Sunak proposes raising smoking age every year to create 'smoke-free' generation
Sunak proposes raising smoking age every year to create 'smoke-free' generation
Rishi Sunak has proposed raising the smoking age every year in a move welcomed by health charities but criticised by those in the tobacco industry.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
It always confuses me to learn that when people want to ban smoking it somehow means ban "cigarettes" and not "nicotine"
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
Bro what tea are you drinking that has nicotine
I can only imagine they meant caffeine, another common drug that's heavily abused but a little more socially accepted
How much did big coffee pay you to make this comment? I bet that link installs covfefe!
Wait, they pay for this? And I'm out here sharing medical info for free. Sign me up!
I mean lets not pretend it's risk free, it raises blood pressure, causes headaches, can trigger arrhythmia in those at risk, etc. As far as drugs go it is probably the least risky, but it's not like it comes with zero health impacts.
I don't think anything is risk-free, including the vital molecules that we need to live. But caffeine has way a longer and significant list of health benefits that offset the risks at even moderate doses. So much so that there's enough evidence to encourage people to drink more as a prophylaxis. That list includes protection from gallstones, cancers, asthma, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease among other thing like a potential aide in weight loss and even a significant performance boost in sports. What's more, there have been large cohort studies that have found a 3% decreased in risk of developing arrhythmia per daily cup even when controlling for genetics. So the risks shouldn't be used to discourage or scare people away from a proven benefit when the therapeutic window includes up to 4 cups a day. Would I risk the occasional insomnia, headaches, and temporary increase in blood pressure for all the other positive effects given such a lenient margin? Absolutely.
So, really, the public perception that caffeine is somehow dangerous for being labeled a drug is on par with the belief that other substances are inherently dangerous. I think it spills over from the war on drugs, and the delusion of clean eating that often emerges from the dregs of misinformation on the internet and those who perpetuate those beliefs for monetary gain within the wellness communities, ironically enough.
I've known people, myself included, that have had negative health impacts from coffee, so that could be biasing my perspective. My father nearly died from heart complications after coffee, I bleed at the exit 100% of the time I drink coffee. I love coffee, but I can't drink it. There's probably something genetic that makes my line intolerant. I know people that end up in a migraine caffeine withdrawal cycle on a regular basis. Obviously these are person specific, so you really just need to know your body and act accordingly.
Nicoteane 😉
Lmao, ironically I made that comment before I had my morning tea.
Well, nicotine isn't the part of smoking that causes cancer
But it's the part that is addictive and keeps you smoking.
If it's not too harmful - what's the problem with being addicted? I'm addicted to coffee and drink at least two cups per day, as do most people around here.
Nobody out there is just buying Nicotine gum for the flavor. The overwhelming majority are struggling with an addiction that may one day kill them.
Also, as a former smoker of over 20 years as well as a current coffee addict, I can tell you from personal experience that there is no comparison between the two. Some substances are simply more addictive than others. Nicotine is one of the worst on the planet.
Idk man, I vaped for years many times a day and was able to quit very easily, but sugar and caffeine I just can't, they're so much more addictive to me.
You say that, but even if there was a pill that instantly cured all addiction, I'd probably still crave coffee every day.
...because there isn't a pill that instantly cures all addiction. Addiction is a complicated thing that combines a lot of factors between physical dependence, pleasure-seeking, memory formation, and a lot more.
nah, it's cause it's delicious.
It becomes delicious. That's part of the whole addiction process. Taste/smell is one (or two, however you count it) of the most unique senses in that it is largely driven by links in the brain. Tastes beget memories, and our favorite foods and beverages are the ones tied positively. Drugs tie us positively.
I used to hate the smell of skunks. I've used to have one of those things where smells effect me worse than other people and I cannot handle them. I would actually retch up from the smell of skunk. It got worse after the family dogs were sprayed near their eyes and my memories tied a night of chaos and stressed mother to it all. Fast forward YEARS later; I smoked a little pot when I was younger. I dunno if you've ever heard of the term "skunk weed". Guess why? Well, after that, immediately after that, the smell of skunk was pleasant to me and I didn't retch at all. And it's stayed that way. I STILL like the smell of skunk spray.
