Disposable Vapes - The tide seems to be changing - Disposable Vape Ban ?

[Mitz]

Out of all the options available an outright ban seems to be the worst IMHO. Although, I imagine if a blanket ban is brought out it will still be some way off as it will be phased in. I have a couple of friends in my personal circle who smoke like troopers who I've tried getting to quit repeatedly with various vaping options, none of which have worked for them. Recently they've been using disposables and although they haven't yet quit smoking they have cut down considerably. Yes, disposables bring their own set of issues but I don't personally feel that a full on blanket ban is the correct solution. Too many other possible options available to go in so heavy handed.

Just my 2c.

 

[MarylinC37]

@ZT

Well I apologise if you feel I've shouted.

I've got my point across so you can relax.

And yes, I did read your original post and it had lots of good stuff in it so hopefully we will both get some benefit from this thread.

 

[Richard Winter]

Not sure what happened there, my little reply seems to of been attached to part of @ZT comment.

 

[vapervince]

I can just imagine the film :-
Jimmy Stewart as the confused vaper "but but you tellin me that I cant vape on nuthin... at all"
John Laurie as the angst ridden vaper " we`re doomed, we`re all doomed"
Robert di Nero as the angry vaper (to the vape bailiff) "you talkin to me ...... you talkin ... to me"
Mae West as the good time vaper " come on boys get em out, and when they`re out come up and see me"
Guest appearance by J Robert Oppenheimer as the vape bailiff "I am the destroyer of vapes"

 

[ZT]

i sense heavily from reading your posts in this thread that your idea of “debate” is shouting your opinion loudly while listening to no one else's - and then wondering why people are not just agreeing with you because you are obviously right.

You dont sway opinion with a sedgehammer. If you feel you need a sledgehammer to get your point across - you are clearly listening to no one elses.

if you read the the actual blog piece i think its fairly obvious that i personally am unsure on how i feel about a ban.

i think you like shouting and soap boxing

i also think i may well clean this thread - you are after all in my vendor section on my thread.

What means is - its not a debate - tho i welcome reasonable debate in what is ultimately advertising my work - I will not have it used as a soap box

@ZT, if you look back I liked your original post/blog and also mentioned you by saying that you were right and had valid comments, again in your blog.[/QUOTE]
I was not referring to you richard

the quotes got messed up!

 

[ZT]

@ZT, if you look back I liked your original post/blog and also mentioned you by saying that you were right and had valid comments, again in your blog.

I was not referring to you richard

the quotes got messed up![/QUOTE]
And apparently still are!

 

[Richard Winter]

I was not referring to you richard

the quotes got messed up!

And apparently still are![/QUOTE]
No worries @ZT. I replied earlier to your comment because when I opened it it was directed at me but when I answered and then went back in it wasnt directed at me.

The gremlins are fighting back lol.

Saw your previous one to me which as you say was still not right. Life can be very confusing at times. Hopefully this reply is ok.

 

[MarylinC37]

The problem happens when there are two or more quotes together. The site has never really liked that.

Could be an issue with just certain browsers.

 

[hack400]

@ZT Post 58.

Change this first line

To look like this

That's what broke the quoting. Any quoting of a broken post wlll continue it.

 

[andipandi]

.. going back to Nitrites, they only escaped the 'legal highs' blanket because of the very vocal LBTQ folk who made a strong and united stand. They got that exemption by making a case for it to be an exemption, not by fighting against the whole ban saying people should be able to do whatever they want. It feels to me that we are in a similar position.

More likely to be down to Crispin Blunt, it was widely reported as such when poppers were exempted.

The Conservative MP Crispin Blunt has admitted using the party drug poppers, and denounced attempts by the government to ban the substances as “foolish”.Blunt, who is the chairman of parliament’s foreign affairs select committee, was speaking during a debate on the government’s psychoactive substances bill, which seeks to outlaw certain legal recreational drugs. The legislation would ban alkyl nitrites – commonly known as poppers.An amendment tabled by the shadow home secretary, Andy Burnham, which would have excluded poppers from the bill, was voted down by 228 votes to 309. The bill passed to its final stage in the Commons before it will pass into law.

“There are some times, Madam Deputy Speaker, when something is proposed which becomes personal to you and you realise that the government is about to do something fantastically stupid and I think in those circumstances one has a duty to speak up,” said Blunt, who has been MP for Reigate since 1997.

“I use poppers. I out myself as a poppers user. And would be directly affected by this legislation. And I was astonished to find that it’s proposed they be banned and, frankly, so were very many gay men.”