Advertisement

by Wolfmanne2 » Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:37 pm
Mad hatters in jeans wrote:Yeah precipitating on everyone doesn't go down well usually. You seem patient enough to chat to us, i'm willing to count that as nice.

by Wolfmanne2 » Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:11 pm
Mad hatters in jeans wrote:Yeah precipitating on everyone doesn't go down well usually. You seem patient enough to chat to us, i'm willing to count that as nice.

by The Licentian Isles » Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:13 pm
by Tumbra » Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:02 pm
Wolfmanne2 wrote:Throughout the debate, the SLP Senator decides he will chain smoke until disciplined. He takes out a packet of Benson and Hedges Gold, lights it and starts smoking.
by Tumbra » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:45 am

by Arachaea » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:57 am

by Wolfmanne2 » Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:03 am
Tumbra wrote:Wolfmanne2 wrote:Throughout the debate, the SLP Senator decides he will chain smoke until disciplined. He takes out a packet of Benson and Hedges Gold, lights it and starts smoking.
"Order, order. I understand the Hon. Member's concerns about the bill, but that is no reason to begin smoking in the Chamber till kingdom come. And especially seeing how some Hon. Members have breathing difficulties already...Stop it."
Mad hatters in jeans wrote:Yeah precipitating on everyone doesn't go down well usually. You seem patient enough to chat to us, i'm willing to count that as nice.

by The Licentian Isles » Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:58 am
Wolfmanne2 wrote:Tumbra wrote:
"Order, order. I understand the Hon. Member's concerns about the bill, but that is no reason to begin smoking in the Chamber till kingdom come. And especially seeing how some Hon. Members have breathing difficulties already...Stop it."
"I shall refrain from continuing with my action, Mr Speaker" the Senator said, burning out the current cigarette he was smoking.

by West Verrica » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:54 am
by Ainin » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:49 am
Arachaea wrote:The retail of electronic cigarettes in Elizia is unlawful without a prescription from an accredited medical doctor. Only pharmacies shall retail electronic cigarettes.
The use of flavouring to alter cigarettes or cigars in order to increase consumption, such as menthol, fruits, candies and herbs, is prohibited. The cabinet of Elizia shall have final determination of what constitutes flavouring."
Wolfmanne2 wrote:The SLP Senator winked at Thu as she left and finish one cigarrete. The cigarrete is burnt out by placing the end on the seat in front. Then the Senator took two cigarettes out, lighted both and started smoking them at the same time.

by Western Pacific Territories » Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:00 am
by Ainin » Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:02 am
Western Pacific Territories wrote:"While I do support the idea behind this bill, the bill simply mentions that, presumably, the consumption of tobacco products by those under 18 years of age is unlawful but doesn't explain the punishment for doing so. Is the punishment decided on the judges discretion, or is it treated as a case to case matter?

by Arachaea » Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:50 am
Ainin wrote:Arachaea wrote:The retail of electronic cigarettes in Elizia is unlawful without a prescription from an accredited medical doctor. Only pharmacies shall retail electronic cigarettes.
"The purpose of an electronic cigarette is to pry people off of a tobacco addiction. When electronic cigarettes are easily obtainable, it is well-documented that they have had the effect of increasing youth experimentation with nicotine products, who otherwise would not have done so. This regulation would restrict e-cigarettes to people that actually have a legitimate medical purpose in obtaining such a device, and not to people that wish to use it recreationally."
"Although I don't see that happening much, as the jury remains out on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes in the first place."The use of flavouring to alter cigarettes or cigars in order to increase consumption, such as menthol, fruits, candies and herbs, is prohibited. The cabinet of Elizia shall have final determination of what constitutes flavouring."
"I fail to see how that is remotely authoritarian. Flavouring tobacco has he sole purpose of making it more attractive for youth, as a single look at the industry's marketing of such products will tell you. Such products are banned or otherwise restricted in many countries for that reason, and it is an effective measure to decrease interest in tobacco."Wolfmanne2 wrote:The SLP Senator winked at Thu as she left and finish one cigarrete. The cigarrete is burnt out by placing the end on the seat in front. Then the Senator took two cigarettes out, lighted both and started smoking them at the same time.
hi pruss
by Ainin » Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:19 pm

