gila @ gila @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

354

Joined

2 yr. ago

Y'ain't gon' catch me out 'ere sayin' there're

That statement just screams "I don't understand how the internet works"

It is ridiculously overpriced and stepped on a hundred times. According to statistics bureau numbers though, use has more tripled over the last year alone

There isn't really much peer reviewed evidence suggesting vaping is significantly harmful in a tobacco harm reduction context, though. It's all supportive of vaping, that's why it's been embraced by many medical organisations across much of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. The amount of tobacco harm prevention vaping is doing in places like Kuwait right now, where up to 50% of males smoke, is fucking incredible. Australia's blindness on this issue is a farce. They, like most western governments, are addicted to tobacco tax. It's 4% of our overall tax income. That's a proportion of all taxation in our economy, including all the land, property, goods, services taxes. An entire 4% of it comes just from perpetuating tobacco sales. Financially conservative governments aren't giving that away for free. Internally they're like "we'll worry about addressing the leading cause of preventable death when we get voted in for another term, otherwise it won't work out for us politically". That's why we have a nation of Labor state premiers that almost unilaterally support sensible ecig regulation, yet the federal health minister from the same political party has this curious unexplained blindspot on the issue and just parrots big pharma talking points about nicotine, while nicorette isn't even kept behind the counter.

I think its use in the field was pretty limited. It was something a scientist at the company I work for was telling me about. They were curious given all the shit chat about a lack of longterm evidence. They wondered what is the actual earliest record of this sort of concept? They ended up finding out about experiments done with this device in some kind of wartime medical journal they showed me. We were pretty tickled by the journal article mentioning propylene glycol was the substance these old researchers were atomising. I tried finding it again to link something, but I haven't been able to find it yet.

Well, the first trillion dollar-valued company superpower whom outclasses the rest in terms of capital gains several times over probably isn't the best place to start looking.

Same concept also developed and used in WW2 as an anti-chemical weapon device. Basically a grenade that bursts into a cloud of PG, trapping airborne chemical particulates and pulling them down to the ground.

I mean, look at their handle. It's not like this is the handle for Famezen, they've clearly already had their account removed before. Report function needs someone to use it for it to be able to work, right? On balance, Youtube's business model goes to assigning value to the action of viewing a video. Subsequently devaluing that metric by collaborating to sell it for a few pennies doesn't sound like a great plan.

💃🕺🐦‍⬛🐦‍⬛

Everytime I hear this I can't help but imagine some researcher out in the wild taking a twig or something off of a magpie, the swoopy boi retaliates and the researcher is like "corvids understand the concept of zero?!"

Amyl & the sniffers is my fav

Disposable nicotine vapes, or any other kind of nicotine vape, have been banned federally for import other than via a special access scheme for the last few decades since nicotine was included on the poisons standard.

Just want to clarify that the actual change here is limited to banning 0mg disposables. Since Mark Butler's health department has decided to continue the trend of totally failing to act on sensible ecig regulation, an entirely expected and totally avoidable de facto standard shipping method of stealth packing nicotine products amongst 0mg has resulted. The China suppliers know that we have zero capacity to detect nicotine at the border and that every word that comes out of Butler's mouth on the topic is bullshit. They can just flout the law and get away with it. There's literally no system set up to hold them to account. Border Force aren't doing GC-MS analysis on your Amazon packages. The only reason the headline says 'to be banned from January 2024' is because the government don't want you to realise they are currently banned, and in fact always have been.

Sounds like he reckons that just keeping an eye out for anything that looks like a disposable shipment will do the trick now? Aw yeah, tell me more about how you don't understand the scale of freight logisticsin Australia. Is it going to invalidate the existing prescriptions for those products via special access scheme? I've had a nicco script for 2 years and haven't had a single parcel checked.

To wit: if you read this article and didn't come out of it thinking "shit I've gotta hop on AliExpress and get on this for a quick buck", it's because you got bullshitted. It's gonna be creeping up to dethrone cocaine as the hottest Aus consumer commodity 2024. Cheers Mark

Where my a4k dawgs at?

Hey I misunderstood you there and corrected my comment. Just in case you didn't see that. I thought you were referring to a correlation of increased tobacco usage not equalling a causation by the excise tax policies, given the sub thing was kinda completely aside from the central point of what I'm saying

The current excise policies were implemented around 2010, at which point the global decline was already well underway. As I mentioned originally, there has been no stage following implementation of the respective policies in which the decline in smoking accelerated. It has only slowed since that time, and in Australia is increasing as of 2023.

It's unreasonable to assume that allocations of tax contributed by smokers and tobacco companies is proportionately allocated to areas relevant to the stated intent of the tax policy. That just isn't a thing for really any tax policy in any government - there's no point at which the public health cost of using tobacco nationally is reconciled against the tax income from those products to see if things are evening out. They're entirely separate vectors that are unrelated.

correlation isn’t causation

Do you think these are magic words or something? The entire stated intent of the policy is to cause a correlation that is inverse to the one that's been observed since. Nowhere above did I say that tobacco excise causes the problems I mentioned - I responded to someone putting forward the idea that it is a viable solution to those same problems. I have trouble considering your response to be in good faith, since I already disclaimed this in my original comment. I'm sorry, I misread yours. I was just making a joke dude - it's just meant to be an example of how 1. government expenditures are fundamentally disconnected from the tax funding source and 2. the government having an excess in tax funding often doesn't result in them doing anything of significant benefit to anyone with it. Who are the subs meant to to protect us from, Indonesia? Wait, that's right, it was just to piss off our #1 trading partner

My parents would buy RTD spirits for my sister aged 15 when she was going to a friend's party or something. They're cops

You can have a look at some places that implemented the policy you're putting forward to check if it works though, right?

Have a look at Australia & New Zealand. Taxed at around 65-70% respectively with intent to make cigarettes cost prohibitive

A summary of some outcomes following a decade or so of implementation of these policies:

• No acceleration in the overall decline of smoking rates at any stage following policy implementation
• Reversal of trend in Australia where tobacco use is currently increasing
• The disproportionality in smoking rates between Europeans and the countries' respective indigenous groups is now higher
• Politicians (even the health minister himself in Aus) now champion increases to tobacco excise as a means to secure the financial stability of the country

All this while cost of living increases, rate of poverty increases. I mean not all of these things are solely attributable to periodic tobacco excise increases but it hasn't fixed a thing. The government got some more money to blow on some antiquated nuclear submarines to defend our massive island, surrounded by allied nations and thousands of miles from the nearest potential adversary. They'll be ready in about 20 years. Great to see the extra tax dollars at work!

That is patently false. There is only one single risk factor for cancer generally that is bigger problem than smoking unprocessed tobacco - that is smoking processed tobacco. If you charted endemic cancer risk factors in order of risk, with smoking processed tobacco at the top, then smoking unprocessed/organic/raw tobacco would be about 5% away from the top. The next biggest risk factor would be obesity about halfway down the chart (close to smokeless tobacco products like dip, which has a higher specific risk for mouth cancers). Turns out lighting something on fire and inhaling the combusted free radicals is universally a terrible idea, who'd have thunk? Personally I'm amazed that this kind of misinformation still propagates, on Lemmy of all places, sixty years following the surgeon general's warning.

What are those reasons? It sounds like you're trying to say that tobacco as a cultivated plant for smoking propagating across the world over the past few centuries is because it was trendy.

Without getting into my personal involvement and anecdotes, 'introduce RNT products and hope for the best' is far from an accurate characterisation of NZ Labour's Smokefree 2025 Action Plan.