Do you think that gov’t reluctance to legalise vaping (nic) is purely to do with pressure from big pharma? I think it’s a bit more complex than that - uncertainty about the effects (needs more/better research, longitudinal), also pressure from the anti-smoking groups (will lead to smoking, think of the children!!!). I know there is some support within state governments, but I think they’re still nervous.
I do vape BTW, and if not for that I’d probably still be a smoker.
I’m not saying governments are solely influenced by it.
I’m just saying the lobbying is coming from pharma, not tobacco.
As the famous quote went, ‘we are in the nicotine delivery business.’
They’re all for it.
That is the line they are going with.
The statistics seem to be saying vaping is an effective way to get off smoking.
I can’t see how the tobacco not being burnt could possibly be worse for you.
And, as wim says, the tobacco companies are selling tobacco either way. Vaping being “banned” just means the govt isn’t collecting their excise.
Saga days had some contenders
Ever been banned, HeffG?
More pointless than a millennial being able to save the required deposit on a house within 100kms of the CBD?
I’m sorry Digs but you can’t stay here. We already have Wim and HAP here, the thread is already at pointless arguing capacity. Sorry son but rules are rules
Not yet
The sign says no pointless arguments, we’re allowed to have one.
One Hap and Wimm argument can be spread across multiple threads for months.
We can also do multiple arguments in one thread.
With both of you doing one-eighties multiple times.
grin
What a fascinating discussion about how boring pointless discussions are.
Everyone Wim is trying to argue about whether there has been too much arguing
Argueception
That Wim is soooooooooooooooooo Meta.
Dude, not cool, considering the discussion.
And not yet, as far as I’m aware.
Edit: Or indeed, at all in any way. Wouldn’t want to worry anyone.
I’m not sure that meta means what you think it means