by Arachaea » Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:47 pm
Ainin wrote:"No one sells oxycodone over-the-counter because of its addictive properties and harmful health effects. E-cigarettes still contain large quantities of highly-addictive nicotine and various carcinogens. Why should they not be held to the same standard as OxyContin?"
"Anyone seeking to stop smoking would be able to obtain a prescription for an e-cigarette from a medical professional, if they deem it necessary. The public over-the-counter sale of e-cigarettes, again, has the counterproductive result of being employed by previous non-smokers to experiment with nicotine. This provision would maintain access to e-cigs for people using them to kick their addiction, while preventing abuse. It's only common sense to restrict access to harmful goods."
"And I cannot support any revision to the flavouring provision. It must be prohibited outright because its only purpose is to attract youth to tobacco."

by Maklohi Vai » Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:56 pm
Arachaea wrote:Ainin wrote:"No one sells oxycodone over-the-counter because of its addictive properties and harmful health effects. E-cigarettes still contain large quantities of highly-addictive nicotine and various carcinogens. Why should they not be held to the same standard as OxyContin?"
"Anyone seeking to stop smoking would be able to obtain a prescription for an e-cigarette from a medical professional, if they deem it necessary. The public over-the-counter sale of e-cigarettes, again, has the counterproductive result of being employed by previous non-smokers to experiment with nicotine. This provision would maintain access to e-cigs for people using them to kick their addiction, while preventing abuse. It's only common sense to restrict access to harmful goods."
"And I cannot support any revision to the flavouring provision. It must be prohibited outright because its only purpose is to attract youth to tobacco."
"I know quite a few people who've started e-cigarettes and nothing bad has happened to their physical health due to it. And yes, it's addictive but coffee is addictive too and I don't see you going round trying to ban coffee now, do I? And I think that e-cigarettes should be reserved for those who deem them necessary to stop their smoking addiction. And if flavoured cigarettes are only to attract youth to tobacco, why do I hear stories of people who smoke cigarettes switching to flavoured e-cigarettes to stop their addiction? And the non-electronic flavoured cigarettes are also chosen by people already addicted to cigarettes out of a matter for personal preference, and by banning them, you are removing these people's right to follow their personal preference." Thu Tran stated, before leaving the chamber to buy more e-cigarettes to put on her desk as protest. She came back with a mint-flavoured one, a peach-flavoured one and a chocolate-flavoured one.

by Arachaea » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:09 pm
Maklohi Vai wrote:Arachaea wrote:"I know quite a few people who've started e-cigarettes and nothing bad has happened to their physical health due to it. And yes, it's addictive but coffee is addictive too and I don't see you going round trying to ban coffee now, do I? And I think that e-cigarettes should be reserved for those who deem them necessary to stop their smoking addiction. And if flavoured cigarettes are only to attract youth to tobacco, why do I hear stories of people who smoke cigarettes switching to flavoured e-cigarettes to stop their addiction? And the non-electronic flavoured cigarettes are also chosen by people already addicted to cigarettes out of a matter for personal preference, and by banning them, you are removing these people's right to follow their personal preference." Thu Tran stated, before leaving the chamber to buy more e-cigarettes to put on her desk as protest. She came back with a mint-flavoured one, a peach-flavoured one and a chocolate-flavoured one.
"Mister Speaker, anecdotal evidence, and not even well-told anecdotes at that, does not pass muster for a warrant in this chamber, at least not by my standards. If the member would like to produce real evidence, that would be appreciated."

by The Licentian Isles » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:37 pm
Arachaea wrote:Maklohi Vai wrote:"Mister Speaker, anecdotal evidence, and not even well-told anecdotes at that, does not pass muster for a warrant in this chamber, at least not by my standards. If the member would like to produce real evidence, that would be appreciated."
"How about this: E-cigarettes were designed for the purpose of a safe alternative to smoking; and I can think of no reason why someone would create something to supposedly do that yet no do that. Surely they should be legal, if government provisions are made so that people who need them can easily get them." Thu Tran stated, before lining up her four flavoured e-cigarettes.

