Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3
228 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 148


  Reply # 1958445 15-Feb-2018 09:31
3 people support this post
Send private message

gzt: Selling sugary drinks to minors? ; ).

 

I work in the sugary drinks industry and I support any legislation introduced that limits sales to youngsters. Not sure how it would work in practice but in support of the idea.


gzt

9808 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1464


  Reply # 1958446 15-Feb-2018 09:33
One person supports this post
Send private message

marej:

Speaking from personal experience.......its an honest living.  I remember that selling a newspaper would give something like a 10c gross profit.  Its long hours for the return of a low income - just better than being on a benefit, but in saying that my families income needed to be supplemented.


Arguing they should not sell cigarettes is just victim blaming.  The robbers are the problem and need to be dealt with.


I observe that most liquor stores in my area have security guards present. It is clearly a cost of doing business.

4322 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1720


  Reply # 1958447 15-Feb-2018 09:35
2 people support this post
Send private message

gzt: Selling sugary drinks to minors? ; ).

 

Sugary drinks can be consumed safely in moderation.  They same can't be said of smoking - there is no known safe level of exposure.

 

If a person standing next to me at a bus stop is consuming a sugary drink,  I am not exposed to airborne sugar.  If a person standing next to me at a bus stop is smoking I am exposed to second hand smoke (no known safe level of exposure).





Mike

7329 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3429

Subscriber

  Reply # 1958450 15-Feb-2018 09:41
One person supports this post
Send private message

Fred99:

 

Well there is something quite different about tobacco vs the other examples you give - and that is that tobacco doesn't have a material "probability" of injuring the purchaser, but a material "certainty" of injuring the purchaser when used exactly as it's intended to be used.

 

Selling the product is inherently "immoral" - as opposed to "illegal".  I agree that under those circumstances then sellers are entitled to the same level of protection, but note that even if a product was illegal to possess and sell, then stealing it is still a crime.

 

 

I usually agree with you but not here. Tobacco is harmful in the same sense that barbecued meat is. That is, it has the potential to harm or kill you if you are exposed to it. That potential is much higher than with burnt meat, but both are carcinogenic. Yet some people smoke throughout their lives and still live to an old age. No doubt their quality of life is less than it would have been if they hadn't smoked, especially as they get older, but it can't be said that their lives have been significantly shortened.

 

If you smoke a single cigarette as a child (as many have), and never touch them again, you are unlikely to sustain any measurable lasting harm, unless you are extremely unlucky with your genes, and in that case background radiation will probably do you in anyway.

 

I am not arguing in favour of tobacco. I am aware of the evidence against it, and that seems to be mounting every day. No-one should ever smoke. But an element of hysteria has crept into the arguments against it. People smoked all the time throughout the first half of the 20th century, and while some of them certainly did drop dead from horrible diseases (Steve McQueen, Yul Brynner, to name a couple of celebrities), many did not. I don't think there is anything inherently immoral about selling the product, unless selling hamburgers and sugary drinks and fried chicken and other unhealthy junk food is also immoral. It is just a matter of degree. As long as the purchasers are adults who are aware of the risks, it is their business what they do to themselves.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


gzt

9808 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1464


  Reply # 1958454 15-Feb-2018 09:48
Send private message

Fred99: Well there is something quite different about tobacco vs the other examples you give - and that is that tobacco doesn't have a material "probability" of injuring the purchaser, but a material "certainty" of injuring the purchaser when used exactly as it's intended to be used.

You ignored the example of alcohol given by the person you responded to. Despite what the alcohol industry would have you believe it is also a harmful product even when consumed in 'moderation'.

6385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3216


  Reply # 1958456 15-Feb-2018 09:49
One person supports this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Fred99:

 

Well there is something quite different about tobacco vs the other examples you give - and that is that tobacco doesn't have a material "probability" of injuring the purchaser, but a material "certainty" of injuring the purchaser when used exactly as it's intended to be used.

 

Selling the product is inherently "immoral" - as opposed to "illegal".  I agree that under those circumstances then sellers are entitled to the same level of protection, but note that even if a product was illegal to possess and sell, then stealing it is still a crime.

 

 

I usually agree with you but not here. Tobacco is harmful in the same sense that barbecued meat is. That is, it has the potential to harm or kill you if you are exposed to it. That potential is much higher than with burnt meat, but both are carcinogenic. Yet some people smoke throughout their lives and still live to an old age. No doubt their quality of life is less than it would have been if they hadn't smoked, especially as they get older, but it can't be said that their lives have been significantly shortened.

 

If you smoke a single cigarette as a child (as many have), and never touch them again, you are unlikely to sustain any measurable lasting harm, unless you are extremely unlucky with your genes, and in that case background radiation will probably do you in anyway.

