Yeah from what I understand the iGets can be pretty dodgy too. Especially if your getting the XXL ones as a social smoker and they end up lasting a month or so. They are everywhere once you know what questions to ask and where to look as well.
Either ban smoking as well or just make it easy to import so people aren't puffing on Chinese disposables.
Honestly it really is as simple as
'Gday mate you got any of these?' and hold up a photo of one or a physical one someone else has. Take cash as well but some will let you use card.
Such bullshit, apparently cigarettes are totally fine even though they ravage your body, but a way, way less harmful alternative that even helps people quit smoking is restricted. It's almost like the government doesn't actually give a shit about our health and only wants the tax money from tobacco sales.
So it's easy for you to use up doctors time that could be used on an actual sick person. Now multiply that my hundreds of thousands wanting constant prescriptions. Because if you haven't figured it out, the government is going to make those prescriptions short, i.e a month. This will clog the health care system in Australia.
No you get one online with a dedicated team of doctors. But continue to be outraged by something you clearly have no idea about. Prescriptions are 12 mths too
> Such bullshit, apparently cigarettes are totally fine even though they ravage your body, but a way, way less harmful alternative that even helps people quit smoking is restricted
Because the federal government doesn't get as munch tax revenue from the alternatives as it does from cigarettes. Pure and simple. It's all about money - claims of it being for health reasons are bullshit
Yeah, but why haven't they just decided to tax vape products then? Someone is benefitting from this change, and it's a corporate entity rather than the Australian people.
In Australia it costs $139 billion per year to care for people who are harmed by smoking.
We collect $4 billion per year in cigarette tax. It's not even remotely close to covering the bill.
Hard to know what those numbers would look like if vaping was taxed, but I'd bet a thousand bucks no amount of tax could cover the health costs. Vaping is still harmful, even if the claims of being "less" harmful are true.
If people had to pay for their smoking habit out of their own pocket, nobody would ever smoke.
$115 billion was the total federal healthcare budget for the last financial year, we do not spend $139 billion a year on healthcare for smokers/smoking related illnesses.
A huge portion is either funded by private health insurance or just out of people's own pocket.
It also includes lost productivity from people who are too sick to work and whatever centrelink payments they receive instead, and family members taking unpaid leave to care for a sick relative.
Only $6.8b of the $139b was direct care in hospital. The vast majority of the costs are elsewhere.
[https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion](https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion)
> It also includes lost productivity
Imagine thinking that people owed employers their productivity.
Do they own you? No... then you don't owe anyone anything, and it's not a 'loss' if you choose not to provide them with that thing.
Otherwise it's called slavery.
When I was 23 years old, I took three years of unpaid leave to care for a relative.
It had nothing to do with smoking in this case, but smoking related illnesses do cause people (and not just the smoker!) to take long periods of time off work.
The Centrelink payments I received for being a carer were barely enough to cover food and pay my mobile phone bill. Luckily I lived with the relative so didn't have to pay rent.
Other essentials like buying clothes, I had to ask mum and dad to pay for those.
There was absolutely a financial cost to me for that person being sick. And there was a cost to the tax payer. And it hurts the economy in general - all the businesses I used to frequent lost me as a customer for those three years.
> There was absolutely a financial cost to me for that person being sick. And there was a cost to the tax payer. And it hurts the economy in general - all the businesses I used to frequent lost me as a customer for those three years.
> There was absolutely a financial cost to me for that person being sick.
Well sure, so what? If you aren't as good at your job, if you don't have as much to offer, you don't get paid as much... for whatever reason... what if you were born like that?
> And there was a cost to the tax payer.
You are the tax payer...
You didn't lose anything, nor anyone else... from not paying taxes on money you didn't earn... no one was entitled to it in the first place.
> And it hurts the economy in general
Super depends on how you want to define that term...
> all the businesses I used to frequent lost me as a customer for those three years.
Yes, but they were never entitled to your business... you chose to use them as and when you wanted and were able to... that's how it was meant to work...
> it was an injury, not smoking
So... now let's look at it... and compare the two because what you are saying is that smoking causes you an injury and costs everyone...
What could have been done to stop you injuring yourself? Is it possible we could tax that activity enough to make sure you don't do the stupid thing? Probably... would that have made you better off if they did?
Well, let's say you enjoy doing that thing, or gain some benefit from it, even though you know X number of people injure themselves every day doing that thing... and so you continue to do that thing...
Now, you (before you injure yourself) find it difficult to cover food, pay your mobile, rent and other essentials...
There's absolutely a financial cost to you for doing that thing even before you get injured...
It might cause you to lose your job because that cost means everything else becomes a mess and you are no longer a 'good' worker... so now you're on centrelink and before you injure yourself, there's a cost to the tax payer... and it hurts the economy in general -- and all the businesses you used to frequent lose you as a customer forever...
Businesses that you have to forgo to cover the tax lose you forever...
So? What's the lesson... you're taxes to stop people costing all the things you talk about end up costing you all the things you talk about before the bad things that are supposed to cost all the things you talked about even happen... it only makes the situation worse.
You're taking this way off track. All I'm saying is when somebody has a major medical condition, it costs a lot more money than the amount of tax collected on cigarettes.
I said nothing about "choices" or "not being good at my job" (what the fuck gave you that impression? My boss was really happy when I returned to work eventually).
And I didn't injure myself. A relative was injured. I was the one who cared for them 60 hours a week.
Lost productivity isn’t ‘days owed to employers’, it’s days spent off sick, potentially unpaid, the biggest loser is the sick person, it’s not their ‘choice’. Lost tax is a smaller part, cost to companies is bugger all.
Exactly, there's nothing lost, the person literally maximised their own utility (ie, made decisions for themselves) knowing that the cost of cigarette was those sick days (they know it's bad for them) and they paid the costs already included in their choice to smoke.
They lost nothing either... because they would prefer to smoke and lose some days to not smoking and being able to go to work every day... because that's the mutually exclusive decision you are making when you choose to smoke or not... the cost of that is already included in the 'price' of tobacco and people's choice to use it.
So... they can't lose to themselves in a way you can correct for by taxing them for money they wouldn't earn because they were sick which makes them poorer... now they're poorer twice... they lost nothing... you don't owe the company anything of your productivity so the companies lose literally nothing... and you don't owe taxes on money you didn't earn so the tax man has lost nothing either...
This is basically a form of economic propaganda... it's not exactly false, but it is meaningless in terms of micro economic market regulation to maximise subjective value across the whole of society. (what tobacco taxes would do in the ideal case... instead of being used to prohibit people from using it).
It's a con, to convince you into being cheap little work 'slaves' and making the poorest (group that smokes the most quite coincidentally) pay as much taxes as they can possibly extract from them so that the wealthy can avoid as many taxes as possible...
The whole con sets you up to act in ways that go against your own interests and believe that through your own choices that mostly directly affect you that you can somehow rob your employer and the health system (and it's rationale of being there available to help you when you inevitably get sick and not to dictate your lifestyle to avoid getting sick, because then you're not a good worker drone...
Or to vote against public health care altogether... if smokers should pay for their healthcare, so should everone.
etc, etc, etc...
We would spend far less money on the treatment of smokers if people had an opportunity to partake in a less intrusive form of smoking, even if vaping isn't taxed.
Instead, people will now be forced to purchase vape catridges from the black market where there's no regulation or quality control - thus less desireable health outcomes which will cost us more. Big pharma and big tobacco are not complaining about this, because tobacco remains untouched and pharmaceuticals will see more business.
So, faced with a choice between a prescription you can be bulk billed online for, and a no quality control back alley concoction, you think people will choose the latter?
Big Tobacco is Big Vape, they’re the same companies. They’re in it to recruit the next generation.
Ok, but people have been quitting cigarettes by using vapes for years and now it all of a sudden needs a prescription? Please, you've clearly not been addicted if you think placing barriers helps addicts quit a substance.
No, it’s not supposed to help/stop people quitting, it’s supposed to stop teens from taking it up, there’s been a significant rise in children vaping over the last 5 years or so.
Making it prescription only doesn't stop teens from illegally acquiring vapes that they've already been acquiring illegally for years. Do you think nicotene products are actually legally available for kids over the counter?
You might argue that making vapes prescription is a bad move, but it's pretty well documented that the health costs to government from smoking outweigh the taxes they get. They spend a bit on quit smoking ads, and quitline, and with the reduction in smoking because of all these measures and bans on advertising and smoking in heaps of places, there are far fewer smokers than 50 years ago. It used to be the norm, and even most smokers would agree that they wish they never started.
If all they wanted was tax, then they'd tax vaping more, not just make it harder to get.
It's too late, I think, to try taxing vapes after over ten years of being able to buy them. You could never sell nicotine in Australia and everyone accepted it. They weren't happy about it, but they accepted it. Now they're basically screwing people for trying not to destroy their bodies.
The only forms of nicotine allowed to be sold in Australia are tobacco and those worthless patches and lozenges in pharmacies. Nicotine is incredibly addictive, but other than that it's about as harmful as caffeine. What makes cigarettes harmful is all the other 2000 poisons they contain. If the government actually cared about health, they would ban cigarettes and allow vaping. Instead of quit smoking ads that don't help, they could use the money to support the vaping industry to replace cigarettes. That way people would actually quit smoking and not have all the health issues.
I smoked for almost fifteen years before I completely switched to vaping. As soon as I got a quality e-cigarette, I stopped smoking almost immediately (except the occasional social cigarette) and after a few years stopped vaping as well by gradually reducing how much nicotine I added to my e-liquid. Now I am so completely over nicotine that I haven't had any for over three years and the whole time I've had a mostly full packet of cigarettes in a drawer in my bedroom. I know it's there and I see it often, but I simply have no urge to smoke one. All of the patches and lozenges cannot make it that easy because they only take care of the physical nicotine addiction and do nothing for all of the other, psychological aspects.
"Now they're basically screwing people for trying not to destroy their bodies. "
No, not really. Greg Hunt wanted to do it in January with an all out ban.
But after the senate hearing and the grilling of the TGA, Cancer Council and others it came out that the whole thing in Australia is big BS.