by Arachaea » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:54 pm
The Licentian Isles wrote:Arachaea wrote:"How about this: E-cigarettes were designed for the purpose of a safe alternative to smoking; and I can think of no reason why someone would create something to supposedly do that yet no do that. Surely they should be legal, if government provisions are made so that people who need them can easily get them." Thu Tran stated, before lining up her four flavoured e-cigarettes.
"Many people don't follow through on their promises; it's a comment regularly aimed at our profession, for example. The member would do well to follow my colleague's advice and present some real evidence to support his view."

by The Licentian Isles » Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:14 pm
Arachaea wrote:The Licentian Isles wrote:
"Many people don't follow through on their promises; it's a comment regularly aimed at our profession, for example. The member would do well to follow my colleague's advice and present some real evidence to support his view."
"This paper from the UK Government shows that e-cigarettes are a much safer alternative to cigarettes, and that they are effective in stopping cigarette usage. While it does state in the paper that the government is looking for a way to regulate it so that it doesn't offer a gateway into cigarettes, I think that the regulation of cigarettes themselves and not e-cigarettes would be sufficient in this case, and the sale of e-cigarettes should be allowed so long as the person in question shows identification, and that e-cigarettes are given to those who need them by the government." Thu Tran stated.

by Arachaea » Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:48 pm
The Licentian Isles wrote:Arachaea wrote:"This paper from the UK Government shows that e-cigarettes are a much safer alternative to cigarettes, and that they are effective in stopping cigarette usage. While it does state in the paper that the government is looking for a way to regulate it so that it doesn't offer a gateway into cigarettes, I think that the regulation of cigarettes themselves and not e-cigarettes would be sufficient in this case, and the sale of e-cigarettes should be allowed so long as the person in question shows identification, and that e-cigarettes are given to those who need them by the government." Thu Tran stated.
"Even you accept that these products can be a gateway into more regular tobacco use, and that they should be regulated. That's what the member's bill does."

by The Licentian Isles » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:06 pm
Arachaea wrote:The Licentian Isles wrote:
"Even you accept that these products can be a gateway into more regular tobacco use, and that they should be regulated. That's what the member's bill does."
"I'm calling for slight regulation, yes, to make sure those who need them get them. I believe the act's measures of dealing with cigarettes are enough to deter people from starting, without banning the recreational use of e-cigarettes and flavourings." Thu Tran explained.
by Ainin » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:53 am
Arachaea wrote:"I know quite a few people who've started e-cigarettes and nothing bad has happened to their physical health due to it.
And yes, it's addictive but coffee is addictive too and I don't see you going round trying to ban coffee now, do I?
And I think that e-cigarettes should be reserved for those who deem them necessary to stop their smoking addiction.
And if flavoured cigarettes are only to attract youth to tobacco, why do I hear stories of people who smoke cigarettes switching to flavoured e-cigarettes to stop their addiction? And the non-electronic flavoured cigarettes are also chosen by people already addicted to cigarettes out of a matter for personal preference, and by banning them, you are removing these people's right to follow their personal preference." Thu Tran stated, before leaving the chamber to buy more e-cigarettes to put on her desk as protest. She came back with a mint-flavoured one, a peach-flavoured one and a chocolate-flavoured one.

by Arachaea » Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:25 am
Ainin wrote:Arachaea wrote:"I know quite a few people who've started e-cigarettes and nothing bad has happened to their physical health due to it.
"I know quite a few people that have jaywalked and not been hit by cars. Your personal observations are, for one, irrelevant, and for two, inconsistent with the emerging scientific consensus that vaping fluids still contain unacceptably large quantities of carcinogens and other harmful substances."And yes, it's addictive but coffee is addictive too and I don't see you going round trying to ban coffee now, do I?
"Your analogy would make sense if caffeine created a physical addiction comparable in scale and harm to heroin and cocaine. Nicotine is widely-recognised as a highly addictive drug with the potential of harming mental development in teenagers and increasing the spread of cancer. We restrict access to oxycodone to prevent its abuse by those that have no legitimate reason to use it. So, I ask again, why should nicotine, a comparably addictive and harmful drug, not be held to the same standard?"And I think that e-cigarettes should be reserved for those who deem them necessary to stop their smoking addiction.
"That is quite literally the opposite of what you've been arguing so far. You have been arguing for their unrestricted commercial sale."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement