Comment by palata
Comment by palata 14 hours ago
The fact that selling such a thing is profitable means that we lack regulations somewhere.
Comment by palata 14 hours ago
The fact that selling such a thing is profitable means that we lack regulations somewhere.
Does liberal mean something different where you live? Where I live, the right-wing republicans are the ones who are prone to letting corporations do whatever they want without regard to the people/environment getting hurt.
Liberals generally want more regulation what are you talking about and why are you breaking the HN rules?
I don't recall the exact language but it was rather flame-war-esque in a comment full of otherwise benign discourse. The issue isn't liberals or conservatives being mentioned. In what way do you think I broke the rules? That it wasn't a substantive comment on its own? I didn't feel the pull to silently flag and hoped for GP to elaborate.
>The fact that selling such a thing is profitable means that we lack regulations somewhere.
It's the exact opposite. Tobacco is so heavily regulated and taxed that these become profitable. If cigarettes were 3-4$ a pack (which they would be without sin taxes and regulatory overhead), the vape market would come down as well and there's no way these could be profitable. As it is, they retail around $20 and contain the same nicotine as multiple $10 packs of cigarettes.
The regulation was written in time when there were no such devices. Are they "healthier" (less damaging) for the user? If yes, let's tax them lower. Are they less damaging for whole population? Considering the e-waste, I guess not, but it's not up to me to decide. If they aren't, they shouldn't be taxed higher that cigs, if yes, let's change the regulation.
Because they contain so much more nicotine they are way more addicting, way better for the lungs than smoking but still bad for cardiovascular health. Disposables should be illegal for environmental protection reasons, that's a bit unrelated though since these companies can very easily switch to reusable/pod-systems.
We want people to vape rather than smoke tobacco, obviously, it's not a zero-sum issue.
While that does vaguely gesture at an increased nicotine consumption, it's pretty meaningless without the corresponding consumption rates. My gut suspects the average smoker goes through a pack of cigarettes a lot faster than the typical vaper goes through a rechargeable disposable vape.
Pack a day is considered heavy smoking.
I go through those rechargeable ones in a week. That's pretty common I think for how addictive they are. https://www.reddit.com/r/Vaping/comments/1i9mva3/how_long_do...
Before the disposables were a thing most juices were either 0.3% or 0.6%
This is 100% big tobacco trying to get people hooked
Cigarettes could sell at 3-4$ a pack only because some regulation are in place that enforce the total separation of manufacturing and selling those packs from paying the cost for the societal damages wrt. health, pollution, littering...
There are many possible ways to slice the economical cake.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
1) They don't sell for $3-4 a pack, yet your post seems to imply that the system has failed for cigarettes.
2) For externalities beyond the input cost of a product, the default [natural] condition is for those costs not to be included - one needn't enforce anything. Rather, it requires that someone with power put their thumb on the scale to enforce the inclusion of those costs during a sale[1].
Juul was very popular and less wasteful (although not perfect of course) as you disposed of the liquid pod rather than the whole device, they were regulated out of existence though. The regulations had loophole/oversight which paved the way for the disposable vape era.
The fact something is profitable (even vices) does not mean it requires regulations, unless the regulation in mind is direct or indirect cap on profit margins?
E-waste like this exists because it's legal and profitable.
I believe that we as a society don't want e-waste (at least I don't). And when the society does not want something profitable to be done, it sets regulations.
If it wasn't illegal to steal your neighbour's car and sell it, then it would be profitable. But we as a society don't want it to happen.
No, it means computing has gotten so %$#@ cheap that it's cheaper to just cobble together cheap parts instead of spending the money to design a purposed device.