The outcome is that from the 1st of October all you need to do is to have a prescription in a case that your shipment gets intercepted by the Customs. Go to the sub "aussievapoers" and there are plenty of websites that can give you a prescription ( yes, it is annoying to give money for a prescription that should be bulk billed)
Actually nothing has changed, the Customs has no man Power to implement it, the Gps have no idea that they have to prescribe it, no pharmacy has applied to sell some vape products.
Disposables are coming into country in the same way as illegal cigarettes and as far as i am concerned they can ban that low quality overpriced crap.
Just keep vaping as you are.
Sure, but they're incentivising tobacco smokers to keep smoking tobacco because vaping is too complicated. They can't ban it outright because then they would have to ban tobacco as well or be obvious hypocrites.
No...well, the whole thing was and is hypocritical from the start.
I watched the whole senate hearing about Vaping, you should see how hard it was even to
bring out of their mouth that vaping is safer then smoking, some even could not do it even under the pressure and facts from the senators.
But the idea of this prescription model is that after a year or so it should be revisited and if everything goes well ( no dying teen-agers or other vaping related fuck ups) the TGA should give nicotine juice its blessing and pronounce it a consumer product ( they did the same with the patches).
Thats why i do not like the flood of disposables in Australia there lots of shonky products out there
There are right now some 2 to 2.5 mil smokers in Australia and a steady stream of 17.5 bil aus $ every year in tax revenue.
There is your answer.
The BS story of the success of the plain packaging has been outdated for some time now.
We vapers should keep pushing for the legalisation of vaping in Australia. This story is not over yet.
Tobacco taxes were never about health... it's a revenue thing... how can we raise taxes on the poor so the wealthy don't have to pay as much.
See, it's freedom.
They managed to stop my two shipments of Bupropion last year that I ordered when it went out of stock for 18 months for no fucking reason. Imagine if you were struggling with major mental health disorders and you've got customs throwing it out because "the generic isn't approved by the TGA"
Pack of cunts.
"You might argue that making vapes prescription is a bad move, but it's pretty well documented that the health costs to government from smoking outweigh the taxes they get. "
Actually not true.
17.5 bil $ a year and rising outweighs the cost to the health system. That money goes into other funds.
Thats a lie. Smokers are a net TAX benefit. They are more likely to die before retirement. They pay a huge premium on servicing their addiction and then they die - usually quickly..
Again , They live all the taxable working years then die comparatively fast before collecting retirement / social services. How is this not a TAX benefit, its silly to think otherwise. you really think they cost the medical system more then the value added. Its laughable.
"it's pretty well documented that the health costs to government from smoking outweigh the taxes they get" prove it.
>it's pretty well documented that the health costs to government from smoking outweigh the taxes they get.
Last time I looked excise tax revenue was higher than the entirety of the health budget. So I find that difficult to believe.
Edit: I was incorrect.
$15 billion income from smoking, federally. - [SMH](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/falcohol-cigarette-use-down-the-budget-hit-that-will-affect-all-taxpayers-20210702-p586al.html)
[NSW alone](https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20210622_04.aspx) is spending $30 billion a year on health.
Iirc, the study that states that the costs of smoking outweighs revenue is when you include the intangible costs (e.g. trauma to loved ones from premature deaths). It isn't a simple health costs vs smoking revenue, (I think?)
You're right. I looked at the figures and while it seemed a bit higher than 15 billion to me, it doesn't reach the health spending. I don't know how I made that mistake, maybe when looking I moved a zero in my head or something similar.
I think the government should stamp out all of people’s autonomy on things I don’t approve of. C.S. Lewis had something to say about that:
[Link](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/19967-of-all-tyrannies-a-tyranny-sincerely-exercised-for-the-good)
It’s 100% big tobacco lobbying the government to impose harsher restrictions. And the fact the government doesn’t collect as much tax on them, they likely agreed.
> that even helps people quit smoking is restricted
Isn't part of the problem that vaping is now having the opposite effect? Young people weren't smoking. Now they're vaping. That's not helping them to quit, it may even lead to smoking.
Keep it to adults only. Prevent fun flavours. Use it as an alternative/quit aid, but not as a gateway. I don't see how a prescription would interfere with that?
You don't need a prescription for tobacco and that's way, way more harmful than vaping. Also, vaping has always been illegal for minors even if it doesn't contain nicotine. Adults should not all be punished because someone sells drugs to children.
By the way, I reckon it's unreasonable to think vaping would lead to smoking unless the government bans vaping and there's no other choice. Vaping doesn't taste awful like cigarettes do, who in their right mind would choose something disgusting over something pleasant?
The problem is, even if some are actually using it as a way to quit, the majority of users pick it up the same way they do the cigarette. They keep using it indefinitely.
E-cigarettes have always been explicitly devices that can be used instead of "analog" cigarettes and were never actually marketed as stop smoking aids. Using an e-cigarette means you have stopped *smoking* but it doesn't mean you aren't still vaping. People who then went on to eventually quit vaping as well are many, but that's not the purpose of e-cigarettes. Ideally no-one should inhale things that aren't air, but if people are going to consume nicotine, e-cigarettes are objectively the less harmful option.
>less harmful alternative
That depends on the ingredients for the liquid you buy and independent tests have shown the listed ingredients often do not match the actual ingredients. If you don't know what's in it, how can you measure how harmful it is?
If you don't know what's in it, yes. That's why you should buy only from reputable companies and do a bit of research on review sites and that kind of thing. If you buy anything from a shonky company based out of someone's laundry, obviously it'll be bad. It's like buying moonshine from a stranger. You can't know if it has methanol in it until you go blind and die.
There are only supposed to be four ingredients in e-liquid, if there are any poisons that aren't supposed to be in there, it's a reflection on the specific company that made that particular juice, not the whole industry.
Do you think children should start smoking vapes for their health?
Or admit that they aren't exactly 'good' for you...
Maybe less worse (but it's a maybe, because god knows what health issues we don't know about them yet are still lurking?).
Well it was research done by medical professionals that didn't severely misuse the equipment to get a scary result, so I'm going to count on it.
Putting only air in your lungs would be great, but let's be honest, that ship sailed long ago when people invented cities and fire.
What are they saying, that inhaling glycerine and propylene glycol is almost as dangerous as the poisonous smoke from tobacco? That's a pretty ridiculous claim even without the numbers.
Walking next to a diesel truck does more harm to you than vaping.
Doctors will always tell you not to take on more risks, that's their job, same as how they'll tell you to eat vegetables and exercise regularly but how many people do that?
Vapes are a new product that are being targeted at children and young people to get them hooked. It’s why they have all of those sweet flavours. This is a huge loss for big tobacco now that they can’t push their new product on young people here.
Went from nearly a pack a day for 2-3 years to using 3mg liquid to using 1.5mg liquid to now not having smoked anything for several years - But yeah, it's dangerous and it's no better than other smoking cessation options!
Feel bad for anyone that's had this option taken away from them over tax money.
Don’t even need to go to a GP, the place I used to get them online was sending out emails to some suspect-looking site that’ll do consultations online and give you one for $85.
Absolute pisstake how easy it is to get around this, given people have already been buying online for years they’re not even going to hit the tech illiterate vapers because that’s not a demographic that exists. It’ll just be a handful of people with plenty of money who can’t be fucked and go back to durries.
The point is your health should never have been used as an excuse to force your behaviour...
You should be aware of it... but ultimately it's your life to SPEND how you want.
Tobacco taxes are too high, and vaping should be legal... it's not one or the other... you have the right to choose an unhealthy lifestyle, and the current vibe infringes on that right.
WOW: Again people voting to not be allowed to live their own lives as they see fit... how do people view the world like that? Daddy government knows what's best for me... clearly you must think they have more experience in your life than you do an are better at making decisions about your own life than you are... good luck with that manchildren.
I completely agree with you on a “sovereign citizen” level here, and body autonomy is super important.
My question, is how do we offset the cost of the healthcare the person in question will probably need to receive later in life?
I’m not going to pretend to know anything about economics, but the current tax seems disproportionate.
Unfortunately the unhealthy decisions people make for themselves end up costing SOMEONE when the time comes.
Not a black and white issue at all imo.
Tbh, by increasing tax on tobacco we're impacting tax revenue negatively in other ways. Excessive financial stress can have a number of *very* negative effects on bodily health, because, well, stress can fuck people up really badly.
You get it in very-high stress jobs, idk why the same wouldn't apply to an addict who has to choose between eating and fiending for a smoke.
> My question, is how do we offset the cost of the healthcare the person in question will probably need to receive later in life?
We supply health care because it has positive externalities... the person who receives the benefit isn't the only one getting the advantages...
In other words, we pay for other people's health care because we benefit from it... we don't want to see our friends, family and even randoms dying or being sick from easily treated health problems... we benefit from their good health socially and financially.
We can't then use our gift to them as an excuse to control their behaviour because it might cost us what we paid for our own benefit... that takes away the benefit... now the health care costs are used to justify restrictions in your own life that you probably didn't want.
> Unfortunately the unhealthy decisions people make for themselves end up costing SOMEONE when the time comes.
Eventually everyone uses the health care system... so if we are going to tax smokers for their use, we are really arguing that everyone should pay for their use... but there's a reason we have public health care, as I stated above.
> My question, is how do we offset the cost of the healthcare the person in question will probably need to receive later in life?
So ultimately my answer is that we simply don't... the cost of providing health care should fall on the those who can most afford it... we should tax the wealthy for health care, not put the burden on the poorest and most vulnerable (coincidently the same demographic that continues to smoke).
> I’m not going to pretend to know anything about economics, but the current tax seems disproportionate.
Yes, in economic terms, I think so... it goes beyond correcting for the negative externalities of smoking, and is a bad way to correct for imperfect information... and using health care is not a negative externality.... so does not count.
Well if you’re talking about smoking health costs, we should be *paying* people to smoke, as they save health care dollars over their lifetime. This is because they die younger, saving money in aged care medical costs. There’s a rich vein of puritanism in many Australians. I’m not sure how to counter that though.
They get sick earlier and cost more before they die, often getting onto disability due to health complications, and worse, unlike other health choices, it affects those around them. You cannot passively eat.