The same with whiskey. Distilling is legal where I live. As such, I've acquired a taste for high-proofs. Things that would make most other whiskey drinkers spit out their drink saying the it would taste like rocket fuel. Why? Because a distilling run is a nice, mostly chill, 8 hour process where I hang out and have a sip here, a sip there. For a while, I stopped drinking regular-proof whiskeys entirely in favor of barrel-proofs. It may come as no surprise that wanting to drink 120-proof whiskey over 80-proof whiskey has almost nothing to do with the tasting notes.
The problem with addiction is that it's safe to say that NOTHING is good if used to excess.
I used to be so hooked on caffeine I drank a 30-cup pot each day. It was giving me all kinds of issues, and I was only in my 20's. I'm still addicted, but I've learned to moderate. It took me years. And my 4th latte of the day is telling me that I'm not exactly great at it.
If I smoked/vaped Nicotine, I would have serious problems of taking too much all the time.
Are you suggesting you want caffeine banned?
Not at all. I don't suggest any bans. I said elsewhere I would not oppose pre-rolled cigarette bans because they are especially dangerous and would not reduce access to the product itself. But I also don't suggest pre-rolled cigarette bans.
If addiction is a problem, should the general use of caffine be banned then? Thats why its kinda odd to specifically ban nicotine.
Choosing to ban specifically nicotine and not caffine is as silly as the idea that cigarettes should be legal but weed shouldnt.
Probably, yes. Even the age restrictions are kinda silly.
I do think it's ok to ban sale of "prepared smokables" like cigarettes. The harm level is known to be severe. But if someone wants to buy their own tobacco+papers and roll their own cigarettes, that's on them.
Of course, I don't think it would be effective to ban cigarettes. Just ethically coherent.
The addicting part isnt the nicotine. Its everything atound it. The ritual, the friends the "doing something with your hands".
The psychological addiction is way stronger than the nicotine addiction that you can just overcome in 2 weeks.What do you think is fuelling that connection?
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.
Oh sorry, I was thinking nicotine supplements like gum and patches. In my mind, smoking and vaping are the same thing. "Don't inhale particulate matter of any kind" is an excellent rule of thumb for all humans in all situations
Exactly my point. It always throws me for a minute when I realize people are treating them so separately.
So you're against smelling flowers, too? And scented candles?
The problem is that we "inhale particulate matter" all the time. Every day of our lives.
Yes, and it kills people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8140409/#:~:text=The World Health Organization estimates,PM2.5)%20in%20polluted%20air.
You're not that stupid. You know the difference between inhaling concentrated particulates from a cigarette or vape and smelling a fucking flower. (Which, by the way, pollen grains are average 10-20 microns, not 2.5.)
You’re not that stupid. You know the difference between inhaling concentrated particulates from a cigarette or vape and smelling a fucking flower
And you're not that stupid. You know that fine particulate matter in the air every breath we take is different from someone vaping sometimes. There's a reason your linked study doesn't mention vaping AND why scientists are still saying the risks of vaping are unclear.
Your second study is more useful, but it really is not intellectually defensible to take it results as saying vaping is unhealthy. Instead, its results are saying that we need to keep regulations to control air quality with regards to vaping.
I'll reiterate my original critique.
“Don’t inhale particulate matter of any kind” is an excellent rule of thumb for all humans in all situations
...is something I disagree with, like most extreme naive generalities.
I wasn't trying to link evidence that vaping is unhealthy. But we know that inhaling PM2.5 is unhealthy and those size particles are present in vape. You are free to take whatever risks you would like with your body.
But we know that inhaling PM2.5 is unhealthy and those size particles are present in vape
This is no more true than saying "we know sunlight is unhealthy". What we know is that PM2.5 is unhealthy in large quantities for long periods of time. We know the same thing about sunlight for a lot of the same reasons. Occasional 15-minute stretches in the sun is more healthy than consistent long-term exposure.
You are free to take whatever risks you would like with your body.
As are you. I'm just talking about what is or is not science vs propaganda, here. From a different branch, I would wager that vaped medications could reach a point of being healthier for us than injected medications.
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
That used to say that about artificial sweeteners. The question shouldn't be "is it bad for you" but "is it worse for you than 99 other things you do in a day". And vaping nicotine is "almost certainly bad for you" because of the nicotine, and nicotine is a known quantity - we know how bad it is and isn't. We don't have evidence that the mechanism of vaping is bad for you, and there's no "almost certainly" on that.
