having just had a quick look at the original article it is meaningless as it is already illegal for anyone born after 1 jan 2009 to buy cigarettes
Because some people break speed limits, speed limits are a waste of time?
As I have already said:
No law is perfect.
IMHO, it is better to have it by a long way than not have it.
@zac_a i wasn’t referring to having more nicotine i was referring to the same hit. i was saying i have to take more of the chemicals in to get the same level of nicotine
speed limits are enforced by various sanctions if i go flying through the local town at 70mph im going to jail or at the very least a heavy fine and kissing goodbye to my license
Are you saying that the police are going to monitor who is smoking
And how much of that is psychological instead of physiological?
They will do if you’re smoking in the cab of a truck which you don’t own.
Yes, and maybe more to the point they, and Trading Standards will be able to look at retailers, just as they do now.
It is not a perfect and immediate solution, but none the less a step in the right direction.
i don’t smoke in the cab because i don’t want the fine. but also because i have always shared lorries with the other drivers i have never had my own dedicated truck. I don’t like sitting in the remains of someone else’s dinner so why should they put up with the smell of cigarette smoke
i have no way of telling. all i can say is 3 cigarettes at the pick up point for the trailer would get me to Cambridge services but the equivalent amount of puffs on a vape and i would be gasping
Suggesting Vaping is even “Less dangerous than Smoking” is an assumption based on insufficient data.
For all we know, people who’ve been jabbed - are far more susceptible to “sudden death” IF they vape compared to merely smoking beforehand…
Not all “Smoking” is about Lung Cancer anymore.
Just as Covid switched over other respiaratory ailments to be job-lotted with “Covid” diagnosis, I reckon right now there’s plenty of evidence being put out by doctors routinely being struck off for saying thus "Vaping has introduced a whole new pantheon of medical ailments - unrelated to Lung Cancer, Emphezema etc.
What about “Polymerization of the Blood” for example?
…or Genetic Birth Defects…
…or reducing fertility…
I’m likening Vaping to Phalidomide here, ANOTHER harmful substance that is STILL IN ISSUE don’t forget, as Big Pharma desires it so…
I await the first class action lawsuits for lives totally ruined in disasterous ways - attributed to Vaping.
franglais
27 March |
- | - |
There is truth in some of what WS says.
True that there are no long term stats for vape use, clearly because vaping is new.
However
winseer:
There’s likely more carcinogens in a single puff of vape than in an entire pack of ■■■■…
Is pure ■■■■■■■■.
It is the real Winseer!
Ciggies contain over 7,000 chemicals some of which are known carcinogens and poisons.
Vapes do contain chemicals and some of them are the same as in cigs.
Vapes have fewer chemicals and those it has are at lower levels than cigs.
No one with more than two brain cells is saying that vaping is 100% harmless, but it is reasonable to say it is likely less harmful than smoking.
Vape have fewer harmful chemicals than tobacco.
Of the harmful chemicals vapes share with tobacco the levels are lower in vapes.
Although @cooper1203 says that some may use more vape, the levels are so much lower that even taking 5 times the pull on a vape will reduce harmful intake by at least half.
It seems quite reasonable to me that putting less poison in your body is less harmful.
You can call that an assumption if you like.
It never was.
70% of lung cancers are smoking related.
Smoking also increase risk of cancer in other areas, and risk of
- coronary heart disease
- heart attack
- stroke
- peripheral vascular disease (damaged blood vessels)
- cerebrovascular disease (damaged arteries that supply blood to your brain)
Total nonsense… All of those things have always been related to smoking. Vaping has not “introduced them”.
[quote=“winseer, post:30, topic:238084”]
I’m likening Vaping to Phalidomide here, ANOTHER harmful substance that is STILL IN ISSUE don’t forget, as Big Pharma desires it so…
[/quote] sic
More nonsense.
Thalidomide is a currently used drug in treatment of cancer and some skin ailments.It is a powerful substance and has, as we well know, some awful side effects.
It is not prescribed “because Big Pharma desire s it”.
It is prescribed to help those who benefit from it.
Many/all effective cancer treatments have bad side effects.
But often, it is better to take those effects than do nowt.
Most of us live in the real world and can see this.
Smoking isn’t seen as cool anymore though is it… (Nor should it be), we’re treated like lepers.
Personally I see less younger people smoking nowadays I think. I’m a fairly heavy smoker, packet a day. Right behind this law so yes well done Rishi.
And… that’s where I stopped reading. Covid was fake, Bill Gates, Great Reset, Government control, blah blah blah 
And as for “polymerization of the blood” 
Blood is a complex mixture of many substances, it cannot polymerize. What you have read (on one of your whacko CT websites) relates to polymerization of the haemoglobin in those who suffer the genetic condition known as sickle-cell anaemia
THIS is the type of “Polymerization” I was talking about…
The treatment does more harm than the ailment being treated…
AKA “Lied Suddenly”
Gosh…
Just skimmed thttough this, so if I have misunderstood the theme, so be it.
The bottom line is this…
It does not matter a ■■■■ what is made illegall, cigs, vapes, or ■■■■ mint imperials.
If the demand is there, people will get them illegally…human nature.
Even in the unlikely or even near hand impossible concept of banning cigs completely, ever happened, there is a unlimited supply of contraband cigs available, more than likely laced with all sorts of crapp.
If making stuff illegal was a concept that worked there would be no dope heads,.coke heads or crack heads.
So in the land of Realworld …bans are just a mere formality.
Incidentally have the Police ever nicked anybody for smoking in a truck?..serious question btw.
Banning stuff may not end it’s use totally, but it does cut down on it’s use.
So, in Realworld it does some good, but isn’t a magic bullet
And attitudes change over time too…seatbelts, crash-helmets, drink-drive laws all met resistance at the time of introduction, but are mostly accepted now.
But drink driving, seatbelts, crash helmets are not a social activity is it.
If people want to do something they will do it.
Hate to bring it up, but look at the ‘C’ word lockdown derisory panto, a classic example. Many people did not let a law or the govt stop them enjoying Christmas 20, or a general ban on social life at weekends,.apart from those who habitually conform to any rule as a way of life no matter how ridiculous or derogatory to their own normal way of life.
On a more serious example, guns are banned, but they are still out there in abundance and of course recreational drugs.
Guns out there? Yes.
In abundance? Dunno.
Wouldn’t there be more guns and drugs if not illegal?
We can agree that laws will not result in instant and perfect compliance, but they do change behaviour and cut down on things.
look at Amsterdam maybe robroy and others can confirm or deny this but i have been told that to try and find hard drugs ie heroin cocaine etc etc is extremely hard work you have to be in the know and almost be known. where as cannabis is decriminalized and can be bought legally. Where as here you can almost walk into any night club and if they have one thing they likely have everything else