• 6 Posts
  • 192 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle

  • I would argue that your perspective is a narrow one and you need to change what info you are consuming. My personal take (if you have any interest):

    1. Most of the people on this world are not rich enough to be part of daily traffic jams. They are just trying to survive and enjoy life with what they have.

    2. Current resource competition is driven by profit seeking and not bourne out of necessity (i.e. we’re not “competing” in the traditional sense, where countries at war are doing so to feed their people etc… At least, not yet.)

    3. There is definitely more space and resources available for more people, if we learn to better distribute what we have - the how of this, while keeping everyone happy, is the billion dollar question.

    4. You can choose to live in the jungle by yourself if you want, no one is (hopefully) forcing you to take part in working etc.

    5. If you can, you should go travel more. If you can’t, go volunteer some of your time to your community. It tends to clear my “the world is going to shit” thoughts. Sure, there’s problems everywhere, and we should fight for the ones we feel are important, but there is also a lot of great things happening.















  • I have a life to attend to.

    In theory, similar bans should apply to all harmful substances e.g. fizzy drinks, alcohol, fast food etc. This is obviously an extreme take and difficult, if not impossible, to do in practice.

    I also drink, have consumed illegal substances and consume fast-food on a rare basis.

    My reasoning is that I do not want extensive costs being lumped into the general public to pay for the needed health care, due to the availability of harmful, non-beneficial products in our society. I do not believe extra tax on these products is appropriate or sufficient as these products tend to be used by those with lower education or lower income groups - and it is not fair to further burden these groups in life.






  • I mean mothers don’t decide for adults either, hopefully. But I think you missed my point.

    We know that: Tobacco and alcohol companies tried (and still do try) very hard to get kids to smoke & drink, because a child who smokes/drinks will likely become a significant customer for life.

    Regulators also know this, so they began aiming at removing the marketing which was clearly influential to age groups not legally allowed to consume alcohol/cigarettes. I know for example Australia banned alcohol ads during kids tv shows, tobacco advertising has been banned since the 90’s.

    Then along came vaping, which was neither a tobacco or alcohol product and could circumvent the regulations in place.

    There is a significant young population size who will take up smoking/vaping for its social appeal - whatever that is. Let’s call them pot #1.

    There is also a significant young population who will try smoking/vaping, realise it tastes like ass or is too much effort and decide to not continue with it. Let’s call them pot #2.

    Pot #1, which it sounds like would include you for cigarettes, cannot be influenced and these regulations trying to reduce smoking/vaping would annoy them.

    Pot #2 however can be influenced as long as those factors are address, e.g. ban the selling of the child friendly flavours, reducing exposure and limiting supply.

    By reducing pot #2 for harmful activities like drinking, smoking and vaping, you reduce the burden on your public health system in the long term.

    The big vape companies have been bought out by the big tobacco companies now, so they are one in the same.