And the truth is, I have problems with people who lean on "poorly understood" for vaping. Evidence shows vaping as a mechanism (for THC as it were) going back over 2000 years to ancient Egypt. Widespread use of hookahs started in the 19th century and has tons mechanically in common with modern vaporization. There are some differences, but short of a few badly-designed vapes that let air reach the lungs while superheated, it looks a lot like people are saying "not well understood" because they cannot seem to "understand" bad things and they don't want to say good things. We have TONS of research precedent around room-temperature air with vaporized herbs in it.
If I were going to imbibe nicotine (or CBD or THC for that matter), I would probably prefer to vape it. I think the stigma against vaping needs to step aside for the vaccine research considering using vapes as an alternative to needle injection.
Hookah is pretty bad for you too, my friend. From Wikipedia, emphasis mine:
The major health risks of smoking tobacco, cannabis, opium and other drugs through a hookah include exposure to toxic chemicals, carcinogens and heavy metals that are not filtered out by the water,[3][8][9][10][11] alongside those related to the transmission of infectious diseases and pathogenic bacteria when hookahs are shared.[3][9][12][13] Hookah and waterpipe use is a global public health concern, with high rates of use in the populations of the Middle East and North Africa as well as in young people in the United States, Europe, Central Asia, and South Asia.[3][8][9][10][11]
If the best you can say is "it's pretty much a mini hookah, don't worry", then I'm going back to the best you can say for it is that it's poorly understood. Vaping doesn't burn anything, unlike a hookah, but the vaporized oils still contain toxins and novel toxins not in the smoke from cigarettes or hookah. The health consequences of that are not well understood, but are probably not as bad as cigarette smoking. That's the best we've got.
I didn't say it wasn't. I said we have a lot more context than people want to pretend about vaping in general.
And I'm not trying to say "it's a mini hookah", nor am I trying to say you should vape.
Vaping doesn’t burn anything, unlike a hookah, but the vaporized oils still contain toxins and novel toxins not in the smoke from cigarettes or hookah
If they contain toxins, we probably know quite a bit about those toxins right now. But what about pure vaporized solids? In the CBD and Cannabis community, dry herb vaporizing is the hot new thing specifically because 99% of complaints about vaping being unhealthy are irrelevant. All they do is get the herbs hot without burning it, run it through cooling, and inhale it. I laugh, but I used to do that with lavender with an aromatic herb heating unit.
The health consequences of that are not well understood, but are probably not as bad as cigarette smoking. That’s the best we’ve got.
Despite your incredulity, you really haven't shown that. The consequences are not perfectly understood, but we understand enough to start making educated opinions about vaping. Even your points about hookahs work towards that, with the worst cons being that you still get Carbon Monoxide and the intensity of Nicotine is high. The problem is that we don't want to tell people that the educated opinion is "probably better for you than that glazed donut"
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.
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
The links from John Hopkins, the CDC and Harvard all focus on vaping, and so are irrelevant to the question of nicotine rather than the delivery methods.
The first link has nothing wrong in it. It's correct nicotine is toxic. So is caffeine - the LD50 of caffeine in humans is reasonably high, many grams. To the issue of ingestion, the issue is toxicity at doses people are likely to deal with.
To the cancer links, again without looking at delivery methods, this is meaningless. To let me quote one small part:
Thus, the induced activation of nAChRs in lung and other tissues by nicotine can promote carcinogenesis by causing DNA mutations[26] Through its tumor promoter effects, it acts synergistically with other carcinogens from automobile exhausts or wood burning and potentially shorten the induction period of cancers[43] [Table 2].
This makes sense. Don't inhale lots of particulates combined with nicotine in other words. There are also many other parts of the article that are useful. E.g. it's perfectly reasonable to accept that e.g. if you are on chemo you should stay off nicotine, and if you breastfeed you should stay off nicotine.
What the article does not show is that nicotine, as opposed to delivery methods like inhalation, is much worse than other drugs we're perfectly fine with.
I'll note that the article also includes things in its conclusion that it has categorically not cites studies in support of. E.g. it just assumes the addiction potential is proven (it is, but putting that in the conclusion of a paper without citing sources is really poor form, especially in a paper claiming to set out the issues with nicotine in isolation rather than smoking).
It also tried to drive up the scare factor by pointing out its toxicity at doses irrelevant for human consumption (e.g. as an insecticide; if wildly irrelevant doses should be considered, then we could write the same paper about how apples should be banned because they contain cyanide).