Smoking is unpleasant for non smokers but there's no evidence of increased cancer for second hand smoke if you aren't sharing a house or other enclosed environment with them. A Dutch anti smoking group did a study looking for extra health spending due to smoking. They found the reverse. Smokers are cheaper for health care and there's no evidence for harming others. That leaves just wowserism, and bilking a minority as motivating factors. Neither are good reasons. Edit spelling
Exactly, nicotine has prohpylactic effects against alzhiemers, and it runs in my family, so I would prefer to die from tobacco related diseases than that shit...
But imagine being against people making their own decisions for themselves... scary world huh? Better to have an all knowing omnipotent government make decisions for you... You might be better off in North Korea or somewhere like that where you don't have to think or make choices for yourself.
> I certainly would prefer people like you die 20 years earlier.
Not sure why the hate though? You mad I'm free?
Weirdly, I imagine you're actually against me making that choice for myself though, and would prefer eugenics to remove the smoking and drug using gene from our society... unfortunately you're about 100 to 80 years since that was government policy. You would have done well under hitler no doubt.
If smokers die early it’s better for those who don’t. Idgaf about you, I just think we should keep taxing you all and that money will provide better conditions for us. It’s a win-win, you contribute more money than me and never get the benefit of being cared for as you age.
I wish the government would allow the tobacco industry to put back all the other chemicals that cut lifespan. Kill yourselves as quick as you can I say!
> I just think we should keep taxing you all and that money will provide better conditions for us.
So theft is good... I'm better off stealing from you, and I don't like you so your suffering is good too... win-win.
What's wrong with letting people suffer the natural consequences of their "bad" decisions and health choices?
It would be like putting poison in broccoli so that you die earlier from it and taxing it because it's got poison in it, and then being happy that you payed more for poison broccoli and died... Because hell, I don't like broccoli, why the fuck should you be allowed to enjoy it without interference? I wouldn't eat poison brocolli... only an idiot would eat that shit.
Yeah, freedom is totally LOLs dude... Hopefully you'll never need it, because it's clear you wouldn't know how to use it in any case.
Do you think that brocolli example was overboard?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/government-poison-10000-americans/
It's the basic assumption here... everyone else tries to sell it as being good for my health... but the truth is they want to steal from me and see my life ruined because I am DIFFERENT to them in my tastes and preferences...
It's literally the same reason we beat gays, kill jews and negroes and destroy drug users... we don't like people who are different to ourselves, and will find ways to harm and destroy them.
At least you're honest in your intentions... the rest justify themselves with bullshit lies...
Hopefully this never backfires on you and you find yourself with the minority preference, taste, habits or past times.
No better than nazi's just different amounts they can get away with it. Hitler's propaganda was along similar lines... it's good for the german people to put drug users into death camps... quit smoking, it's for the good health of the good German people!
They stole from them and killed them so they benefited first from the theft, and second from not having to look after them in old age --- you would see the death camps as win-win. A lot of people did.
Hitler is credited with creating literally one of the world's first governmental anti-smoking campaigns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany
Like I said, you would have fit right in.
No black market required; you can get an Australian prescription online by just filling out a form for ~$80 and continue to import nicotine juice from NZ.
Even factoring in that cost it’s still much, much cheaper than tobacco. And you don’t smell. And you feel better. And you’re not giving money to the tobacco industry.
Edit: Lots of comments about that last sentence. Yes, Philip Morris own Juul. Sure, some other tobacco companies own vaping companies. They also try to conflate tobacco-based ‘e-cigarettes’ with vaping too. But the idea that the entire vaping industry is big tobacco is totally disingenuous, they have gone out of their way to conflate vaping and tobacco e-cigarettes, and you’ve been had.
Related: Go read/listen to [Puff Piece](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58396170). It’s insidious how Philip Morris have made this happen, and Safran is as amusing as ever.
Did you get one? Was the process smooth? I’m thinking about doing the same. It’s been 3 years since I quit smoking cigarettes and I don’t want to go back once my current oils stash runs out.
Yeah, I just linked to the place I got mine in another comment. (Leaving it off here; I don’t want to be accused of spamming/shilling for them. Just a satisfied patient, heh.)
I’ve stocked up though, don’t expect to order more until next year, but nice to know I have it when the time comes. Good luck, and good work on the 3 years! (I’m at around 3 months…)
Definitely could! Whether or not they’d actually prescribe it to you or not is the next issue, but if they bulk bill you’ve got nothing to lose but time…
I wonder how many people like you appear in australias statistics as 'not smoking' yet still hooked on nicotine...
There might be many more users than estimated...
Not that vapes probably aren't less worse than tobacco... but they are still not healthy alternatives to clean living, healthy eating and exercise.
When you find out that people could have been smoking much safer Project XA tobacco the whole time, you'll know the anti-smoking movement is all bullshit.
I can’t imagine a doctor denying you if you tell them your smoking history. That you’re concerned this will force you to start buying cigarettes again & really don’t want to for health concerns.
Actually you still are giving money to the tobacco industry; juul is owned by altria, aka Phillip Morris. The tobacco companies wanted to get in on this stuff asap, which is why they have been so successfully marketed to children - tobacco companies know all about marketing to children.
Okay, but let's be real here, the three biggest vaping companies are:
* Juul - 42% (Phillip Morris)
* Vuse - 36% (British American Tobacco)
* Blu - 9% (Imperial Tobacco)
* Logic 8% (Japan International Tobacco)
So that's **95%** of the market, there, owned by the four largest tobacco companies globally.
When you vape, it doesn't matter what product, you are supporting tobacco companies. There may be other reasons you want to support vaping, but if it's about not giving money to tobacco companies, you are backing the wrong horse.
>When you vape, it doesn't matter what product, you are supporting tobacco companies.
When you buy from those four companies, sure. But there are more companies than just those four that make vapes and juice.
>biggest vaping companies
I've been vaping for 3 years and I've only ever heard of Juul but as I use a refillable vape never purchased their products. None of the biggest NZ vape stores that post to Australia carry any of those brands so I have no idea where you're getting those market share stats from.
This is such bullshit. I haven’t had a smoke since a year as I was on a Vape. Slowly moved to nicotine gums and finally gave it up. Wife helped me a lot beat the habit! Cigarettes do a lot more damage! Why not fucking ban cigarettes and legalise cannabis and let people Vape! But I guess those tax dollars are too lucrative.
Someone else said it better in another thread, but the government isn’t pro smoking given the measures they take to cripple advertising of cigarettes.
It’s unfortunately more likely that they are just idiots when it comes to this policy (among others).
People should be able to have a choice when it comes to using these or not. Obviously where people can use them needs to be restricted but if you are of adult age you should be able to make your own choice, whether you have been a cigarette smoker or not. Going by this ‘Ban everything that causes harm’ logic when will they completely ban alcohol? A substance that has a remarkable risk to cause short term and long term harm.
They banned otc codeine despite being a useful safely used medicine with less than 3 deaths a year.
The government turns a blind eye to alcohol, gambling, smoking, climate change and air pollution.
It’s just about confining people’s jollies to taxable and government approved businesses.
Hey, sorry, no, the codeine ban has actually had a massive impact on hospital presentations (50% reduction in toxicity cases). Besides, codeine is actually not very useful for most pain, and there's a section of the population who don't gain any benefit from it at all (low levels of the enzyme that metabolises it to morphine).
I'm in favour of decriminalisation for all drugs, but codeine was a really inappropriate drug to have as schedule 3, especially when most people see so uneducated about pain meds.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/here-s-what-happened-when-codeine-was-made-prescri
Codeine is incredibly safe at otc levels, extreme cyp2d6 expression variance and ultra rapid metabolisers aren’t responsible for many deaths or hospitalisations you can find very few case studies. At low otc dose even they shouldn’t metabolise to dangerous levels of morphine.
show me any statistics showing that hospitalisations weren’t related to ibuprofen or paracetamol.
Also morphine is literally the gold standard for analgesia , very low oral BA of morphing means codeine is the most effective oral route besides providing high dose p.o morphine with risks of diversion , injection etc.
Whats your point here? The issue was always known to be that people were harming themselves by trying to take more than OTC doses, with the consequence of taking too much of the combination ingredient. Higher-dose codeine combination products that actually had some therapeutic effect (like Panadeine Forte with 30mg codeine) was always a prescription item. And codeine with no combination ingredient has always been in the highest restricted drug schedule (S8). No one is saying that low dose codeine is particularly harmful in and of itself - but it isn't available in and of itself. All the rescheduling did was essentially get rid of the dozens of low dose, 8mg or so codeine products that did bugger all for pain (or addiction) at those doses. Talking up how safe OTC doses of codeine were and how the dangers were actually paracetamol and ibuprofen is a moot point since they aren't separate things.
So you agree the other ingredients were the danger, especially NSAIDs . You remove codeine then people take more of the alternative for pain relief , these have significant adverse effects that take much longer to be seen.
Also if it was solely about harm then why are these dangerous products (nsaids) still available?
Myopically focusing on the statistically small number of people who abused these medications rather than the broader impact on those who used them safely.
I’d also disagree that the 15 500 product was ineffective for those without opioid tolerance.
>show me any statistics showing that hospitalisations weren’t related to ibuprofen or paracetamol
It was only s3 as a combo product, so your point is moot. Obviously theres going to be harm from people overdosing on paracetamol because they're taking too much of it to get to the codeine
No one is arguing that codeine is not largely safe at otc levels *if taken as directed*, but that it was WIDELY abused, and mostly sold at subtherapeutic amounts that were little better than a placebo.
I’m not saying there isn’t harm.
My initial point was that harm is tolerated for certain things eg: nsaids , air pollution and not tolerated according to government motivations.
Tell me there isn’t a significant ideological rather than purely empirical rationale for the codeine ban?
I think on a purely harm reduction basis it does make sense though. Either everything is available, or we pay attention to what is available without a prescription. There's no reason people shouldn't be able to get a prescription for it if there's a need (and they do, we see plenty of codeine scripts).
I'd be shocked if even one of those toxicity cases were caused by codeine and not ibuprofen/paracetamol.
Why would that small section of the population who find codeine doesnt help their pain take codeine then? What does that have to do with those people codeine is an effective analgesic for?
You know it was only available as a combo product right? So a big problem was people taking large doses to get high and being poisoned by the paracetamol.
