Ahh. There’s quite a bit that goes into choosing the right device. Things like throat hit, mouth to lung, the draw and all sorts. It varies for each person and you’re supposed to find the right device that best matches the satisfaction/feeling of what smoking does for you.
Then as you said. Choosing the right liquid is equally as important. Not just strength but PG/VG ratios etc.
You just need to find a proper shop that will ask you some very simple questions about how much you smoke and what you’re wanting to achieve. They can then guide you, allow you to try a few devices and e-liquid and away you go.
Just like when you want to test drive a car before committing to anything. It’s important, but in this case it’s your health
I agree that it’s not a human right, but I do think that people should have the right to choose.
I think there should be more put into deterrents and education, even making it prohibitively expensive.
This I do agree with, but so are a lot of things, and once you start going down the route of making things illegal to protect the health service where do you stop? What about junk food, motorcycles, tanning beds etc…?
I have said in other topics that I believe people should have the freedoms to make poor decisions and I think the same applies here.
I also thing an outright ban just opens the door for more black market activity where there is even less regulation and more exploitation. Look at the complete failure on the “war on drugs” led by the US.
I suppose the actual big point of the New Zealand situation is that this is just the first step leading to the complete banning of smoking from 2025 (which isn’t that far away).
In terms of just introducing the rule that anyone who’s currently 14 years and younger will never legally be able to buy cigarettes, how many people generally start smoking when they’re under age anyway?
This new law will only impact or stop those who currently buy them legally. Those who are already buying them illegally will continue to do so along with some others who previously stayed on the right side of the law.
It’s the right bar thank you. Someone noted “the right to smoke” and I do not believe we have a “right” to smoke. We just can smoke.
By some of the logic on here there’d be nothing illegal. I tire of this constant “all or nothing” approach - I can believe smoking should be banned without having to ban every single thing that’s bad for you. Some others I might be fine with, but right now the subject is smoking.
If the tax was exclusively going back into the NHS there may be an argument there.
However smoking, unlike a lot of other drugs, has a direct impact on those around the user, horrible impacts on the user and a lot of people are addicted at a very young age. It’s not like most other drugs.
Having seen so many family members die from smoking related illnesses having been addicted from as young 13 in some cases I think I have an underlying principle that won’t change; if there are additional benefits to society then that’s a bonus for me.
This is my issue with it, and why I’d be in favour of banning it. No one has the freedom or right to do something which directly inflicts harm upon someone else in the name of human rights in my view.
I’m all for a free society, but there has to be lines somewhere. Or rather, a precedence. People not wanting to have their health harmed through the direct actions of another takes precedence over that person’s want to carry out said actions.