When it’s easier for people to litter, they litter more. I don’t care if they want to vape while pretending they’re only gonna do it for one weekend.
Comment on Single-use e-cigarettes contain batteries that last hundreds of cycles despite being discarded
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 11 months agoThere’s absolutely no need for this product. Normal vape is like $20
A single use disposable is like $4 - $10, depending on how many puffs, and some people just want something they can puff on for the weekend and then quit, not something they can use/reuse long term.
Sure it’s not healthy, and it’s environmentally irresponsible with current single use disposables, but there’s definitely a market of “casual smokers” that don’t want to commit to a non-disposable vape.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 11 months ago
ExLisper@linux.community 11 months ago
Really? People smoke for one weekend and then quit? Never ever heard about this. Sure, there are people that smoke sporadically, for example only while partying or something but this is such a minority I doubt anyone would target a product specifically at them. Besides, you can just buy normal vape and buy refills only for one weekend and then ‘quit’. $20 non-disposable vape is no commitment, that’s my point. And people who can’t afford to spend $20 on a vape probably shouldn’t be spending their money on smoking anyway. There’s tons of policies to discourage people from smoking, banning cheap, single use vapes should be one of them.
jasondj@ttrpg.network 11 months ago
There certainly are casual smokers, who might buy a pack of cigarettes on Friday and be done with it by Sunday (usually after giving out several along the way) to repeat the next week.
These people don’t see themselves as addicts, and they for all intents and purposes aren’t, otherwise they’d be jonesing all week and buying a pack on Monday.
Making the leap from “having a finite amount of smoke” to “owning reusable paraphernalia” is a big jump for a casual smoker. And more than likely would enable them to justify smoking during the week.
It’s the same thing as the guy who buys an eight of weed, brings it to the party, smokes a flew blunts, and then doesn’t smoke the whole week. This guy has no need for a glass bong in his house, and he wouldn’t be able to justify its purpose, but its existence would likely mold his occasional use into something more frequent.
ExLisper@linux.community 11 months ago
What you’re describing is such a tiny minority of smokers I really don’t see why we need specific product aimed at them. If they don’t want to own a vape they can just keep smoking cigarettes. It would be better for everyone if they just stopped smoking. Contaminating environment with disposable batteries for their convenience is just insane.
jasondj@ttrpg.network 11 months ago
Well, the flip side is that the disposable vapes do get people on nicotine that would otherwise be casual smokers. On its own that’s a net neutral, but the jump from “buying disposable vape” to “buying a pack of cigarettes” is easier than the jump from “buying a disposable vape” to “buying a refillable and rechargeable system”.
So I guess disposable vapes are a bit of a double-edge sword. I’d rather the occasional/social smoker pick up a disposable vape than a pack of cigarettes. But I also know that most of the major disposable vape brands are owned by the classic big tobacco names. However, at least they are taking the Gillette model, with a rechargeable battery and disposable cartridges. But these are also the ones sold at gas stations. If people don’t have their disposable vape available, I’d think they’d be more likely to purchase cigarettes than a whole new system, and I see that as another negative.