this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
405 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59135 readers
2588 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jpablo68@infosec.pub 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The real question here is, are there (mostly) harmless?

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 36 points 8 months ago (5 children)

They fill landfills with descartable batteries, causing a lot of contamination. This is not the reason they're being banned, but it should be.

[–] Virulent@reddthat.com 4 points 8 months ago

Ironically a lot of US states have banned reusable vapes but allow disposable ones making the problem worse

[–] Fisch@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's only true for disposable vapes tho and I think a Pfand system, like we have for plastic bottles in Germany, would be a way better idea. People are already illegaly shipping them in from China, banning them won't stop that.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago

That's a nonsense nonargument. If the bulk of purchases are already illegal, then there's no harm in banning what is clearly a harmful item.

[–] Aradina@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

Except this ban bans non-disposable vapes. The disposable ones were already banned and were just sold under the counter without any regulation, like they'll continue to be.

[–] jpablo68@infosec.pub 0 points 8 months ago

Good point, I haven't thought of that.

[–] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

They are an excellent and well understood harm reduction measure compared with smoking.

[–] macrocephalic@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

In a true dichotomy they are the far better option. Unfortunately they were/are attracting new smokers. The rate of teenage smoking had been plummeting for decades and was only at a couple of percent - until vapes became popular and reversed about two decades of progress.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

There's an even better harm reduction measure: not smoking at all.

[–] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Don't take any drugs, wish them away. Failing that, start a war on drugs. Prosecute the war for decades with nothing to show for your efforts aside from a pile of bodies and organised crime.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago

'murican much?

[–] frostysauce@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe -1 points 8 months ago

Oof, someone's angry because they didn't get their oral fixation!

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world -4 points 8 months ago

That sounds unhygienic, so I don't think I will

[–] Virulent@reddthat.com 3 points 8 months ago

Yes but unless they ban cigarettes first, banning vapes will likely just have a negative effect