The "Materials and methods" section also goes on to say "Studies that evaluated tobacco use and smoking were excluded" but then goes on to make multiple arguments on the basis of harm caused by smoking (e.g. "Nicotine plays a role in the development of emphysema in smokers, by decreasing elastin in the lung parenchyma and increasing the alveolar volume") and cites a paper focused on smoking, in direct contradiction of the claim they made ("Endoh K, Leung FW. Effects of smoking and nicotine on the gastric mucosa: A review of clinical and experimental evidence. Gastroenterology. 1994;107:864–78.")
So, yes, if you make claims about how you're going to address nicotine rather than smoking, and then go on to address smoking and other means of inhalation intermingled with the rest, and if you leap to conclusions you've not cited works in support of, and if you throw out risks without linking them causally to nicotine, you can make nicotine look very bad.
They also end with subjective statements they've not even attempted to support properly. E.g. they've gone from "here is why it's dangerous" to "it should be restricted", but if that was valid logic, we should restrict sales of apples too, most cleaning agents, all caffeinated products, housepaint, paint thinners, and a host of other things, it's a specious argument and fitting that such a badly argued paper ends with it. That this passed peer review is an incredible indictment of the journal which published it.
That doesn't mean nicotine is risk-free, but compared to other things we're happy to ingest, I stand by my statement. But don't inhale it.
The links from John Hopkins, the CDC and Harvard all focus on vaping, and so are irrelevant to the question of nicotine rather than the delivery methods.
they do focus on vaping, that does not mean they are irrelevant to the question of nicotine. from the cdc link:
Nicotine is highly addictive and can harm adolescent brain development, which continues into the early to mid-20s.
there are also sections of that page titled "Why Is Nicotine Unsafe for Kids, Teens, and Young Adults?" and "How Does Nicotine Addiction Affect Youth Mental Health?" that focus only on nicotine.
from the harvard article:
Nicotine is highly addictive and can affect the developing brain, potentially harming teens and young adults.
from johns hopkins:
Nicotine is the primary agent in regular cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and it is highly addictive. It causes you to crave a smoke and suffer withdrawal symptoms if you ignore the craving. Nicotine is a toxic substance. It raises your blood pressure and spikes your adrenaline, which increases your heart rate and the likelihood of having a heart attack.
Both e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes contain nicotine, which research suggests may be as addictive as heroin and cocaine.
to your second point
To the cancer links, again without looking at delivery methods, this is meaningless.
i agree that it would be better to focus only on nicotine. i disagree that ignoring delivery methods is "meaningless". form the johns hopkins article:
And, getting hooked on nicotine often leads to using traditional tobacco products down the road.
this is only to say that the cancer bit is not irrelevant.
This makes sense. Don’t inhale lots of particulates combined with nicotine in other words.
the part you quoted says that nicotine acts as an accelerator for the development of cancers from other sources, including things like car exhaust. these carcinogens are widespread in the modern world, so accelerating the development of cancer associated with them is a bad thing. eg, car exhaust fumes are everywhere.
I’ll note that the article also includes things in its conclusion that it has categorically not cites studies in support of.
i agree, this is bad. the problem you brought up with the "materials and methods" section is also bad. i'm not trying to defend the article holistically, i'm even particularly attached to that source (which is why i included a few different ones). the only reason i picked that article was that it explains some of the harmful effects of nicotine, and then backs them with citations. the article did this by reviewing "90 relevant articles" from PubMed and Medline, then discussing what those articles found - and these are the parts of the article i was interested in. i probably wouldn't use this approach if i were writing an academic paper on the subject, but i think it's fine for arguing on the internet that nicotine isn't "one of the safest stimulants we know". (i also included a few different sources to counteract the limitations of this approach.)
That doesn’t mean nicotine is risk-free, but compared to other things we’re happy to ingest, I stand by my statement.
your statements were
Nicotine is one of the safest stimulants we know, up there with caffeine in terms of safety.
and
The addiction potential of nicotine alone is also far lower than people assume,
i think the second statement was thoroughly debunked by the sources i've included: they all say nicotine is highly addictive, and one of them says it's "as addictive as heroin and cocaine". i think the sources i've shared also discredit the idea that nicotine is "up there with caffeine in terms of safety". i'm not trying to say nicotine is extremely dangerous, but rather that its danger is underestimated.
they do focus on vaping, that does not mean they are irrelevant to the question of nicotine. from the cdc link:
To this and your subsequent points, these claims are not backed up by sources in the pages you linked to, and as we've seen from the other paper as well, there's good reason to be cautious about assuming their claims are separating the effects of nicotine from the effects of the delivery method, especially given every single source actually cited by the CDC article is about smoking. Neither the Johns Hopkins or Harvard article cites any sources on nicotine alone that I can see.
i disagree that ignoring delivery methods is “meaningless”. form the johns hopkins article:
And, getting hooked on nicotine often leads to using traditional tobacco products down the road.