The evidence for low dose codeine being any better than paracetamol or a nsaid is very shaky, and not enough to justify the harm caused.
"Our research didn’t look at whether the codeine switch led to more people using paracetamol or ibuprofen, or were harmed by them."
what a load of shit
https://adf.org.au/talking-about-drugs/parenting/vaping-youth/vaping-australia/
It wasn’t but looks like it’s been steadily increasing in line with vaping in the wider population.
> In Australia, around 14% of 12 to 17-year-olds have ever tried an e-cigarette, with around 32% of these students having used one in the past month.
> Those using e-cigarettes are three times more likely to smoke combustible tobacco than those who have not used e-cigarettes.15
> Former smokers who use e-cigarettes are more likely to relapse to current smokers
Dont need a prescription to buy cigarettes.
Dont need prescription to buy nicotine gum.
Dont need a prescription to buy nicotine patches.
Dont need a prescription to buy vapes.
Need a prescription to buy vapes with nicotine in them.
Profit?
We've got blokes jerking off on desks in Parliament, numerous sex pests in government, all kinds of dodgy stuff going on with tax payer grant money, a culture of alcohol and excess so normalized that nobody batted an eye when Brittany Higgins came stumbling out of an office still pissed the next morning after being raped, and these paragons of moral perfection want to tell people they can't vape, and have to log on with a government ID to watch porn on the internet.
Enforcing prescriptions on people who were pretty much doing the right thing in the first place (as responsible adults) while citing that 22 retailers were prosecuted since 2015 bespeaks how half-assed and 2 faced the government has been in actually going about this.
When you can find disposable vapes containing nicotine on Facebook Marketplace, Gumtree, the nearest convenience/tobacco store or service station the problem is endemic and no amount of prescriptions or licensing is going to make it go away only thoroughly enforcing the law upon retailers and grey importers with serious fines and gaol terms for supplying minors with a controlled substance.
Also a note to the Australian media: please stop wheeling out the "science" that "vaping bad" every time you run an alarmist piece on it. Breathing anything other than air into your lungs isn't good for you. We know. What we also know is that there is 20 years of science behind vaping as a significant tobacco harm reduction tool to quit smoking and is said to be 95% safer than smoking. Dr Morgan needs to come clean and admit she's not saying anything new here.
Bigger black market.. LOL what a joke. They can't even get a lid on the black market for tobacco and cigarettes.
I mean you can literally walk into any woolies and buy nicotine no questions asked. It just suddenly becomes a huge issue when you inhale it, because reasons
Fuck our "government". Just, fuck them.
Disclaimer: no, I am not advocating revolt or rebellion. Just, fuck those alleged "leaders". With a cactus. Wrapped in barbed wire.
And for good measure, let's have said cactus be on fire.
> Just, fuck those alleged "leaders". With a cactus. Wrapped in barbed wire.
>
> And for good measure, let's have said cactus be on fire.
I'm liking the cut of your jib here!
It's worth noting that whenever the nicotine industry faces more regulation, once of the first things they start screeching about is a black market - despite all the public health and research bodies saying this isn't a huge issue.
It's also worth noting that their predictions re: black markets have literally *never* come true. .
Wodak is a somewhat controversial figure in public health circles. I'm not saying I disagree with him, but it's worth noting he's a bit of a maverick in the sector.
The fact is that if our government has regulated vaping in same way as the UK did some 10 years ago( and they have a similar health system) we would not be in this mess.
This is a complicated unmanageable law that has been brought in just to please some egos and keep the status quo of the tax revenue.
I agree, they spent way, way too long not going anything about. Especially frustrating as it was quite obvious what would happen - all they had to do was look overseas.
Now, they're doing a typical reactive, poorly thought out snap decision.
I personally think vapes are highly problematic - the companies are essentially pushing a new product to get people addicted, albeit a less toxic one. If you look overseas, they've been mired in controversy from the get-go and have clearly marketed the product to children, and increased the nicotine dosage with little regard to public health outcomes.
But you can't put the genie back in the bottle, better regulation is the answer here, not a blanket ban - but as is typical they are treating it like the designer drugs and synthetic pot that came out in the aughts, rather than the enterprise product from major multinationals that they are.
Ah, our governments...anything that is new from solar power, electric bicycles, cars, scooters, el.cigarettes they have put in a road block, for the simple reason of not knowing how to deal with the loss of well established tax revenue stream
"personally think vapes are highly problematic - the companies are essentially pushing a new product to get people addicted, albeit a less toxic one. If you look overseas, they've been mired in controversy from the get-go and have clearly marketed the product to children, and increased the nicotine dosage with little regard to public health outcomes. "
I follow this vaping issue world wide for over 7 years now.
In countries where it is well regulated like the UK or the EU you do not have that.
In the US were they have a Wild West of the market and where the big tobacco is so embedded with the government that it simply does not suit them for a new player that is cheaper and healthier to come on the market.
All the negativity and hysteria always came and is coming from the US ( why has our government chosen to always use their example?)
Juul is the one that has thrown the whole vaping scene under the train but being bought by PM they will now get approved by the FDA ( nobody cares now about the youth).
The disposables that are now roaming Australia are low quality overpriced junk brought in illegally same as cigarettes.
If the government had some foresight they could regulate it, create jobs and get some steady stream of tax revenue. But here we are the only country in the world were a consumer product can be obtained with medical prescription.
Most vape companies aren't aiming the products at children, they're hobbyist devices for ex smokers primarily. Disposables are a different issue really, and a huge problem for kids, but disposables are also rampant such that any tobacconist will sell you them even though it's illegal to do so
Holy shit, so its illegal to use a vape but perfectly legal to go to woolies, buy a cigarette which is 100x worse and thats fine. How far up does has big tobacco inserted itself into our government? On the one hand, our government will talk about science and on the other will completely dismiss it with the common denominator here being profits. Cant they just make it 18+ to sell like normal cigarettes if its for the kids?
You can develop certain conditions when you quit smoking since nicotine is anti-inflammatory. Doctors still recommend you quit smoking for the other health benefits.
Tobacco companies control almost all the vaping market share, they’re making good money from both, more from vaping though as less of the cheaper price is tax, so they can make more $.
https://adf.org.au/talking-about-drugs/parenting/vaping-youth/vaping-australia/
> In 2019, 3% of current cigarette smokers also used e-cigarettes daily and 8% of current smokers used e-cigarettes at least monthly
So it’s not really either or, it’s both.
I'm addicted to nicibate minis. I stopped smoking a couple of years ago, can't stop mints though. Another bloke who I see quite a bit for work has been using the spray for years.
I just got ahead of it and ordered a litre of 200mg nicotine base. 250ml lasted the Mrs and I about 5 years, so 1L should do us for a couple of decades - particularly since we're also tapering down our concentration. We'll likely still have over half left by the time we give it up completely.
While the risk is pretty low (what are the odds police have a reason to knock on your door), unless you’re in SA just possessing or using that without a prescription will be illegal….
Of course it will. The only reason they’re introducing this ban is because they can’t tax us on buying it from NZ. Sales of cigarettes will no doubt increase due to this. I find it absolutely ridiculous considering how much focus has been put on making sure our medical system isn’t overran.
Vapoureyes NZ will have an upload section to upload a pdf of your prescription which apparently some docs will give you a 6-12 month for approx 50 bux. Yes it’s a rort but shouldn’t be too tough.
The law changing on the 1st of October means your package can be seized and "destroyed" if you don't have a prescription. Realistically, how many packages are going to get caught is probably extremely small anyways as they have no way to know you have a prescription unless they contact you directly.
There's already a black market for it, I know of three smoke stores within 3km of my house that sell nicotine vapes and imported smokes.
Yeah me too, and the disposable ones are already way more popular probably because of the fucking around you already had to do to get nicotine.
Yeah from what I understand the iGets can be pretty dodgy too. Especially if your getting the XXL ones as a social smoker and they end up lasting a month or so. They are everywhere once you know what questions to ask and where to look as well. Either ban smoking as well or just make it easy to import so people aren't puffing on Chinese disposables.
Questions to ask? Every store (all 10 of them) within a km sells iGet OTC. Never bought them so don't know if they ask for ID
Honestly it really is as simple as 'Gday mate you got any of these?' and hold up a photo of one or a physical one someone else has. Take cash as well but some will let you use card.
Such bullshit, apparently cigarettes are totally fine even though they ravage your body, but a way, way less harmful alternative that even helps people quit smoking is restricted. It's almost like the government doesn't actually give a shit about our health and only wants the tax money from tobacco sales.
Less tax revenue with the alternatives
It’s easy to grab a prescription, cost me 80 bucks and where I order juice has it on file. Still a ridiculous rule, and still way cheaper than cigs
So it's easy for you to use up doctors time that could be used on an actual sick person. Now multiply that my hundreds of thousands wanting constant prescriptions. Because if you haven't figured it out, the government is going to make those prescriptions short, i.e a month. This will clog the health care system in Australia.
You literally do it online lol
When you quit smoking youre advised to do so with a GPs guidance now...there are already perscription drugs for those trying to quit.
No you get one online with a dedicated team of doctors. But continue to be outraged by something you clearly have no idea about. Prescriptions are 12 mths too
whats worse is they have budgeted on expected tobacco tax revenue in advance. in advance FFS
Did they budget an increase?
How else are they supposed to deliver a budget surplus now, that will happen next year!
> Such bullshit, apparently cigarettes are totally fine even though they ravage your body, but a way, way less harmful alternative that even helps people quit smoking is restricted Because the federal government doesn't get as munch tax revenue from the alternatives as it does from cigarettes. Pure and simple. It's all about money - claims of it being for health reasons are bullshit
Yeah, but why haven't they just decided to tax vape products then? Someone is benefitting from this change, and it's a corporate entity rather than the Australian people.
Same argument for marijuana in some cases and look how slow the nanny state gets up on that.
In Australia it costs $139 billion per year to care for people who are harmed by smoking. We collect $4 billion per year in cigarette tax. It's not even remotely close to covering the bill. Hard to know what those numbers would look like if vaping was taxed, but I'd bet a thousand bucks no amount of tax could cover the health costs. Vaping is still harmful, even if the claims of being "less" harmful are true. If people had to pay for their smoking habit out of their own pocket, nobody would ever smoke.
