The science is clear. So why can’t governments agree on vaping?
You understand that the guy they're replying to literally described them as "Bubble Boy" for being allergic to smoke?
As @dragonflyteaparty said, if them turning the argument back around is bigotry, doesn't that make the guy they replied to a bigot?
I'd argue the people blowing their exhaust onto passers by are more selfish, considering the passers by don't get a choice in breathing, but sure I'm the selfish one.
Okay, assuming that's true, when I eat pasta with sauce, the person next to me doesn't end up ingesting my pasta sauce.
When you smoke/vape, the people are forced to inhale your exhaust as they breath (which we don't really get a lot of choice in doing).
It's like saying because you got an X-ray you shouldn't worry about bathing in the sun for too long.
Yeah, that'd be a great suggestion if it weren't for the fact that we don't get a choice in breathing those fumes in if we happen to be downwind of a smoker/vaper exercising their choice. You get to choose over your own body but you also get to make the choice over ours.
Also, really not a great comparison considering the choice is believe in me or burn in hell for all eternity, and God knows which choice we're going to make from the start (being omniscient and all)
It does go both ways, but saying "my body, my right" when what you're doing has a physical, unhealthy effect on the people around you I'd argue is more selfish than my wanting you to stop.
Imagine if people just stood outside of buildings constantly coughing and spluttering germs at you whenever you walked past. You'd want them to stop, no?
The problem isn't pushing it as an alternative to already active smokers, that's what it was initially touted as...
The problem is it became the new smoking fad. People who never smoked are taking this up, and are now the new generation of hungry addicts to keep the tobacco corps alive and well.
Aside from the same "tobacco lobbyists" answer everyone else is giving, I'd also bet the hesitation comes from it being highly stable, relatively large source of tax income that governments are keen to keep going until they find a suitable replacement source.
Those that do crackdown on cigarettes do so only because they know it would be bad PR not to do so with their popularity decreasing generation to generation. They're probably thanking heaven that vaping arrived, as it gave them a can to kick down the road.
You'd be right, but those trace amount of nicotine are often going straight into our faces for the crime of being downwind of someone smoking/vaping without a care in the world.
Health effects aside, I'd appreciate not having to breath in or smell other people's second-hand smoke/vape.
It'd be great if the person running this sim could just alt-F4 already and start over
No normal person would think every tech company would, but our politicians are bloody idiots if we go by their history
Honestly, this game is rubbish.
It's complete luck as to what stats and buffs (or debuffs) you get at level 0, where and to whom you're born, what trainers are in your starting instance, and nevermind random encounters that can completely screw up your playthrough out of nowhere.
This game is completely unbalanced around lucky players with a high charisma builds and a good "looks" stat. Don't even get me started on players with the generational wealth buff - it's basically cheating.
Scrolling through my feed listening to some old school music, and wouldn't you know this comes on right as I pass this post haha
If the world ever goes to war on Russia, let this be a reminder of how low the bar stands when we're shoving their own medicine down their throats
Removed
Sad internet addiction noises
Jump
Different drug, same addiction haha
Though for what it's worth, I do find it easier to pull myself off of Kbin than I did Reddit
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
God: Demand Worship, but refuses to do anything for it
Humans: Stop believing in God because there's no proof they exist
God: ...
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
Ah, the good old, tried and tested burden of proof switcheroo.
Unlike with religion, we could attempt to prove whether our flying friend is a liar or not... but they won't like it.
Load them on a plane, boot them from the sky - if they can't infact fly, then they shall die.
If only religion could be so easily tested as throwing someone out of a plane and watching if they splat or not.
Putin should at least finish getting his arse kicked in Ukraine before moving onto Poland, those guys may very well fight back even harder
Don't think I need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out the answer to that question
So you think school therapists aren’t good enough? Yet you think the teachers know more about how it will affect the student? Which is it, are the schools competent or not?
Limited in scope as in limited capacity. All public therapists are. The Queue to be put onto an NHS therapist's list is years long.
I do think the schools therapist is a good outlet, but a schools therapist can't do much to solve accidental disclosures. The moment a teacher eavesdrops on the student talking about it outside a therapy, it's still game over for them.
What are you on about??
The whole point of what I said is that I think the teachers and school system are competent enough to assess whether revealing this information could endanger a child, and should use that foresight to prevent abuse as part of their safeguarding duties.
0 difference. Cops can’t arrests my spouse because they assume that she might one day abuse me.
First off, I was never on about arresting anybody.
Secondly, if you had reasonable suspicion to think that your wife might abuse you or kick out of the house based on something about you that has almost no almost no effect on her, then I don't think you'd appreciate it if your friends went behind you back an told her, thereby endangering you, would you?
Instead of encouraging lying to parents, why not try to improve abuse and homeless programs? Why don’t you advertise them in school? Giant posters “do you think you’re being abuse? Talk to a school counselor to get information on resources”
The fundemental gap between us rears it's ugly head again. You're willing to let it get to the point of abuse before you help out, I'm not.
Improve those programs to help people who can't avoid that scenario, but there is still a responsibility to prevent that scenario from occurring. You're not a very good safeguarder if not only do you not react until the damage is already done, but you bring it about in the first place.
Boom. This is fucking easy dude. You just want excuses for government employees to override the parenting of parents, without any evidence besides a teachers subjective observations and rash conclusions.
I'll put it this way, I'd rather have false positives in the face of defending children, than assume every parent is good and turn the other cheek to the abuse that could and would cause.
Besides which, could abusive parents not make the same argument of the services meant to stop them?
What if it makes it better? A kid that’s questioning gender have much higher suicide rates, what if the teacher withholds this information, and the kid commits suicide. That’s on the teacher, is that what you want? Parents have that responsibility, not teachers. You want teachers to have the say, without any of the repercussions.
On the Venn diagram of parents who a school may view as candidates to abuse their children over this if made aware of this information, and parents that would help guide their children through this process, I suspect the overlap to be minute.
Once again, that’s not their duty. Their duty is educate the children how the people in the state and district desire.
Yet again, it is. The fact that this law undermines that safeguarding duty by potentially putting teachers into a situation where they are legally required to enable abuse is abhorrent.
It us their duty to report concerns to the school, who should then make the decision whether it is safe to tell the parents. Teachers should not be given that burden of being put into a situation where they have to potential enable abuse.
You have this impression that government agents should be the ones determining the culture of the future. Paired with the government forcing us to give them our children for 8 hours a day 5 days a week or else they take our children from us.That’s inherently dangerous and anti-liberal.
I'm not suggesting they should be determining the culture of the future. But teachers are there to encourage students to pursue their passions, and also to create a safe environment where that can be done.
If that includes allowing a student to show a part of their persona that they cannot show at home, for as long as it is not endangering others at the school, then the strong arm of the law shouldn't be striking it down.
The fact that you want the government to intervene to take that away from teachers screams far more dangerous and anti-liberal to me, just saying
Also, I'm just about done with this argument, so this will be my last reply on this topic. Feel free to slander me as you like in your next reply.
In a scientific context "significantly less" essentially means "we were able to prove beyond our error threshold that there was less nicotine"
As such, it doesn't mean squat without numbers to back it up. There could be 1% less nicotine and it'd still be significant if their testing method was sensitive enough to reliably capture the difference.
Whereas this:
Would mean exactly what the person you're replying to has said it means, assuming it's true, aka. It's patently false to say it's safer for non-smokers to be around.