 

I am not arguing in favour of tobacco. I am aware of the evidence against it, and that seems to be mounting every day. No-one should ever smoke. But an element of hysteria has crept into the arguments against it. People smoked all the time throughout the first half of the 20th century, and while some of them certainly did drop dead from horrible diseases (Steve McQueen, Yul Brynner, to name a couple of celebrities), many did not. I don't think there is anything inherently immoral about selling the product, unless selling hamburgers and sugary drinks and fried chicken and other unhealthy junk food is also immoral. It is just a matter of degree. As long as the purchasers are adults who are aware of the risks, it is their business what they do to themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a very critical difference.  Eating BBQ'd meat is not addictive.  The science also isn't so clear that BBQ'd meat is a huge public health hazard (the epidemiological data does not correlate with claimed risk).  Deliberately monetising the addictive properties of tobacco and developing a delivery method to maximise the potential for an "occasional" user to become a fully addicted high volume user has been what it's all about.  That, combined with probably the most sophisticated marketing the world has ever seen.


6385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3216


  Reply # 1958458 15-Feb-2018 09:54
Send private message

gzt:
Fred99: Well there is something quite different about tobacco vs the other examples you give - and that is that tobacco doesn't have a material "probability" of injuring the purchaser, but a material "certainty" of injuring the purchaser when used exactly as it's intended to be used.

You ignored the example of alcohol given by the person you responded to. Despite what the alcohol industry would have you believe it is also a harmful product even when consumed in 'moderation'.

 

I actually typed a paragraph on that subject - but deleted it before posting, as I'm already probably being seen as "evangelising".

 

One very critical difference is that there's only a possibility that regular low intake of alcohol will lead to full-blown addiction.  There's a near certainty that regular low intake of tobacco will lead to addiction, and that as the negative effects are seldom immediate and acute, the hint that it's time to really give up may come much too late.


4322 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1720


  Reply # 1958460 15-Feb-2018 09:55
One person supports this post
Send private message

Senecio:

 

I believe tobacco companies should do more to protect the Dairy owner. Provide them with a better storage and dispensing system. Similar to a time locked safe that staff aren't able to access beside dispensing single packs from the till. I've seen it overseas.

 

 

This is great a solution.  Avoids the substantial capital investments being required of the diary owner.  Costs could simply be passed on in cigarette price to smokers.  I (non-smoker) don't have any issue with that.  In other industries the costs of safety are generally passed onto customers.





Mike

6385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3216


  Reply # 1958464 15-Feb-2018 10:03
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

gzt: Selling sugary drinks to minors? ; ).

 

Sugary drinks can be consumed safely in moderation. 

 

 

I'm not sure if that's the case in reality.

 

WHO guidelines for safe total intake of sugar for adults is about 12 teaspoons a day, with added health benefit if that can be reduced to 6.

 

One can of soft-drink will easily exceed that daily dose for a child.  Truth is they've probably exceeded that by the time they've had a plate of many "palatable to children" breakfast cereals, let alone all the other high-sugar processed food in a typical diet.

 

It's a problem - and one of those problems that may not be easily addressed by a knee-jerk ban or tax.


1365 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 578


  Reply # 1958467 15-Feb-2018 10:09
2 people support this post
Send private message

Fred99:

 

MikeAqua:

 

gzt: Selling sugary drinks to minors? ; ).

 

Sugary drinks can be consumed safely in moderation. 

 

 

I'm not sure if that's the case in reality.

 

WHO guidelines for safe total intake of sugar for adults is about 12 teaspoons a day, with added health benefit if that can be reduced to 6.

 

One can of soft-drink will easily exceed that daily dose for a child.  Truth is they've probably exceeded that by the time they've had a plate of many "palatable to children" breakfast cereals, let alone all the other high-sugar processed food in a typical diet.

 

It's a problem - and one of those problems that may not be easily addressed by a knee-jerk ban or tax.

 

 

Wait for the sugar tax to be brought in, then watch the dairies being held up and their V fridges emptied...

 

When the coke dealer in the schoolyard is selling illicit brown fizzy drinks...


6385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3216


  Reply # 1958483 15-Feb-2018 10:37
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

If a person standing next to me at a bus stop is smoking I am exposed to second hand smoke (no known safe level of exposure).

 

 

That linear no-threshold model also applies to the radon seeping in to your home from the ground.  I'd put the risk from passive smoking outdoors (as opposed to being stuck in a smoky bar or in a car with a chain smoker and the windows closed) as probably lower than the low risk from radon (in NZ homes anyway) while sitting inside watching TV.


4322 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1720


  Reply # 1958519 15-Feb-2018 11:13
Send private message

Fred99:

 

MikeAqua:

 

gzt: Selling sugary drinks to minors? ; ).

 

Sugary drinks can be consumed safely in moderation. 

 

 

I'm not sure if that's the case in reality.

 

WHO guidelines for safe total intake of sugar for adults is about 12 teaspoons a day, with added health benefit if that can be reduced to 6.

