101

Tobacco firm calls for tougher rules on vapes (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/world@lemmy.world

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Jesus_666@feddit.de 53 points 1 year ago

monkey's paw curls

Okay, nicotine is now a Schedule II drug. You need a prescription to buy anything with nicotine in it.

[-] CalicoJack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 year ago

Australia actually did that a couple years ago, but only for vaping-related nicotine. Cigs were unaffected.

[-] Risk@feddit.uk 36 points 1 year ago

Good to see Australia completed unaffected by the tobacco lobby...

[-] gladflag@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

And unable to deal with an absolutely massive illegal tobacco and vape industry (:

[-] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

Ohh no our preciouse monopoly on addiction is being undercut. Would someone think of the poor tobaco companies struggling to keep the lights on.

[+] dmention7@lemm.ee -18 points 1 year ago

I mean... yeah, their motivations are obviously not pure, but having vape sellers be licensed similar to cigarette sellers and banning flavors that are marketed to kids both sound pretty reasonable IMO.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 13 points 1 year ago

I do hate when they try and flavor things as "middle school grape" and "minors only strawberry"

[+] dmention7@lemm.ee -12 points 1 year ago

Really...?

I get you're being sarcastic here, but you and I both know that advertising and marketing can be incredibly subtle and insidious. Hell, that exact complaint is half the content posted to Lemmy. Making your product in flavors that appeal primarily to kids is about as blatant as it gets. What makes you think vape manufacturers are so honest?

In case you're being serious, take a stroll down the candy or cereal aisle at your grocery store and see if you can pick out which ones are marketed to kids vs adults just by the flavors.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 15 points 1 year ago

Do you think its the flavor that makes those kid cereals? Or do you maybe think its the childish mascots with puzzles and games on the back of the box? Because I sure as shit wouldnt call the 4 fruit flavors of cheerios as "marketed towards children," just as I dont think the existence of fruit is a plot by Big Agriculture to reel in the child market.

How boring is your diet? Cause this is apparently a shock for you, but most adults like sweets. We also like fruits. Theres a reason why flavored vodka isnt restricted to piss and old coffee grounds as its primary flavors. People, yes even the adult ones, like things that taste good. And, oooooh another shocker, they want the things they like to have good flavor options.

[+] dmention7@lemm.ee -8 points 1 year ago

Adults also liking something in no way negates the idea that the marketing and flavors are designed to hook in kids.

Honestly, aside from a little thing like ethics, vape manufacturers would be stupid to NOT try and hook kids while they are young and impressionable, so the default assumption has to be that they are trying.

Look, I'm open to discussing in good faith, but we're clearly talking past each other and this feels more like bickering, so I don't see much point in continuing, other than to collect downvotes 😅

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 1 year ago

I dont think you claiming that liking the taste of grapes makes me a child is in good faith, but you can go right ahead believing that if you like.

[-] Nima@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I think I'm at a point where I don't care what appeals to kids. I shouldn't have to miss out on stuff I like cause a kid "could" be interested in a flavor I also like.

"But kids like fruity flavors!" OK? and what do I care? I've never seen anything marketing ecigs towards children.

That's on the kid's parents. not me. I'm a legal adult and I showed my ID and bought my stuff. Parents need to be present if they don't want their kids hooked on stuff. And keep their kids outta adult spaces.

I don't see the need to make it more complicated than that.

[-] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

There was a whole fiasco a while back where Juul got in trouble for marketing to teens. Not explicitly, but if you had seen what ads they were pushing it was obvious they knew it would be pulling in young people.

The answer to that though is of course tighter marketing regulations, not product bans. Banning any type of vape is an absolutely laughable proposition as long as ciggies are still legal.

[-] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

My little brother really likes unhealthy cheeseburgers. What can the federal government do to help if not ban cheeseburgers for everyone?

[-] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I would try a cheeseburger flavored vape

[-] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

How does anyone ever regulate what "flavors marketed to kids" entails? Plenty of adults like sweet, fruity flavors. What about vanilla? Very generic yet it'd attract kids. I do think nicotine is a scourge, and smoking is waaaaaaaay worse than vaping, just wanting to know how this would work

[+] dmention7@lemm.ee -9 points 1 year ago

That's a fair question. My POV is that not being able to buy sweet fruity flavors might be inconvenient to some adults, but it's hardly something that could be argued to cause an undue burden on vape users.

It would probably be straightforward to commission a study (or leverage existing study data) to identify the flavors that underage users are most likely to use and start there. If data shows that removing or restricting those flavors is not an impediment to underage vaping, then at that point reconsider the regulations.

Even if some manufacturers choose to skirt the regulations (no this isn't "grape", it's "purple berry"!), larger companies with the biggest market share are probably not going to want to get tangled up in high visibility lawsuits, and so the likely outcome is that availability goes down, and therefore so does the access and use rate.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

Let's start with alcohol, my child won't be dead tomorrow from a vape. They might from a grape flavored bottle of Smirnoff.

[-] dmention7@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago

Yeah, underage drinking is also a big problem, but it's also not one I expect vape or cigarette manufacturers to have much sway over.

I'm not sure if that was supposed to be a gotcha? Can we not look at one problem without simultaneously solving all problems?

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 10 points 1 year ago

Its a gotcha because your 50 flavors of vodka isnt considered child centric marketing, and anyone who claimed otherwise would correctly be called a moron.

But you are doing the exact same dance with vapes.

