[jareds]

Why do we need to ban these? I'm not trying to be contrarian, but why do some people appear to be for banning tobacco but not alcohol? I don't claim to have all the answers or even strong opinions, but if your going to ban one recreational drug with negative externalities you should ban them all. I'd much rather hear people's opinions then ask AI.

[RandallBrown]

If alcohol came inside of little battery powered computers, we should ban those too.

I don't think the post you're responding to is saying that vapes should be banned. Just disposable ones.

[tomcam]

> If alcohol came inside of little battery powered computers, we should ban those too.

I too am agnostic but do not understand this reasoning. BTW let me get severely downvoted by saying that if alcohol prohibition came up for a vote I'd vote yes in a heartbeat.

[RandallBrown]

We're not talking about alcohol or tobacco prohibition. We're talking about single use e-waste prohibition.

[tomcam]

You may wish to reread the comment. I started the phrase with “BTW“, implying I knew it was slightly outside of context.

[eli]

No, banning disposable vapes

[jareds]

Thanks for the clarification, I can see banning disposable vapes but still allowing reusable ones.

[hahahahhaah]

I think broadly prohibition didn't work but smoking bans do. Where "work" means fewer people smoke and passive smoke.

[thinkingemote]

Alcohol prohibition did actually work.

It reduced the amount of people who drank and it increased health. It increased safety for women and children and reduced violent crime on the streets and in the home. It reduced alcohol related diseases and death. People missed less work. Like with passive smoking, a ban on alcohol positively affects non-drinkers too.

It was the organised crime side effects and societal unpopularity which lead to it's "failure". Alcohol prohibition continues to work in some countries today but I wouldn't want to live there.

Ultimately it's a bio-ethics and freedom issue, issues that continue to raise their head from time to time here and there, e.g. coronavirus responses.

Control of vaping could also be classed in this category.

[parineum]

Prohibition works to stop some people.

It doesn't stop addicts from craving and it doesn't curb the appeal of the product. People who think tobacco/nicotine bans would work are people who think they don't have any positive effect associated with them.

People don't smoke because the evil cigarette companies tricked them and now they are addicted. It's a drug, it feels good to do it.

A tobacco/nicotine ban will end up exactly like aby other recreational drug prohibition.

[normie3000]

> People don't smoke because the evil cigarette companies tricked them and now they are addicted.

Isn't this exactly what happens, and why cigarette advertising is banned in many countries, and why marketing child-friendly tobacco products is commonly restricted, and why there are even regulations/guidelines around portrayal of smoking on TV in some regions?

[parineum]

People have been smoking for thousands of years.

[prmoustache]

People have been stealing and killing other people as many years if not longer. That doesn't mean you cannot do a bit of legislation and obtain some positive results against that.

I think not banning the cigarette and non reusable vape is the wrong solution but banning smoking in lots of public spaces has improved the situation, maybe not to curb consumption but at least non smokers can breath a little. I wish it would also applies to outdoors cafe/restaurant terraces too as smokers effectively ban to non smokers by spreading their poison around them. They could walk away for a couple of minutes to get their hit but they don't on purpose. There should be a radius around an outdoor terrace where smoking is effectively prohibited.

[laken]

Outdoor cafes/restaurant terraces that allow smoking effectively are marketing to smokers. Smokers generally stay longer (therefore may order more), and basically are giving themselves dopamine at this venue, therefore creating associations to possibly draw them back in the future. These places could just not provide ashtrays and could just not allow smoking, but they do allow it, because it's good for business.

If you really don't like it, you could just not visit these establishments. To these businesses, the benefit of allowing smoking doesn't outweigh the negatives (some people not liking it). Obviously you don't not like it enough to just not go there. Not a smoker, but i've never understood this puritanical attitude towards smoking and only smoking. Yeah, it's not great to breathe in an enclosed space, but in an outdoor space, I don't see how much worse it is than car exhaust, air quality, etc.

[parineum]

> People have been stealing and killing other people as many years if not longer. That doesn't mean you cannot do a bit of legislation and obtain some positive results against that.

This thread is/was about prohibition of smoking. I was making the point that tobacco/nicotine is a drug that has positive psychoactive effects, that's why people use it.

People seem to have this misconception that smoking is just some thing tobacco companies tricked people into doing and so prohibition would work. It wouldn't. We can already see in places where the prices of cigarettes create a nearly de-facto ban that it creates black markets and we know that black markets create crime.

[tayo42]

If that's how you you define work, prohibition worked.