- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
noBut vaping's not for kids
but it doestnt mean it doesnt appeal to them
noBut vaping's not for kids
I'm a smoker but a big fan it should be made illegal just for the sheer hypocrisy of itI know man... could be hundreds of thousands.
The fact is the normal cigarettes are responsible for more illness and deaths than we can ever imagine.
I don't see government lobbying over it..
Nate
I think a big difference is, cigarettes dont come in bubble gum and cotton candy scents, clearly pulling in youths as some sort of 'safe' alternative
we adults KNOW smoking is bad for us
But vaping's not for kids
19+ here as wellYou have to be 18+ to buy Vape stuff over here.
Regarding the recent health scares in the US, maybe they shouldn't be vaping fake &/or THC stuff.
Imagine going in with 200k to buy a new car, and walking out with a rusty volvo from early 80s.
Nono.Or... go in with 200k... you get four tyres on the car ... BUT you can gamble your ENTIRE purchase for a spare tyre.. if you lose.. tough luck.
If you win... the chance is it may even be a second hand used tyre.
Nate
E-cigs will be next, God knows the Tobacco industry has tried to demonize it for years, looks like they got their wish
Even Trump's chiming in (but when isn't he to be fair)
I suppose our ninny nanny state will ration chocolate per head soon, along with oxygen & sex
I didn't question what people may or may not do. I asked if your opinion was evidence based which I assume from your reply it is not and, therefore, conjecture. I'm also not saying I disagree but wondered if as someone who worked in the industry you knew something I did not.I think you are extremely naive if you think that people wont do whatever they can to gamble illegally if they can't do it legally
yes, but all the deaths have been linked to bootleg liquid. Banning vaping because people died using a fake product would be like banning drinking because someone bought some moonshine and died after drinking it.19+ here as well
we all drank under legal age so we know how easy that is to bypass
Well I use vaping as an example because it's relatable to me, and how the Government already over-regulated the e-cig industry over here because 'Think of the children'I think that what he means is how the industry was trending towards fairy tale slots as an example... it is a marketing ploy. How else do you expand your 'audience' ?
If your prediction that more regulation leads to criminal activity then the criminal activity needs to be addressed as per the law of the land. It's a separate issue vs online gambling regulation in my view.
That ship sailed a long time ago, it's less 'ration' and more 'famine'Your partner is keen on the rationing sex bit. Is once a year too much
I'll give you a clue: it's not the second oneI'm curious if the UKGC would sanction a move to reduce the maximum bet online.
What would the implications be for them and their tax revenue?
Surely this would be factored in?... Or don't they care about tax revenue and -- are they genuinely acting in the interest of the population at large?
Nate
I'll give you a clue: it's not the second one
All these non-gamblers in their UKGC committees have to at least pretend they're doing something positive
I love my smokes, they should cheapen them not ban them. Ban ecigs however, they are just annoying and those whom smoke them are like the vegans of the smoke worldE-cigs will be next, God knows the Tobacco industry has tried to demonize it for years, looks like they got their wish
Even Trump's chiming in (but when isn't he to be fair)
I suppose our ninny nanny state will ration chocolate per head soon, along with oxygen & sex
And you heathens of the old smoking world should be carted off back to The Dark AgeI love my smokes, they should cheapen them not ban them. Ban ecigs however, they are just annoying and those whom smoke them are like the vegans of the smoke world
All tax revenue is set by the treasury and goes to the treasury. The UKGC is tasked with regulating the market and enforcing compliance. The department of culture are actually responsible for dictating max stakes, prizes etc.I'm curious if the UKGC would sanction a move to reduce the maximum bet online.
What would the implications be for them and their tax revenue?
Surely this would be factored in?... Or don't they care about tax revenue and -- are they genuinely acting in the interest of the population at large?
Nate
Heathens haha always gets a smile mateAnd you heathens of the old smoking world should be carted off back to The Dark Age
Because prohibition has historically worked brilliantlyI didn't question what people may or may not do. I asked if your opinion was evidence based which I assume from your reply it is not and, therefore, conjecture. I'm also not saying I disagree but wondered if as someone who worked in the industry you knew something I did not.
But to suggest that regulation will lead to an increase in criminal activity so is a reason not to do it is absurd. My point is if regulation does lead to a boom in criminal activity then then it is the criminal activity which should be addressed.
I've actually spoken to the UKGC on this very point and they informed me their preferred option is to go after the payment providers who are facilitating these offshore casinos.
There are many countries around the world who have implemented similar controls and been quite effective. The old saying is always true - follow the money.
I'm curious if the UKGC would sanction a move to reduce the maximum bet online.
What would the implications be for them and their tax revenue?
Surely this would be factored in?... Or don't they care about tax revenue and -- are they genuinely acting in the interest of the population at large?
Nate