A claim that is not backed by sources, and has divorced this from delivery method. E.g. how many people starts with gum or a patch and goes on to tobacco? I can certainly see there being some transfer from vaping to tobacco, but that is very different from the blanket claim and illustrates the problem with these sources that fail to disambiguate and extrapolates very wide claim from sources that looks at specific modes of use.
the part you quoted says that nicotine acts as an accelerator for the development of cancers from other sources, including things like car exhaust. these carcinogens are widespread in the modern world, so accelerating the development of cancer associated with them is a bad thing. eg, car exhaust fumes are everywhere.
Yes, inhaling nicotine is bad. That we can agree on, and the source supports the limited claim that if you get nicotine in a way that binds to cites in your lungs, that is bad. The sources do not provide evidence that this risk is present for other modes of use. Maybe it is, but they've not shown that.
i agree, this is bad. the problem you brought up with the “materials and methods” section is also bad. i’m not trying to defend the article holistically, i’m even particularly attached to that source (which is why i included a few different ones).
But that article is the best of the sources you gave. The others cite nothing of relevance to the claim I made that I can see after going through their links.
the article did this by reviewing “90 relevant articles” from PubMed and Medline, then discussing what those articles found
But the problem is that not nearly all of those "90 relevant articles" are relevant to their claim, and so they start off by misrepresenting what they're about to do. They then fail to quantify their claim in any way that supports their conclusion. They back up some specific claims without quantifying them (e.g. I can back up the claim that apples can be lethal, but you'd need vast quantities to get enough cyanide from an apple to harm you, so a claim they can be lethal in isolation is meaningless) or unpacking whether they are risks from nicotine in general, or nicotine via a specific delivery method. This is an ongoing problem with research on this subject.
They have not provided an argument for how any of those "90 relevant articles" supports their conclusion.
i think the second statement was thoroughly debunked by the sources i’ve included: they all say nicotine is highly addictive, and one of them says it’s “as addictive as heroin and cocaine”. i think the sources i’ve shared also discredit the idea that nicotine is “up there with caffeine in terms of safety”. i’m not trying to say nicotine is extremely dangerous, but rather that its danger is underestimated.
The say that, but they don't back it up. Ironically, pointing to heroin is interesting, because the addiction potential of heroin has also been subject to a lot of fearmongering and notoriously exaggerated, and we've known this for nearly half a century -- a seminal study of addiction in Vietnam war vets found the vast majority of those with extensive heroin use in Vietnam just stopped cold turkey when they returned to the US and the vast majority didn't relapse, the opposite of what the authors assumed going into the study. A study that was commissioned as part of Nixons then-newly started politically motivated and racist War of Drugs with the intent of providing evidence of how bad it was.
(see https://www.mayooshin.com/heroin-vietnam-war-veterans-addiction which gives a reasonable account of Robins study, and gives full reference to the paper)
That's also not to say that heroin isn't dangerous or seriously addictive because it is. Nobody should use heroin. But it's also frequently used as a means of exaggerating by implication because peoples idea of the addiction potential of heroin is largely way out of whack with reality and heavily context-dependent. So when someone drags out a heroin comparison without heavy caveats, that's reason to assume there is a good chance they're full of bullshit.
In other words: It's perfectly possible that some ways of taking nicotine can be as addictive as heroin, but that doesn't tell us what most people think it does. E.g. UK hospitals sometimes use heroin (as diamorphine; its generic name) for post-op pain management because it's far better than many alternatives.
The sources you've given do not present any support for claims that nicotine considered separate from delivery methods is particularly risky. They do provide support for claims it's dangerous when smoked, and possibly dangerous when inhaled even via vaping, and the takeaway that you should generally avoid inhaling stuff other than clean air without good reason is good. The other claims about nicotine in general do not appear to be backed up at all.
i’m not trying to say nicotine is extremely dangerous, but rather that its danger is underestimated.
I find the notion that the danger is underestimated hilarious when one of the claims used a comparison with heroin to fearmonger.
Your source, if anything, is evidence to me of the opposite.
