this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
32 points (94.4% liked)
Australia
3620 readers
159 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/passive-smoking-and-vaping
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?
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)_/¯
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
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism