Online vape seller has ‘no intention of stopping’ shipments to Australia, despite nationwide ban — ‘We have no intention of stopping just because of one twat in Canberra.’::The New Zealand-based seller issued a notice to its Australian customers that shipments will continue regardless of the government’s vape reform.
Sugar is already being taxed, and this will grow. High fructose should be extra taxed yes. Abortion seems out of place in your rabid “muh freedumbs” response.
There is a responsibility for a government to protect the health of citizens. I can see this (and drugs) being properly regulated. And then people can buy and use as they see fit. But just free sales, no.
Well I’m glad you are there to dictate what someone can and can’t do with their body. We only want people to engage in activities if they are state sanctioned.
As an alternative, government regulates all sorts of things. Alcohol, gambling, cigarettes, firearms.
The government is the counterweight to corporations abusing people that might not be able to resist and the VERY negative societal impacts this has.
The fact you think this is unnecessary makes you very fortunate that you never had to deal with the negative externalities of these companies.
I don’t agree with those taxes. People are free to do with their body what they want, provided it’s not harmful to others. This is not the responsibility of the government.
Providing education so people can make informed decisions about the risks of the behaviors they engage in - now that’s a government (and parental) responsibility.
Yeah, same as with vaccination. Your decisions influence a lot of others.
Even if the government properly informs people, not everyone is able to make an informed decision.
Private companies abusing the system and hurting many people along the way is not something that should be celebrated as freedom. And this is a perfect example of that. Health, the environment everything can be sacrificed in the name of profit.
Vaccines are not a personal freedom just like shitting in the creek behind your house isn’t a personal freedom. Those decisions create public health nightmares. I don’t think people should be allowed to smoke or vape in public where it could affect others, but what people do in their own time is their own business.
As long as I don’t have to subsidise their health care
Can I opt out of covering people who engage in extreme sports, or other reckless behavior?
I believe everyone is entitled to healthcare, even people who make bad decisions. Literally everyone.
I’m with that. We should have a dickhead tax; hurt yourself doing something while drunk then you pay, hurt yourself skydiving then you pay, hurt yourself crazy driving then you pay.
Interjecting because this is kind of an easier comment with which to make it, but it does apply to the conversation generally: I think my willingness for this to be the case would probably be dependent on whether or not it means we have to pay more or less, both at a personal level, and a societal level. i.e. does this discourage reckless behavior enough for it to offset the potential economic drain of, say, determining liability?
The same can be asked of vaping, but with different caveats. Does it work out that it costs less over time for us to regulate vapes, regulate flavors, etc. , compared to if we chose not to regulate them, or chose to regulate them more liberally? It might be somewhat difficult to totally regulate against consumer purchase and mixing of chemical flavoring agents, and such regulation might also increase adverse health outcomes, as it would’ve been, generally, easier to enforce safety standards on the supply side. Increased taxes might lead to increased costs foisted onto the consumer which, again, might lead to a larger unregulated market developing, which can cause other problems.
I’m not saying regulation shouldn’t be done, I think it’s broadly a good thing, but I think it’s also usually the case with these sorts of things that everyone tends to form opinions, and legislate, based on mixtures of hip shooting public sentiment and whatever their “common sense” tells them, rather than creating regulations around whatever would result in the most net benefit, or, the least net negative. Most of all, people tend to shoot first with regulation, and then never even ask questions later about what the effects were, but I guess that’s all getting off a little bit into the weeds on the flaws of overly brittle political systems.