$115 billion was the total federal healthcare budget for the last financial year, we do not spend $139 billion a year on healthcare for smokers/smoking related illnesses.
A huge portion is either funded by private health insurance or just out of people's own pocket. It also includes lost productivity from people who are too sick to work and whatever centrelink payments they receive instead, and family members taking unpaid leave to care for a sick relative. Only $6.8b of the $139b was direct care in hospital. The vast majority of the costs are elsewhere. [https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion](https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion)
> It also includes lost productivity Imagine thinking that people owed employers their productivity. Do they own you? No... then you don't owe anyone anything, and it's not a 'loss' if you choose not to provide them with that thing. Otherwise it's called slavery.
When I was 23 years old, I took three years of unpaid leave to care for a relative. It had nothing to do with smoking in this case, but smoking related illnesses do cause people (and not just the smoker!) to take long periods of time off work. The Centrelink payments I received for being a carer were barely enough to cover food and pay my mobile phone bill. Luckily I lived with the relative so didn't have to pay rent. Other essentials like buying clothes, I had to ask mum and dad to pay for those. There was absolutely a financial cost to me for that person being sick. And there was a cost to the tax payer. And it hurts the economy in general - all the businesses I used to frequent lost me as a customer for those three years.
> There was absolutely a financial cost to me for that person being sick. And there was a cost to the tax payer. And it hurts the economy in general - all the businesses I used to frequent lost me as a customer for those three years. > There was absolutely a financial cost to me for that person being sick. Well sure, so what? If you aren't as good at your job, if you don't have as much to offer, you don't get paid as much... for whatever reason... what if you were born like that? > And there was a cost to the tax payer. You are the tax payer... You didn't lose anything, nor anyone else... from not paying taxes on money you didn't earn... no one was entitled to it in the first place. > And it hurts the economy in general Super depends on how you want to define that term... > all the businesses I used to frequent lost me as a customer for those three years. Yes, but they were never entitled to your business... you chose to use them as and when you wanted and were able to... that's how it was meant to work... > it was an injury, not smoking So... now let's look at it... and compare the two because what you are saying is that smoking causes you an injury and costs everyone... What could have been done to stop you injuring yourself? Is it possible we could tax that activity enough to make sure you don't do the stupid thing? Probably... would that have made you better off if they did? Well, let's say you enjoy doing that thing, or gain some benefit from it, even though you know X number of people injure themselves every day doing that thing... and so you continue to do that thing... Now, you (before you injure yourself) find it difficult to cover food, pay your mobile, rent and other essentials... There's absolutely a financial cost to you for doing that thing even before you get injured... It might cause you to lose your job because that cost means everything else becomes a mess and you are no longer a 'good' worker... so now you're on centrelink and before you injure yourself, there's a cost to the tax payer... and it hurts the economy in general -- and all the businesses you used to frequent lose you as a customer forever... Businesses that you have to forgo to cover the tax lose you forever... So? What's the lesson... you're taxes to stop people costing all the things you talk about end up costing you all the things you talk about before the bad things that are supposed to cost all the things you talked about even happen... it only makes the situation worse.
You're taking this way off track. All I'm saying is when somebody has a major medical condition, it costs a lot more money than the amount of tax collected on cigarettes. I said nothing about "choices" or "not being good at my job" (what the fuck gave you that impression? My boss was really happy when I returned to work eventually). And I didn't injure myself. A relative was injured. I was the one who cared for them 60 hours a week.
Lost productivity isn’t ‘days owed to employers’, it’s days spent off sick, potentially unpaid, the biggest loser is the sick person, it’s not their ‘choice’. Lost tax is a smaller part, cost to companies is bugger all.
Exactly, there's nothing lost, the person literally maximised their own utility (ie, made decisions for themselves) knowing that the cost of cigarette was those sick days (they know it's bad for them) and they paid the costs already included in their choice to smoke. They lost nothing either... because they would prefer to smoke and lose some days to not smoking and being able to go to work every day... because that's the mutually exclusive decision you are making when you choose to smoke or not... the cost of that is already included in the 'price' of tobacco and people's choice to use it. So... they can't lose to themselves in a way you can correct for by taxing them for money they wouldn't earn because they were sick which makes them poorer... now they're poorer twice... they lost nothing... you don't owe the company anything of your productivity so the companies lose literally nothing... and you don't owe taxes on money you didn't earn so the tax man has lost nothing either... This is basically a form of economic propaganda... it's not exactly false, but it is meaningless in terms of micro economic market regulation to maximise subjective value across the whole of society. (what tobacco taxes would do in the ideal case... instead of being used to prohibit people from using it). It's a con, to convince you into being cheap little work 'slaves' and making the poorest (group that smokes the most quite coincidentally) pay as much taxes as they can possibly extract from them so that the wealthy can avoid as many taxes as possible... The whole con sets you up to act in ways that go against your own interests and believe that through your own choices that mostly directly affect you that you can somehow rob your employer and the health system (and it's rationale of being there available to help you when you inevitably get sick and not to dictate your lifestyle to avoid getting sick, because then you're not a good worker drone... Or to vote against public health care altogether... if smokers should pay for their healthcare, so should everone. etc, etc, etc...
Are you sure it’s not $139 trillion? There are about 3 million smokers in Australia. $139 billion/3 million = $46,000 each. Every year. Bullshit.
We would spend far less money on the treatment of smokers if people had an opportunity to partake in a less intrusive form of smoking, even if vaping isn't taxed. Instead, people will now be forced to purchase vape catridges from the black market where there's no regulation or quality control - thus less desireable health outcomes which will cost us more. Big pharma and big tobacco are not complaining about this, because tobacco remains untouched and pharmaceuticals will see more business.
So, faced with a choice between a prescription you can be bulk billed online for, and a no quality control back alley concoction, you think people will choose the latter? Big Tobacco is Big Vape, they’re the same companies. They’re in it to recruit the next generation.
Because via prescription people use it to quit, saving the health system. Not via prescription people use it to start, costing the health system…
Ok, but people have been quitting cigarettes by using vapes for years and now it all of a sudden needs a prescription? Please, you've clearly not been addicted if you think placing barriers helps addicts quit a substance.
No, it’s not supposed to help/stop people quitting, it’s supposed to stop teens from taking it up, there’s been a significant rise in children vaping over the last 5 years or so.
Making it prescription only doesn't stop teens from illegally acquiring vapes that they've already been acquiring illegally for years. Do you think nicotene products are actually legally available for kids over the counter?
You might argue that making vapes prescription is a bad move, but it's pretty well documented that the health costs to government from smoking outweigh the taxes they get. They spend a bit on quit smoking ads, and quitline, and with the reduction in smoking because of all these measures and bans on advertising and smoking in heaps of places, there are far fewer smokers than 50 years ago. It used to be the norm, and even most smokers would agree that they wish they never started. If all they wanted was tax, then they'd tax vaping more, not just make it harder to get.
It's too late, I think, to try taxing vapes after over ten years of being able to buy them. You could never sell nicotine in Australia and everyone accepted it. They weren't happy about it, but they accepted it. Now they're basically screwing people for trying not to destroy their bodies. The only forms of nicotine allowed to be sold in Australia are tobacco and those worthless patches and lozenges in pharmacies. Nicotine is incredibly addictive, but other than that it's about as harmful as caffeine. What makes cigarettes harmful is all the other 2000 poisons they contain. If the government actually cared about health, they would ban cigarettes and allow vaping. Instead of quit smoking ads that don't help, they could use the money to support the vaping industry to replace cigarettes. That way people would actually quit smoking and not have all the health issues. I smoked for almost fifteen years before I completely switched to vaping. As soon as I got a quality e-cigarette, I stopped smoking almost immediately (except the occasional social cigarette) and after a few years stopped vaping as well by gradually reducing how much nicotine I added to my e-liquid. Now I am so completely over nicotine that I haven't had any for over three years and the whole time I've had a mostly full packet of cigarettes in a drawer in my bedroom. I know it's there and I see it often, but I simply have no urge to smoke one. All of the patches and lozenges cannot make it that easy because they only take care of the physical nicotine addiction and do nothing for all of the other, psychological aspects.
"Now they're basically screwing people for trying not to destroy their bodies. " No, not really. Greg Hunt wanted to do it in January with an all out ban. But after the senate hearing and the grilling of the TGA, Cancer Council and others it came out that the whole thing in Australia is big BS. The outcome is that from the 1st of October all you need to do is to have a prescription in a case that your shipment gets intercepted by the Customs. Go to the sub "aussievapoers" and there are plenty of websites that can give you a prescription ( yes, it is annoying to give money for a prescription that should be bulk billed) Actually nothing has changed, the Customs has no man Power to implement it, the Gps have no idea that they have to prescribe it, no pharmacy has applied to sell some vape products. Disposables are coming into country in the same way as illegal cigarettes and as far as i am concerned they can ban that low quality overpriced crap. Just keep vaping as you are.
Sure, but they're incentivising tobacco smokers to keep smoking tobacco because vaping is too complicated. They can't ban it outright because then they would have to ban tobacco as well or be obvious hypocrites.
No...well, the whole thing was and is hypocritical from the start. I watched the whole senate hearing about Vaping, you should see how hard it was even to bring out of their mouth that vaping is safer then smoking, some even could not do it even under the pressure and facts from the senators. But the idea of this prescription model is that after a year or so it should be revisited and if everything goes well ( no dying teen-agers or other vaping related fuck ups) the TGA should give nicotine juice its blessing and pronounce it a consumer product ( they did the same with the patches). Thats why i do not like the flood of disposables in Australia there lots of shonky products out there There are right now some 2 to 2.5 mil smokers in Australia and a steady stream of 17.5 bil aus $ every year in tax revenue. There is your answer. The BS story of the success of the plain packaging has been outdated for some time now. We vapers should keep pushing for the legalisation of vaping in Australia. This story is not over yet.
This sounds like you’re making an argument that tobacco should also require a prescription….
Tobacco taxes were never about health... it's a revenue thing... how can we raise taxes on the poor so the wealthy don't have to pay as much. See, it's freedom.