 

One can of soft-drink will easily exceed that daily dose for a child.  Truth is they've probably exceeded that by the time they've had a plate of many "palatable to children" breakfast cereals, let alone all the other high-sugar processed food in a typical diet.

 

It's a problem - and one of those problems that may not be easily addressed by a knee-jerk ban or tax.

 

 

So one per week as part of an otherwise balanced diet would be safe ... daily limits don't have to be adhered to exactly every day. 





Mike

11245 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3579

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1958521 15-Feb-2018 11:17
One person supports this post
Send private message

There is one other aspect to this debate that rarely gets aired.

 

Personal choice and responsibility. 

 

 

 

I am not a smoker, but I am well aware that the human race has been using tobacco for a very, very long time.

 

 

 

Whilst I am of course also well aware of the arguments against it, I do feel the need to poke my head above the parapet and say that adults should be free to make choices. By all means, tax those choices to reflect a greater contribution to the possible healthcare that those choices might result in. By all means prevent those choices from impacting others where feasible. However, it seems to me that if an adult wishes to partake of something in the privacy of their own home, they should be free so to do.

 

We do not, for example, apply an additional tax to rugby players who may need the ACC more than non-rugby players. We do not try and ban it because there is an increased injury risk. We do not charge drunks for the free rides home they get on Police 10-7 or for the additional healthcare and related injury costs that might arise out of their drinking. Just to name a couple of instances where there is a bit of hypocrisy.






4322 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1720


  Reply # 1958525 15-Feb-2018 11:22
Send private message

Fred99:

 

MikeAqua:

 

If a person standing next to me at a bus stop is smoking I am exposed to second hand smoke (no known safe level of exposure).

 

 

That linear no-threshold model also applies to the radon seeping in to your home from the ground.  I'd put the risk from passive smoking outdoors (as opposed to being stuck in a smoky bar or in a car with a chain smoker and the windows closed) as probably lower than the low risk from radon (in NZ homes anyway) while sitting inside watching TV.

 

 

Any radon creeping into my house is a naturally occurring and probably unavoidable.  By contrast smoking is not.

 

But again there are WHO reference levels for radon exposure.  None for cigarette smoke.

 

 





Mike

6385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3216


  Reply # 1958534 15-Feb-2018 11:31
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

Fred99:

 

MikeAqua:

 

gzt: Selling sugary drinks to minors? ; ).

 

Sugary drinks can be consumed safely in moderation. 

 

 

I'm not sure if that's the case in reality.

 

WHO guidelines for safe total intake of sugar for adults is about 12 teaspoons a day, with added health benefit if that can be reduced to 6.

 

One can of soft-drink will easily exceed that daily dose for a child.  Truth is they've probably exceeded that by the time they've had a plate of many "palatable to children" breakfast cereals, let alone all the other high-sugar processed food in a typical diet.

 

It's a problem - and one of those problems that may not be easily addressed by a knee-jerk ban or tax.

 

 

So one per week as part of an otherwise balanced diet would be safe ... daily limits don't have to be adhered to exactly every day. 

 

 

It's possible you could do that, but adhering to a "balanced diet" WRT added sugar intake, let alone total sugars as % (10% max to ideally 5%) of daily caloric intake is very very hard to achieve even if you drink no sugary soft-drinks.  Ideally a "balanced" diet should be easy to obtain and require little effort. 


1 | 2 | 3
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

N4L helping TAKA Trust bridge the digital divide for Lower Hutt students
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:08


Winners Announced for 2018 CIO Awards
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:03


Logitech Rally sets new standard for USB-connected video conference cameras
Posted 18-Jun-2018 09:27


Russell Stanners steps down as Vodafone NZ CEO
Posted 12-Jun-2018 09:13


Intergen recognised as 2018 Microsoft Country Partner of the Year for New Zealand
Posted 12-Jun-2018 08:00


Finalists Announced For Microsoft NZ Partner Awards
Posted 6-Jun-2018 15:12


Vocus Group and Vodafone announce joint venture to accelerate fibre innovation
Posted 5-Jun-2018 10:52


Kogan.com to launch Kogan Mobile in New Zealand
Posted 4-Jun-2018 14:34


Enable doubles fibre broadband speeds for its most popular wholesale service in Christchurch
Posted 2-Jun-2018 20:07


All or Nothing: New Zealand All Blacks arrives on Amazon Prime Video
Posted 2-Jun-2018 16:21


Innovation Grant, High Tech Awards and new USA office for Kiwi tech company SwipedOn
Posted 1-Jun-2018 20:54


Commerce Commission warns Apple for misleading consumers about their rights
Posted 30-May-2018 13:15


IBM leads Call for Code to use cloud, data, AI, blockchain for natural disaster relief
Posted 25-May-2018 14:12


New FUJIFILM X-T100 aims to do better job than smartphones
Posted 24-May-2018 20:17


Stuff takes 100% ownership of Stuff Fibre
Posted 24-May-2018 19:41



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.