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.
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.
So in other words, you're saying I didn't pick the right delivery method to get me addicted. Which was my point.
Regardless, the dangers – including ease of addiction – are well-known and are scientifically proven. Your anecdata of one does not change that.
Missing the point: 1) a large part of the addiction for most people is down to delivery, not nicotine itself - something you yourself used as an argument against my anecdote above -, and most of the research focuses on that. 2) the remaining addiction potential of nicotine is real, and proven, but it's also nothing particularly special compared to other things we're fine with seeing the addiction to as ranging from a nuisance (e.g. caffeine) to a problem that doesn't justify prohibition (any more), like alcohol.
My point was not that it's impossible to get addicted to nicotine, but that confusing nicotine vs. nicotine via a given delivery method is not helpful.
Because probably it was defined as burning, not usage of nicotine
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.
Banning nicotine would be going too far. Nicotine in and of itself isn't that bad, it's the delivery methods that can be problematic. In particular the ones where you inhale things into your lungs. But there are smokeless tobacco and there are types of tobacco smoking where you don't inhale the smoke.
Who would want other nicotine options without cigarettes or vaping? No one is starting out with nicorette.
Many people. There are many different tobacco products that either are smokeless or that you don't inhale that are common in different areas, like dip, snus, snuff, cigars, pipes and what have you. In some regions those are what people start using nicotine with.
Actually I started with nicorette because of nootropics blogs and nasal snuff. I've only ever smoked 1 cigarette although I did partake in some hookah.
I tried to start with both a patch and gums years ago because of the stimulant benefits and the decent risk profile of nicotine on its own. I've never smoked, never will. Didn't stick - it was too hard to get used to. If I could get it as a flavourless pill, maybe.
Nicotine is the active psychoactive poison that gets you hooked. Its not harmless.
Psychoactive poison. Great argument there. List the negative effects of nicotine itself that you think are so bad that they require a ban instead of the problematic delivery methods.
It's "psychoactive" in the same way that caffeine is. That is, it's a stimulant. Using that term only serves the purpose of making it sound scarier. And it's far less addictive on its own than when smoked. It's not harmless, but it's also nowhere near as big a problem in itself as specific product categories and delivery methods, and no worse than any number of other things we're perfectly fine with people using.
A lot of the alternatives are already owned by Big Tobacco
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.
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.
You can build your own coils and mix your own liquid. Me and my mate both do it it's far cheaper and better for the environment, not too hard either once uve learnt the basics of materials and ohms n all.
You can build your own coils
But you cannot use them in disposable shit. Selling and producing disposable shit should be banned.
Glycerin costs 2.5$ for 1 liter bottle. And food flavoring about 6-10$ for 0.1 liter bottle.
Disposables could have a use assuming they were more like pods but made from biodegradable materials that are sustainably sources I,e wood or something but that wouldnt solve the coke bottles everywhere and those r worse. The problem isn't smoking or vaping and it never was the problem is companies knowing they could get away with not being ecologically responsible and by putting the blame on disposables bring used, all you do is help them shift the blame away.
but made from biodegradable materials that are sustainably sources
Greenwashing.
Is that like a play on words for brain washing? I've made ecigs from wood i''ve cut myself the only downside I've noticed is if the wood gets wet but for disposables that would matter less.
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.
At all or while making insane profit and producing a lot of waste? At all simple: just look how vapes looked like before Big Tabacco came and enshittified them.
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.
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.
Just some good old "whataboutism". Maybe he sprinkles some climate-change denial into some prohibition discussion to distract us?
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.
Who are carbon taxes unpopular with? Aside from politicians?
The people that have to pay them, I assume
People who don't understand we need to break our addiction to petroleum based fuel. Also People who make money off of petroleum based products.
I think you overestimate the size of these two groups. The group of people who care more about their own financials is likely a lot larger.
That's a matter of proper implementation. Tax & dividend! Distribute the tax revenue to the population per capita.
That means:
- If your emissions are average, you pay/earn net zero.
- If you emit more than average, you pay. This will affect mostly rich people, since emissions strongly correlate with available money.
- If you emit less than average, you net earn. This effectively rewards people with money gained for emissions prevented.
Since money is distributed unequally in society, this means most people will have to pay less in such a system.
The beautiful thing is, the financial incentive to emit less remains even for people who gain more than they pay. It's also an incentive both for buyers and sellers, researchers and investors.
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.
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.