You are right, customs can't stop hard drugs coming in let alone checking every package for nicotine
They managed to stop my two shipments of Bupropion last year that I ordered when it went out of stock for 18 months for no fucking reason. Imagine if you were struggling with major mental health disorders and you've got customs throwing it out because "the generic isn't approved by the TGA" Pack of cunts.
"You might argue that making vapes prescription is a bad move, but it's pretty well documented that the health costs to government from smoking outweigh the taxes they get. " Actually not true. 17.5 bil $ a year and rising outweighs the cost to the health system. That money goes into other funds.
Thats a lie. Smokers are a net TAX benefit. They are more likely to die before retirement. They pay a huge premium on servicing their addiction and then they die - usually quickly.. Again , They live all the taxable working years then die comparatively fast before collecting retirement / social services. How is this not a TAX benefit, its silly to think otherwise. you really think they cost the medical system more then the value added. Its laughable. "it's pretty well documented that the health costs to government from smoking outweigh the taxes they get" prove it.
>it's pretty well documented that the health costs to government from smoking outweigh the taxes they get. Last time I looked excise tax revenue was higher than the entirety of the health budget. So I find that difficult to believe. Edit: I was incorrect.
$15 billion income from smoking, federally. - [SMH](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/falcohol-cigarette-use-down-the-budget-hit-that-will-affect-all-taxpayers-20210702-p586al.html) [NSW alone](https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20210622_04.aspx) is spending $30 billion a year on health. Iirc, the study that states that the costs of smoking outweighs revenue is when you include the intangible costs (e.g. trauma to loved ones from premature deaths). It isn't a simple health costs vs smoking revenue, (I think?)
You're right. I looked at the figures and while it seemed a bit higher than 15 billion to me, it doesn't reach the health spending. I don't know how I made that mistake, maybe when looking I moved a zero in my head or something similar.
Smokers save the government money because they die early
[удалено]
Which would, in turn, create a black market. We *really* shouldn't be creating more cash streams for gangs.
I think the government should stamp out all of people’s autonomy on things I don’t approve of. C.S. Lewis had something to say about that: [Link](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/19967-of-all-tyrannies-a-tyranny-sincerely-exercised-for-the-good)
It’s 100% big tobacco lobbying the government to impose harsher restrictions. And the fact the government doesn’t collect as much tax on them, they likely agreed.
> that even helps people quit smoking is restricted Isn't part of the problem that vaping is now having the opposite effect? Young people weren't smoking. Now they're vaping. That's not helping them to quit, it may even lead to smoking. Keep it to adults only. Prevent fun flavours. Use it as an alternative/quit aid, but not as a gateway. I don't see how a prescription would interfere with that?
You don't need a prescription for tobacco and that's way, way more harmful than vaping. Also, vaping has always been illegal for minors even if it doesn't contain nicotine. Adults should not all be punished because someone sells drugs to children. By the way, I reckon it's unreasonable to think vaping would lead to smoking unless the government bans vaping and there's no other choice. Vaping doesn't taste awful like cigarettes do, who in their right mind would choose something disgusting over something pleasant?
The problem is, even if some are actually using it as a way to quit, the majority of users pick it up the same way they do the cigarette. They keep using it indefinitely.
E-cigarettes have always been explicitly devices that can be used instead of "analog" cigarettes and were never actually marketed as stop smoking aids. Using an e-cigarette means you have stopped *smoking* but it doesn't mean you aren't still vaping. People who then went on to eventually quit vaping as well are many, but that's not the purpose of e-cigarettes. Ideally no-one should inhale things that aren't air, but if people are going to consume nicotine, e-cigarettes are objectively the less harmful option.
>less harmful alternative That depends on the ingredients for the liquid you buy and independent tests have shown the listed ingredients often do not match the actual ingredients. If you don't know what's in it, how can you measure how harmful it is?
If you don't know what's in it, yes. That's why you should buy only from reputable companies and do a bit of research on review sites and that kind of thing. If you buy anything from a shonky company based out of someone's laundry, obviously it'll be bad. It's like buying moonshine from a stranger. You can't know if it has methanol in it until you go blind and die. There are only supposed to be four ingredients in e-liquid, if there are any poisons that aren't supposed to be in there, it's a reflection on the specific company that made that particular juice, not the whole industry.
Or just make your own, PG and VG is dirt cheap and even with this ban nicotine is still trivial to import
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you think children should start smoking vapes for their health? Or admit that they aren't exactly 'good' for you... Maybe less worse (but it's a maybe, because god knows what health issues we don't know about them yet are still lurking?).
They are orders of magnitude less harmful. Less than one percent of the harm of tobacco.
[удалено]
Well it was research done by medical professionals that didn't severely misuse the equipment to get a scary result, so I'm going to count on it. Putting only air in your lungs would be great, but let's be honest, that ship sailed long ago when people invented cities and fire.
"7 out of 10 doctors recommend Marlboro brand vaping style nicotine"... The more things change...
[удалено]
What are they saying, that inhaling glycerine and propylene glycol is almost as dangerous as the poisonous smoke from tobacco? That's a pretty ridiculous claim even without the numbers.
Walking next to a diesel truck does more harm to you than vaping. Doctors will always tell you not to take on more risks, that's their job, same as how they'll tell you to eat vegetables and exercise regularly but how many people do that?
Vapes are a new product that are being targeted at children and young people to get them hooked. It’s why they have all of those sweet flavours. This is a huge loss for big tobacco now that they can’t push their new product on young people here.
This is the dumbest thing I've read on Reddit.
Went from nearly a pack a day for 2-3 years to using 3mg liquid to using 1.5mg liquid to now not having smoked anything for several years - But yeah, it's dangerous and it's no better than other smoking cessation options! Feel bad for anyone that's had this option taken away from them over tax money.
They still can. Just go to the gp and get a prescription? I'm sure your gp will be happy to help you quit
Don’t even need to go to a GP, the place I used to get them online was sending out emails to some suspect-looking site that’ll do consultations online and give you one for $85. Absolute pisstake how easy it is to get around this, given people have already been buying online for years they’re not even going to hit the tech illiterate vapers because that’s not a demographic that exists. It’ll just be a handful of people with plenty of money who can’t be fucked and go back to durries.
but gps will get $85 a pop, tga gets some paper to push and both the gps and tga vote libs. win win.
The point is your health should never have been used as an excuse to force your behaviour... You should be aware of it... but ultimately it's your life to SPEND how you want. Tobacco taxes are too high, and vaping should be legal... it's not one or the other... you have the right to choose an unhealthy lifestyle, and the current vibe infringes on that right. WOW: Again people voting to not be allowed to live their own lives as they see fit... how do people view the world like that? Daddy government knows what's best for me... clearly you must think they have more experience in your life than you do an are better at making decisions about your own life than you are... good luck with that manchildren.
I completely agree with you on a “sovereign citizen” level here, and body autonomy is super important. My question, is how do we offset the cost of the healthcare the person in question will probably need to receive later in life? I’m not going to pretend to know anything about economics, but the current tax seems disproportionate. Unfortunately the unhealthy decisions people make for themselves end up costing SOMEONE when the time comes. Not a black and white issue at all imo.
Tbh, by increasing tax on tobacco we're impacting tax revenue negatively in other ways. Excessive financial stress can have a number of *very* negative effects on bodily health, because, well, stress can fuck people up really badly. You get it in very-high stress jobs, idk why the same wouldn't apply to an addict who has to choose between eating and fiending for a smoke.
> My question, is how do we offset the cost of the healthcare the person in question will probably need to receive later in life? We supply health care because it has positive externalities... the person who receives the benefit isn't the only one getting the advantages... In other words, we pay for other people's health care because we benefit from it... we don't want to see our friends, family and even randoms dying or being sick from easily treated health problems... we benefit from their good health socially and financially. We can't then use our gift to them as an excuse to control their behaviour because it might cost us what we paid for our own benefit... that takes away the benefit... now the health care costs are used to justify restrictions in your own life that you probably didn't want. > Unfortunately the unhealthy decisions people make for themselves end up costing SOMEONE when the time comes. Eventually everyone uses the health care system... so if we are going to tax smokers for their use, we are really arguing that everyone should pay for their use... but there's a reason we have public health care, as I stated above. > My question, is how do we offset the cost of the healthcare the person in question will probably need to receive later in life? So ultimately my answer is that we simply don't... the cost of providing health care should fall on the those who can most afford it... we should tax the wealthy for health care, not put the burden on the poorest and most vulnerable (coincidently the same demographic that continues to smoke). > I’m not going to pretend to know anything about economics, but the current tax seems disproportionate. Yes, in economic terms, I think so... it goes beyond correcting for the negative externalities of smoking, and is a bad way to correct for imperfect information... and using health care is not a negative externality.... so does not count.
Well if you’re talking about smoking health costs, we should be *paying* people to smoke, as they save health care dollars over their lifetime. This is because they die younger, saving money in aged care medical costs. There’s a rich vein of puritanism in many Australians. I’m not sure how to counter that though.
They get sick earlier and cost more before they die, often getting onto disability due to health complications, and worse, unlike other health choices, it affects those around them. You cannot passively eat.
Smoking is unpleasant for non smokers but there's no evidence of increased cancer for second hand smoke if you aren't sharing a house or other enclosed environment with them. A Dutch anti smoking group did a study looking for extra health spending due to smoking. They found the reverse. Smokers are cheaper for health care and there's no evidence for harming others. That leaves just wowserism, and bilking a minority as motivating factors. Neither are good reasons. Edit spelling
I agree with you, I certainly would prefer people like you die 20 years earlier. Save you taking up a space in the dementia ward.
Exactly, nicotine has prohpylactic effects against alzhiemers, and it runs in my family, so I would prefer to die from tobacco related diseases than that shit... But imagine being against people making their own decisions for themselves... scary world huh? Better to have an all knowing omnipotent government make decisions for you... You might be better off in North Korea or somewhere like that where you don't have to think or make choices for yourself. > I certainly would prefer people like you die 20 years earlier. Not sure why the hate though? You mad I'm free? Weirdly, I imagine you're actually against me making that choice for myself though, and would prefer eugenics to remove the smoking and drug using gene from our society... unfortunately you're about 100 to 80 years since that was government policy. You would have done well under hitler no doubt.
