Nah, it's not just handmade

Juul brand causes it

am I not the only person here that listens to skynews in the bacground*

Which is why they've got warning labels about your lungs now and other brands don't

I don't vape liquids

Tends to avoid the issue

But vaping is bad for your lungs, regardless

Significantly less worse than smoking tho

I just find it hilarious when kids would try and tell me that vaping is far healthier than smoking when it was just becoming a thing. Honestly, it's like how smoking was in the 50's. All these scientists claiming its healthy, it's a pick me up ect, and then how it was branded as this cool, manly man thing to do, and now look

Vaping will go the same way tbh

Well

But it's provably safer, because for one. It doesn't have tar, at all

The principles do not change - regulate, and tax to cover externalities

DO not ban, nor nannystate

^

Your body's default action for smoking is to cough and splutter.
Don't know why you want to train yourself out of doing that

Yes, it's safer, but not safe. Much like how weed is safer, but isn't safe.

Life isn't safe

Honestly, I just think it's those retarded people who claim its safe. General users of vapes aren't retarded

People can put what they want into their body, its not me they're harming

I don't remember anyone with any authority ever claiming it was safe

safeR

And their clouds that they blow out have such a negligible affect on me, I don't care either

Much like cigarette smoke in an open area like the streets

Yeah, but then you get poofters like PeP who believe eroniously that walking past someone smoking will significantly increase his chances of getting cancer

While unironically living in London

Which is why I'm fine with banning smoking in closed public spaces, but not out on the street. We're not Amsterdam who ban weed on the street but let you smoke it in an enclosed cafe

Personally, I think it should be down to the private business to decide if they want smoking indoors or not, much like how it's not law to ID someone for an energy drink, but it is policy for some stores. But that's the libertarian in me speaking

Then people have the choice. Do they go into the smoking pub, or the none smoking.

Certainly doesn't need to become any more restrictive than it is now

I would love to know if the enforced lack of branding has actually stopped people from smoking, or the pictures on packs. I'd say blocking them off from view and upping the cost was all that needed to happen personally. Especially now that advertisement of cigarettes aren't allowed, you don't see Malboro on an F1 car, then see the pack and immediately have that connection.

Nope

No effect at all

Hiding it behind cupboard doors also had no effect

Upping the price has helped and blocking them from view too, but I think social stigma around smoking had made the biggest impact

Cost and education were the two biggest effects

It should be down to personal responsibility rather than an overarching nanny state to "protect" us. Protect us from what? Ourselves? Because no matter what, people will smoke.

Yes, but urban poofters bereft of any kind of personal agency need to be protected from themselves

Heck, all the people I've spoken to who buy menthol and capsule fags have said that they're just going to go to paki stores and buy the imported packs if they're banned

Which in tern will increase illnesses as they're not regulated cigarettes and will lead to severe issues

The safest thing to do is deregulated an educate