199
Nitrous oxide: Laughing gas to be illegal by end of year
(www.bbc.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
199 points (97.6% liked)
United Kingdom
4108 readers
158 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I won't miss seeing those cannisters littered around.
So why not make it legitimate with a deposit scheme?
And even better, also legalise drugs like weed which these are being used as a legal substitute for?
Nos isn't a substitute for weed...
Neither is alcohol. But with freer access to cannabis in Canada fewer are drinking as much.
Absolutely, although I wouldn't say NOS is substituted for weed all that much. Also, the legal limit for weed and driving should be raised, particularly since the government asked the scientific community where the level of impairment was and then set it lower.
I'm in favour of legalising drugs, but driving is dangerous and should only be done when you are sober and able to give your full attention.
Absolutely, however if the level of intoxication is below the level of impairment, then the drug is not having a negative effect on driving.
We have this discussion currently about Weed in Germany. Its so annoying to See articles with headlines Like "cannabis behind the wheel" etc. Noone ist advocating for people to Drive under the influence. But If i smoked a Joint on friday and get stopped on monday, i'll lose my drivers license even though im sober. Drugs stay in your system way longer than the actual effect.
It's a lot of effort to built up such a deposit system
It's in no way unfeasible - and the deposits end up paying for the ongoing operation of the system.
Which is better, addressing the littering problem directly, or criminalising and litigating against a bunch of people with a law that can't be enforced if they have a can of cream on them?
The deposit is just a deposit, it doesn't pay for anything. Are you sure you understand how the deposit in this case works? You pay for something and you get that back when you return the item.
Maybe you should look into something like the Finnish bottle deposit scheme. It's great but those take quite some time and effort to set up and get running properly.
Not everyone returns and collects the deposit back, these deposits end up funding the operations.
If the Finnish scheme is anything like the German scheme, that's what I was thinking of. Although it doesn't need to be quite so widespread with machines inside every supermarket.
They'll have to wait with just taking the deposit money since for quite a long time you wouldn't know if they're returning it or not. And if it's anything like other systems, you can return it to different place than the one you paid for, which requires moving money around and whatnot. And there's the issue of getting them from the stores to be recycled and overall upkeep and governance of the system and so on.
The systems are a lot more complex than one might think at first.
I didn't say it was simple, but it's straightforward and very far from unfeasible.
It sure is a thing that can be done, it's just a lot of effort and possibly cost for what it might achieve
But there are tons of costs with criminalisation, too. The cost of police time, the cost of court time, the cost of prison, the loss of production from otherwise good citizens being made into criminals. Which is the better use of public resources? Which would be more effective at actually preventing cannisters from being left around everywhere?
Edit: If anything, making it illegal could lead to more litter. People aren't going to hang on to their empties if they could be used as evidence of a crime.
It seems strange to me to even consider the two as ways of combating litter
Well, cannisters are the only real problem here. All the expert advise said the drug was a non-issue, however there are certainly a lot of cannisters being left all over the place, creating a visible problem. Criminalising it probably won't do anything about the visible problem, it will just incur costs and make otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
I was just saying that the deposit systems aren't as simple as one might initially think.
I've done laughing gas and while it was fun I don't really care whether it's legal or not. It seems like a very minor thing.
@TWeaK @RaivoKulli B12 consumption causing spinal cord degeneration is an issue.
Also N2O is a greenhouse gas, and supports combustion more effectively than pure oxygen, not very bad in small quantities and controlle,d spaces.
Yes, there are problems with long term or excessive use, I shouldn't have said it was a non-issue.
@RaivoKulli @TWeaK if someone hands you 10 cans, they've handed you 10 cans. How don't you know?
They don't need tracking.
(If a store hands you 100kg of cans, they've handed you 100kg. Audit would need you to weigh them and know their name, but little else.)
I'm sure shops will be happy to pay out of pocket for cans not purchased from them. You'd need some form of balancing in the system.
Like I said, seems very simple if you don't really think about it.
@RaivoKulli Why wouldn't they be? If they sell a thousand cans they've paid a thousand deposits.
If they return a thousand cans they get back their thousand deposits.
The cans, as with R White's lemonade bottles once upon a time, are fungible.
They'll need a tin of pennies.
I don't think you get what I mean. Customer buys from store A and pays them the deposit and returns them to store B who gives the customer the deposit amount. Store A doesn't care, they got the deposit, didn't have to return it to the customer. Store B had to give the deposit amount to customer even though they didn't get the original deposit amount. See how it might be a nuisance to store B? That's why you need some organization for the system.
@RaivoKulli (I don't need to think hard about it, I grew up with it running)
Might want to give it some thought what it took to actually run it. I grew up with bottle and can deposit system but it would be a disservice to not recognize what it took to get it running and what it takes to run it now.
Won't miss it because they'll continue to be littered around?