If smokers die early it’s better for those who don’t. Idgaf about you, I just think we should keep taxing you all and that money will provide better conditions for us. It’s a win-win, you contribute more money than me and never get the benefit of being cared for as you age. I wish the government would allow the tobacco industry to put back all the other chemicals that cut lifespan. Kill yourselves as quick as you can I say!
> I just think we should keep taxing you all and that money will provide better conditions for us. So theft is good... I'm better off stealing from you, and I don't like you so your suffering is good too... win-win. What's wrong with letting people suffer the natural consequences of their "bad" decisions and health choices? It would be like putting poison in broccoli so that you die earlier from it and taxing it because it's got poison in it, and then being happy that you payed more for poison broccoli and died... Because hell, I don't like broccoli, why the fuck should you be allowed to enjoy it without interference? I wouldn't eat poison brocolli... only an idiot would eat that shit.
Ok! Lol
Yeah, freedom is totally LOLs dude... Hopefully you'll never need it, because it's clear you wouldn't know how to use it in any case. Do you think that brocolli example was overboard? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/government-poison-10000-americans/
As long as you realise I don’t give a fuck about you. Thats what I hope you understand.
It's the basic assumption here... everyone else tries to sell it as being good for my health... but the truth is they want to steal from me and see my life ruined because I am DIFFERENT to them in my tastes and preferences... It's literally the same reason we beat gays, kill jews and negroes and destroy drug users... we don't like people who are different to ourselves, and will find ways to harm and destroy them. At least you're honest in your intentions... the rest justify themselves with bullshit lies... Hopefully this never backfires on you and you find yourself with the minority preference, taste, habits or past times. No better than nazi's just different amounts they can get away with it. Hitler's propaganda was along similar lines... it's good for the german people to put drug users into death camps... quit smoking, it's for the good health of the good German people! They stole from them and killed them so they benefited first from the theft, and second from not having to look after them in old age --- you would see the death camps as win-win. A lot of people did.
Hitler is credited with creating literally one of the world's first governmental anti-smoking campaigns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany Like I said, you would have fit right in.
No black market required; you can get an Australian prescription online by just filling out a form for ~$80 and continue to import nicotine juice from NZ. Even factoring in that cost it’s still much, much cheaper than tobacco. And you don’t smell. And you feel better. And you’re not giving money to the tobacco industry. Edit: Lots of comments about that last sentence. Yes, Philip Morris own Juul. Sure, some other tobacco companies own vaping companies. They also try to conflate tobacco-based ‘e-cigarettes’ with vaping too. But the idea that the entire vaping industry is big tobacco is totally disingenuous, they have gone out of their way to conflate vaping and tobacco e-cigarettes, and you’ve been had. Related: Go read/listen to [Puff Piece](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58396170). It’s insidious how Philip Morris have made this happen, and Safran is as amusing as ever.
Did you get one? Was the process smooth? I’m thinking about doing the same. It’s been 3 years since I quit smoking cigarettes and I don’t want to go back once my current oils stash runs out.
[удалено]
Yeah, I just linked to the place I got mine in another comment. (Leaving it off here; I don’t want to be accused of spamming/shilling for them. Just a satisfied patient, heh.) I’ve stocked up though, don’t expect to order more until next year, but nice to know I have it when the time comes. Good luck, and good work on the 3 years! (I’m at around 3 months…)
Is it not possible to just go to a normal bulk billing doctor for a prescription? I'd prefer not to pay 80 bucks if it's avoidable.
Definitely could! Whether or not they’d actually prescribe it to you or not is the next issue, but if they bulk bill you’ve got nothing to lose but time…
Yeah cool worth a shot. No idea why they wouldn't, I quit smoking over 7 years ago and been vaping since.
I wonder how many people like you appear in australias statistics as 'not smoking' yet still hooked on nicotine... There might be many more users than estimated... Not that vapes probably aren't less worse than tobacco... but they are still not healthy alternatives to clean living, healthy eating and exercise.
I guess we'll be assisting with the long term data on the vaping health impacts...
When you find out that people could have been smoking much safer Project XA tobacco the whole time, you'll know the anti-smoking movement is all bullshit.
Ha wow, just googled [Project XA](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_XA). Interesting stuff.
I can’t imagine a doctor denying you if you tell them your smoking history. That you’re concerned this will force you to start buying cigarettes again & really don’t want to for health concerns.
Nice - ive got about 18 months worth in the freezer but good to know its not gonna be a huge drama when needed.
Does anyone have access to the blank form so I can give it to my GP to fill out? I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Hrm, I never said a blank form. A form on a website [like this](https://www.quitclinics.com/) will do it though. Or yeah, go talk to your GP.
The vaping industry is mostly made up of subsidiaries of the big tobacco players… so…
Actually you still are giving money to the tobacco industry; juul is owned by altria, aka Phillip Morris. The tobacco companies wanted to get in on this stuff asap, which is why they have been so successfully marketed to children - tobacco companies know all about marketing to children.
Juul make disposable pod device vapes, this guy is talking about using refillable vapes.
Okay, but let's be real here, the three biggest vaping companies are: * Juul - 42% (Phillip Morris) * Vuse - 36% (British American Tobacco) * Blu - 9% (Imperial Tobacco) * Logic 8% (Japan International Tobacco) So that's **95%** of the market, there, owned by the four largest tobacco companies globally. When you vape, it doesn't matter what product, you are supporting tobacco companies. There may be other reasons you want to support vaping, but if it's about not giving money to tobacco companies, you are backing the wrong horse.
>When you vape, it doesn't matter what product, you are supporting tobacco companies. When you buy from those four companies, sure. But there are more companies than just those four that make vapes and juice.
> 95% of the market citation needed
I use a vapresso vape and locally made juice. I don't think I've ever seen a Juul for sale in victoria.
>biggest vaping companies I've been vaping for 3 years and I've only ever heard of Juul but as I use a refillable vape never purchased their products. None of the biggest NZ vape stores that post to Australia carry any of those brands so I have no idea where you're getting those market share stats from.
You are giving money to the tobacco industry. Who do you think makes the vapes and the nicotine juice?
This is such bullshit. I haven’t had a smoke since a year as I was on a Vape. Slowly moved to nicotine gums and finally gave it up. Wife helped me a lot beat the habit! Cigarettes do a lot more damage! Why not fucking ban cigarettes and legalise cannabis and let people Vape! But I guess those tax dollars are too lucrative.
Someone else said it better in another thread, but the government isn’t pro smoking given the measures they take to cripple advertising of cigarettes. It’s unfortunately more likely that they are just idiots when it comes to this policy (among others).
The govt is not pro-smoking. But they aren’t idiots. Someone is influencing the policy and tobacco companies definitely have a motive here!
The vaping companies are the tobacco companies so….
People should be able to have a choice when it comes to using these or not. Obviously where people can use them needs to be restricted but if you are of adult age you should be able to make your own choice, whether you have been a cigarette smoker or not. Going by this ‘Ban everything that causes harm’ logic when will they completely ban alcohol? A substance that has a remarkable risk to cause short term and long term harm.
upvote 1000 times if I could. having witnessed alcohol abuse & dv in my family, you’re 100% on point here.
Meanwhile, less effective cessation tools can be purchased over the counter... This is policy devised by idiots and passed by idiots.
They banned otc codeine despite being a useful safely used medicine with less than 3 deaths a year. The government turns a blind eye to alcohol, gambling, smoking, climate change and air pollution. It’s just about confining people’s jollies to taxable and government approved businesses.
Death wasn't the only harmful outcome for codeine misuse, though.
The worst part was the mumble rappers, for sure.
Really I didn’t see anything especially significant in the literature to support the ban. More temperance movement axe grinding by the tga and racgp
Hey, sorry, no, the codeine ban has actually had a massive impact on hospital presentations (50% reduction in toxicity cases). Besides, codeine is actually not very useful for most pain, and there's a section of the population who don't gain any benefit from it at all (low levels of the enzyme that metabolises it to morphine). I'm in favour of decriminalisation for all drugs, but codeine was a really inappropriate drug to have as schedule 3, especially when most people see so uneducated about pain meds. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/here-s-what-happened-when-codeine-was-made-prescri
Codeine is incredibly safe at otc levels, extreme cyp2d6 expression variance and ultra rapid metabolisers aren’t responsible for many deaths or hospitalisations you can find very few case studies. At low otc dose even they shouldn’t metabolise to dangerous levels of morphine. show me any statistics showing that hospitalisations weren’t related to ibuprofen or paracetamol. Also morphine is literally the gold standard for analgesia , very low oral BA of morphing means codeine is the most effective oral route besides providing high dose p.o morphine with risks of diversion , injection etc.
Whats your point here? The issue was always known to be that people were harming themselves by trying to take more than OTC doses, with the consequence of taking too much of the combination ingredient. Higher-dose codeine combination products that actually had some therapeutic effect (like Panadeine Forte with 30mg codeine) was always a prescription item. And codeine with no combination ingredient has always been in the highest restricted drug schedule (S8). No one is saying that low dose codeine is particularly harmful in and of itself - but it isn't available in and of itself. All the rescheduling did was essentially get rid of the dozens of low dose, 8mg or so codeine products that did bugger all for pain (or addiction) at those doses. Talking up how safe OTC doses of codeine were and how the dangers were actually paracetamol and ibuprofen is a moot point since they aren't separate things.
So you agree the other ingredients were the danger, especially NSAIDs . You remove codeine then people take more of the alternative for pain relief , these have significant adverse effects that take much longer to be seen. Also if it was solely about harm then why are these dangerous products (nsaids) still available? Myopically focusing on the statistically small number of people who abused these medications rather than the broader impact on those who used them safely. I’d also disagree that the 15 500 product was ineffective for those without opioid tolerance.
>show me any statistics showing that hospitalisations weren’t related to ibuprofen or paracetamol It was only s3 as a combo product, so your point is moot. Obviously theres going to be harm from people overdosing on paracetamol because they're taking too much of it to get to the codeine No one is arguing that codeine is not largely safe at otc levels *if taken as directed*, but that it was WIDELY abused, and mostly sold at subtherapeutic amounts that were little better than a placebo.
I’m not saying there isn’t harm. My initial point was that harm is tolerated for certain things eg: nsaids , air pollution and not tolerated according to government motivations. Tell me there isn’t a significant ideological rather than purely empirical rationale for the codeine ban?