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 6 points 1 year ago

I vape bc it's supposedly a little better for my health but when I'm in NYC I just smoke cigarettes bc flavored vapes are banned and tobacco/nonflavored vapes taste worse than cigs somehow lmao.

I feel like moving smokers from a less harmful alternative bc "think of the kids" is stupid. Like yeah I started smoking as a teenager too and I do regret having started, but the fruity flavors didn't make it enticing, it was the fact that I was a teenager and I wasn't supposed to be doing it. But disregarding my anecdotal experience, it still seems like a move that would shift people back to inhaling burning plant matter, rat poison, and tar into their lungs instead of vegetable oil and nicotine salts.

[-] dmention7@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago

It's less a "think of the kids" issue and more that the vast majority of smokers and vapers start as teens / young adults so there is a huge incentive to get them started and hooked early. It would just be naiive to think cig and vape makers don't know this and take advantage.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine a strawberry flavored cigarette was released tomorrow. It would be so transparent the maker would be absolutely crucified the moment it hit shelves.

All that said, legislation should be based on data and solid studies, not just gut feeling and common sense. I could be wrong here, but the profit motive to get people hooked on addictive products early is just too strong to not look verrrry suspect.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Sweet is a taste not a flavour and vapes are always sweet because PG and VG is. If anything you could argue brussel sprouts vs. apples but last I checked, adults eat apples.

Also to be consistent you need to outlaw like 98% of liqueurs out there as them containing fruit obviously means they're targeted towards children.

[-] dmention7@lemm.ee -4 points 1 year ago

I don't vape, except occasional cannabis-based products which I understand use a different solvent, so I'll have to take your word on that. But there's a difference between the presence of sweetness vs sweet flavors that typically (or more to the point are designed to) appeal more to younger people. Whether or not those flavors still appeal to adults is kinda moot--as it's been pointed out already, lots of things that appeal greatly to kids still appeal to adults.

The crux of it is if vape makers are generating flavored vapes to try and appeal to younger buyers (which carries a massive financial incentive), I think most people would agree that's not ok. Whether banning those flavors is the right answer I guess would be a matter for study and debate.

This is just a weird feeling thread to be honest, since Lemmy tends to skew massively cynical about being marketed to, especially by billion dollar corps, but the vibe I'm getting here is skepticism that those billion dollar vape manufacturers might be exploiting some simple psychology to get kids hooked early.

And for what it's worth, I'm sure liquor manufacturers do the same thing to some degree, but it's kind of a different ball game since you don't need to get people addicted to alcohol young in order to have them continue to drink as an adult, and most adults who drink are not physically addicted, as with nicotine. Maybe coffee would be a better comparison...

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It was not companies who started the whole thing. People have been vaping fruity and dessert aromas back in the days where you still had to build your own vape (usually from torches, hence the term "mod" for the battery holder/control unit: They're modded torches. Literally).

And that btw is also what would happen again if you were to outlaw those flavours: People would again buy bog-standard PG-based food aroma to mix their juice. It's a good thing that companies are actually selling vape aroma as vape aroma because it means that you can expect it to not contain some problematic stuff.

Or are you, on your crusade, going to outlaw food aroma in general?

and most adults who drink are not physically addicted, as with nicotine.

Nicotine on its own is roughly as addictive as caffeine, look at any recent study. Don't confuse it with the MAOIs in cigarettes, or indeed the MAOI/nicotine synergy. The "nicotine is more addictive than heroin" and shit line is actually a Tobacco industry thing to sell light cigarettes. Still of course contain the full brunt of MAOIs.

As to "don't advertise to kids": Yeah no shit. If companies would be using cartoon characters and whatnot we should outlaw it. There's no issue with outlawing it even if they don't. But to lash onto fruits as "evidence" that they're targeting kids is inane, you should rather look into things like disposable vapes, everything that lowers the barriers to entry away from the "screw atomiser on mod, squeeze in juice" baseline.

[-] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Regulatory capture. Be a big business. Lobby (give money to) politicians to get regulated. Make sure you have the money to implement the regulations. Make sure almost no one else has the money or opportunity to get the money to implement the regulations. Regulations force competitors out of business or make it possible to buy them. Regulations make it impossible for anyone new to compete against you. 3) Profit

This time last year we had Meta burning millions on commercials saying "the laws for the internet were passed on 1996. That's older than I am. We need new regulations to keep the internet safe." Aka it's not enough to buy all our competitors, we need to make sure no startups are even possible. We have the money and we want to make the rules.

[-] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago

I think it's really important that someone is finally standing up to Big Vape. This is a very brave move by Big Tobacco.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The London-based tobacco company BAT has called for “more stringent” regulations on vaping, including a licensing regime similar to alcohol and cigarettes.

It sells Rothmans and Lucky Strike cigarettes, and is the most successful of the big western tobacco companies when it comes to the UK's booming market for disposable vapes, thought to be worth at least £3bn a year.

The company also wants a ban on soft drink, sweet or dessert flavours such as gummy bear or cotton candy, which it says appeal “uniquely” to the young.

The Local Government Association has called for single-use vapes to be banned, as they cause a litter problem and a fire risk in bin lorries, and appeal too strongly to children.

However, it does not support a ban on colourful packaging, nor on advertising or sports sponsorship – as it argues that these are still an important way to convince smokers to switch.

If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk.

The original article contains 474 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Rice_Daddy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I guess it'd be less catchy if it'd said vape firm calls for tighter regulation on vapes. 🤷🏻‍♂️

this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023

101 points (98.1% liked)

World News

46263 readers

4691 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world