Oneser

The 5 year price graph is much nicer to view.

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 will never forgive the ABC for going the clickbait route.

The reasons are: 1- governments will not regulate as it accounts for $7 Billion in tax revenue. 2- sporting organisations receive a considerable amount in advertising revenue.

It's clear you don't understand grouping from this conversation.

IQOS may not be big in all markets, but their share is not negligible.

The juul lawsuit triggered a lot of regulation changes and created legal precedent.

That is all I have time for.

I have a friend like you whom I love to send into the chasm that is his own mind. The physicist has the attitude needed to deal with these thoughts - does it even matter? Ultimately, until we know our existence is false, we might as well keep on appreciating what we experience, right?

Would anyone really start vaping just to blow clouds of flavoured smoke?

I'm not being facetious here, genuinely curious.

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.

Naah in all for the ban on fruity flavours. A lot of people, myself include, growing up didn't smoke because it tasted like trash. Imagine if cigarettes tasted like hot chocolate!

It doesn't remove all vapers, but it doesn't increase the numbers either.

But that is not "using hydrocarbons as a battery" as your comment mentioned.

Which circumstances?

Using electricity to create fuels purely for storage is a dead concept AFAIK. eFuels in the medium term will likely only be used where batteries cannot in their current form, e.g. aircraft or shipping. The energy and money cost needed to synthesise on-site with current tech is too high.

I do not have the knowledge to doubt your points here, but there are countless people who smoke and do not end up on artificial breathing apparatus in their later years.

I do not like being around smokers and understand it is not good for you, but your text here sounds very extreme.

I thought telegrams encryption was more or less non-existent? Am I missing something?