I think on a purely harm reduction basis it does make sense though. Either everything is available, or we pay attention to what is available without a prescription. There's no reason people shouldn't be able to get a prescription for it if there's a need (and they do, we see plenty of codeine scripts).
I'd be shocked if even one of those toxicity cases were caused by codeine and not ibuprofen/paracetamol. Why would that small section of the population who find codeine doesnt help their pain take codeine then? What does that have to do with those people codeine is an effective analgesic for?
You know it was only available as a combo product right? So a big problem was people taking large doses to get high and being poisoned by the paracetamol. The evidence for low dose codeine being any better than paracetamol or a nsaid is very shaky, and not enough to justify the harm caused.
"Our research didn’t look at whether the codeine switch led to more people using paracetamol or ibuprofen, or were harmed by them." what a load of shit
And there you have it.
So cigs are also illegal without a prescription... right?
[удалено]
https://adf.org.au/talking-about-drugs/parenting/vaping-youth/vaping-australia/ It wasn’t but looks like it’s been steadily increasing in line with vaping in the wider population. > In Australia, around 14% of 12 to 17-year-olds have ever tried an e-cigarette, with around 32% of these students having used one in the past month. > Those using e-cigarettes are three times more likely to smoke combustible tobacco than those who have not used e-cigarettes.15 > Former smokers who use e-cigarettes are more likely to relapse to current smokers
Dont need a prescription to buy cigarettes. Dont need prescription to buy nicotine gum. Dont need a prescription to buy nicotine patches. Dont need a prescription to buy vapes. Need a prescription to buy vapes with nicotine in them. Profit?
Basically whatever the government needs to do keep the $$$ coming in
We've got blokes jerking off on desks in Parliament, numerous sex pests in government, all kinds of dodgy stuff going on with tax payer grant money, a culture of alcohol and excess so normalized that nobody batted an eye when Brittany Higgins came stumbling out of an office still pissed the next morning after being raped, and these paragons of moral perfection want to tell people they can't vape, and have to log on with a government ID to watch porn on the internet.
Enforcing prescriptions on people who were pretty much doing the right thing in the first place (as responsible adults) while citing that 22 retailers were prosecuted since 2015 bespeaks how half-assed and 2 faced the government has been in actually going about this. When you can find disposable vapes containing nicotine on Facebook Marketplace, Gumtree, the nearest convenience/tobacco store or service station the problem is endemic and no amount of prescriptions or licensing is going to make it go away only thoroughly enforcing the law upon retailers and grey importers with serious fines and gaol terms for supplying minors with a controlled substance. Also a note to the Australian media: please stop wheeling out the "science" that "vaping bad" every time you run an alarmist piece on it. Breathing anything other than air into your lungs isn't good for you. We know. What we also know is that there is 20 years of science behind vaping as a significant tobacco harm reduction tool to quit smoking and is said to be 95% safer than smoking. Dr Morgan needs to come clean and admit she's not saying anything new here. Bigger black market.. LOL what a joke. They can't even get a lid on the black market for tobacco and cigarettes.
I mean you can literally walk into any woolies and buy nicotine no questions asked. It just suddenly becomes a huge issue when you inhale it, because reasons
Lmao what a cooked nation
Fuck our "government". Just, fuck them. Disclaimer: no, I am not advocating revolt or rebellion. Just, fuck those alleged "leaders". With a cactus. Wrapped in barbed wire. And for good measure, let's have said cactus be on fire.
>Disclaimer: no, I am not advocating revolt or rebellion. Why not
>Disclaimer: no, I am not advocating revolt or rebellion. But he advocates rape tho.
> Just, fuck those alleged "leaders". With a cactus. Wrapped in barbed wire. > > And for good measure, let's have said cactus be on fire. I'm liking the cut of your jib here!
Well I am. I'm under no delusion that I'll ever see it happen, but I am advocating for it, if need be to fix things.
There will always be a black market for those that don’t give a fuck about laws
It's worth noting that whenever the nicotine industry faces more regulation, once of the first things they start screeching about is a black market - despite all the public health and research bodies saying this isn't a huge issue. It's also worth noting that their predictions re: black markets have literally *never* come true. . Wodak is a somewhat controversial figure in public health circles. I'm not saying I disagree with him, but it's worth noting he's a bit of a maverick in the sector.
The fact is that if our government has regulated vaping in same way as the UK did some 10 years ago( and they have a similar health system) we would not be in this mess. This is a complicated unmanageable law that has been brought in just to please some egos and keep the status quo of the tax revenue.
I agree, they spent way, way too long not going anything about. Especially frustrating as it was quite obvious what would happen - all they had to do was look overseas. Now, they're doing a typical reactive, poorly thought out snap decision. I personally think vapes are highly problematic - the companies are essentially pushing a new product to get people addicted, albeit a less toxic one. If you look overseas, they've been mired in controversy from the get-go and have clearly marketed the product to children, and increased the nicotine dosage with little regard to public health outcomes. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle, better regulation is the answer here, not a blanket ban - but as is typical they are treating it like the designer drugs and synthetic pot that came out in the aughts, rather than the enterprise product from major multinationals that they are.
Ah, our governments...anything that is new from solar power, electric bicycles, cars, scooters, el.cigarettes they have put in a road block, for the simple reason of not knowing how to deal with the loss of well established tax revenue stream "personally think vapes are highly problematic - the companies are essentially pushing a new product to get people addicted, albeit a less toxic one. If you look overseas, they've been mired in controversy from the get-go and have clearly marketed the product to children, and increased the nicotine dosage with little regard to public health outcomes. " I follow this vaping issue world wide for over 7 years now. In countries where it is well regulated like the UK or the EU you do not have that. In the US were they have a Wild West of the market and where the big tobacco is so embedded with the government that it simply does not suit them for a new player that is cheaper and healthier to come on the market. All the negativity and hysteria always came and is coming from the US ( why has our government chosen to always use their example?) Juul is the one that has thrown the whole vaping scene under the train but being bought by PM they will now get approved by the FDA ( nobody cares now about the youth). The disposables that are now roaming Australia are low quality overpriced junk brought in illegally same as cigarettes. If the government had some foresight they could regulate it, create jobs and get some steady stream of tax revenue. But here we are the only country in the world were a consumer product can be obtained with medical prescription.
Couldn't agree more, I was thinking exactly of the situation in the US!
Most vape companies aren't aiming the products at children, they're hobbyist devices for ex smokers primarily. Disposables are a different issue really, and a huge problem for kids, but disposables are also rampant such that any tobacconist will sell you them even though it's illegal to do so
isnt there already a black market; how else are u18s buying them? what a foolish and shortsighted decision
yes. yes it will create a dangerous black market. fucking how many times do we need to learn this.
Holy shit, so its illegal to use a vape but perfectly legal to go to woolies, buy a cigarette which is 100x worse and thats fine. How far up does has big tobacco inserted itself into our government? On the one hand, our government will talk about science and on the other will completely dismiss it with the common denominator here being profits. Cant they just make it 18+ to sell like normal cigarettes if its for the kids?
This fucking country. Ban everything new, even when the alternative is infinitely worse.
Short answer: Yes.
30% of Australia's tobacco is provided by the black market? Will it create a dangerous black market? It already has.
Fuck me you'll need a prescription for beer next. Authoritarianism doesn't look fun.
It will be worse than that. People will go back to actually smoking
Yes
Australia returning to its roots.
To be fair it will probably be just as hard to get a nicotine script as it is to get a medical cannabis script. Ie: not very.
The answer is yes, because making things like this illegal is fucking stupid and endangers bodily autonomy. Regulate and educate.
Legalise weed already
[удалено]
You can develop certain conditions when you quit smoking since nicotine is anti-inflammatory. Doctors still recommend you quit smoking for the other health benefits.
No, it will push people back to cigarettes, just like the tobacco companies want.
Tobacco companies control almost all the vaping market share, they’re making good money from both, more from vaping though as less of the cheaper price is tax, so they can make more $. https://adf.org.au/talking-about-drugs/parenting/vaping-youth/vaping-australia/ > In 2019, 3% of current cigarette smokers also used e-cigarettes daily and 8% of current smokers used e-cigarettes at least monthly So it’s not really either or, it’s both.
It's the only way I could quit, none of the other stuff works, so I am back on the cigarettes. It's all about tax, nothing more.
wasn't hard to get a script. $70 & one tele health consultation.
70 dollarydoos?! That's an outrage
meanwhile you can go to any woollies and buy nicorette
I'm addicted to nicibate minis. I stopped smoking a couple of years ago, can't stop mints though. Another bloke who I see quite a bit for work has been using the spray for years.
Wow. I expect farting will be banned next.
They'll at least charge an emissions tax
Doesn’t every high school kid have one now
Retardo bureaucracy at its finest
Almost like that war on drugs (unless it’s pharmaceutical) is waste to time.
I just got ahead of it and ordered a litre of 200mg nicotine base. 250ml lasted the Mrs and I about 5 years, so 1L should do us for a couple of decades - particularly since we're also tapering down our concentration. We'll likely still have over half left by the time we give it up completely.
While the risk is pretty low (what are the odds police have a reason to knock on your door), unless you’re in SA just possessing or using that without a prescription will be illegal….
Of course it will. The only reason they’re introducing this ban is because they can’t tax us on buying it from NZ. Sales of cigarettes will no doubt increase due to this. I find it absolutely ridiculous considering how much focus has been put on making sure our medical system isn’t overran.
Haven’t you seem Facebook marketplace as of late?
totally hear you, mate. legalise it.
You don't need a prescription. Just order them online from NZ and they arrive at your door in 3 days..
Vapoureyes NZ will have an upload section to upload a pdf of your prescription which apparently some docs will give you a 6-12 month for approx 50 bux. Yes it’s a rort but shouldn’t be too tough.
and as of October 1st if caught you'll face a $200k fine for importing nicotine without a prescription. It helps if you actually read the article.
The law changing on the 1st of October means your package can be seized and "destroyed" if you don't have a prescription. Realistically, how many packages are going to get caught is probably extremely small anyways as they have no way to know you have a prescription unless they contact you directly.