Online vape seller has ‘no intention of stopping’ shipments to Australia, despite nationwide ban — ‘We have no intention of stopping just because of one twat in Canberra.’::The New Zealand-based seller issued a notice to its Australian customers that shipments will continue regardless of the government’s vape reform.

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    10 months ago

    Are cigarettes banned as well or do they get massive taxes from their sale like in the US?

    • legios@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      10 months ago

      Australia is the most expensive place in the world for cigarettes so… The latter. But they won’t ban it because it makes the govt. so much money.

    • No_Eponym@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I heard cigarette taxes are the preferred form of sin tax because typically smokers pay more in taxes than they use in healthcare etc on the way out. Nicotine addicts die fast and are tax efficient, unlike alcohol or gambling addicts.

      • daltotron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        A good example of a policy that can kind of make a form of “objective” economic sense for the government to do, but is actually totally immoral, cruel, and inefficient. A good example of why governments shouldn’t be run like companies, basically.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Banning vices has rarely (if ever?) gone well. Far better to tax and regulate them to at least reduce the harms by making it less affordable/dangerous and mitigate them with revenues that can be used to repair the damage.

          • daltotron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            You know I would kind of off the cuff think that probably the optimal solution would be something that prevents general accessibility for the population at large, but encourages, and makes it more easily accessible for those who already have problems with it, and then kind of, chase solutions from there. Of course, I think probably that solution would lend itself more towards a country or state that cares whether or not you’re going homeless or sleeping in your car or what have you, because it’s generally easier to keep track of less marginalized populations.

            This isn’t really to advocate for a ban, but there’s definitely a kind of fine middle ground between full bans and completely free easy access. I think the thing that strikes me the most as a kind of, huge dick move, is mostly that it’s kind of a purely short term financial calculation of, oh, smokers are going to pay a lot more in taxes than in healthcare, and they die quick, so that’s economically good. But of course, you wouldn’t want a country made up entirely of smokers, and I don’t think that would be good, or pay out the best in long term societal, or even purely economic, benefits. I’m skeptical of blanket calls for total drug legalization just as I am skeptical for blanket calls for bans. Usually, there’s more nuance to the situation than that, which unfortunately tends to be the thing most leveraged to enforce the status quo or pass bad austerity legislation.

    • Wooki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      All but, massive taxing, plain packaging laws and more controls like can smoke in public places, banned in bars banned in restaurants and hotels ect. Its being “phased out” slowly turning the heat up until its gone.