lemmy.world 6 points 4 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.

[–] CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 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.

[–] Outsider9042@lemmy.world 5 points 4 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@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Ban single use vapes

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

[–] eatthecake@lemmy.world 4 points 4 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.

[+] WhiteShotgun@aussie.zone 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] Sarsaparilla@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree that it will further worsen the black market surrounding these products (just as the exorbitant ciggie tax has increased the illegal import of cigarettes that are not regulated.) A bunch of businesses will basically be shut down because of this ... they can't exactly pivot to something else. If they wanted to sell cigarettes they would have been doing so already.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A bunch of businesses will basically be shut down because of this … they can’t exactly pivot to something else

It's a damn shame too - I don't know what we'll do without all those businesses built around exploiting drug addicts

[–] Sarsaparilla@aussie.zone 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And that's a fair point to make but also one that now places Pharmacists in that role.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 0 points 4 months ago

Not exactly, as they won't be promoting the vapes as they'll be plainly packaged and they'll be heavily regulated. They will still profit but not encouraging it

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 0 points 4 months ago

Are you saying that vaping is a good thing and a net positive?

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Vaping becoming socially acceptable and widespread has been fucking annoying as an asthmatic, so I am please to see that we're entering a period where the health risks are being better examined and governments are starting to regulate. Social policymaking is always difficult, but it's a start and hopefully can be improved and refined in the future. A solution having potentially unintended consequences is not a reason to avoid attempting to solve the problem altogether. I also don't buy this libertarian "any restriction of my freedom is bad" argument when the behaviour in question is anti-social and harmful.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 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.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

Neither of those behaviours have any direct impact on my health. Even alcoholics don't directly affect the health of those around them by drinking in public.

But after that people are ultimately free to make bad choices

Vapers would still be free to make bad choices and hurt those around them under this new policy. No one is taking away vapes, just like no one took away cigarettes.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 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.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Obvs this stuff is reaching

Well at least you acknowledge this. Note that I said "direct"; this was for a reason. All of the consequences you listed require extreme examples and a timeline of events, whereas even the most casual of smokers or vapers can immediately affect the health of those around them.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 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.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/passive-smoking-and-vaping

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 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?

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Read this.

Articles mentioned in there:

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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...

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 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)_/¯

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They unfortunately seem to thing my curiosity represents some hostility

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.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

Oh you're that dipshit. Makes sense that you're pearlclutching

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

driving while unhealthy, tired or whatever or taking drugs known to increase violent tendencies like alcohol.

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.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 2 points 4 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Is it worse than actual smoking, though?

[–] Sarsaparilla@aussie.zone 2 points 4 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.”

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 2 points 4 months ago

Not as far as I'm aware, but vapes can also contain different chemicals that may contribute towards different types of health conditions. More research is needed on the long-term effects I think (which can only come with time). One thing I have definitely noticed among people I know who vape and/or smoke is that the vaping is constant and done everywhere and anywhere, whereas smoking is far less common and will be something that people remove themselves from a group to do (outside and further away). Vapers are far less considerate of others and vape more because they believe it's less harmful, which increases the level of harm. So in that sense, I think government policy is also important here to signal that vaping is not harmless so that we can start changing the culture around it like was done with smoking many decades ago.

[–] FmbyMF@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

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

Australia

Before you post:

Rules

Banner Photo

Recommended and Related Communities

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

Moderation