Can We Ban Chewing and Bubble Gum?

Herbse on 14/12/2021 - 14:27

It's pretty obvious many people cannot be trusted to be responsible with it.

You just have to look at any pathway and you'll see black spots where selfish, simpletons decided it's easier to spit out their gum rather than walk 10 steps to a bin.

We've all had shoes ruined forever by someone's laziness or had our car or home carpets ruined.

It can cost one council $200,000 a year to clean up gum mess. And we have over 500 councils in Australia.

Singapore has had gum banned for decades and they don't complain about not being able to pay for a piece of plastic with flavour that lasts 30 seconds.

Maybe we can have a discussion about whether we need gum in our lives or if we're better off without it?

Food & Grocery Chewing Gum

Comments

  • brendanm on 14/12/2021 - 14:29
    +80

    Should ban drinks in cans and bottles as well, as some people don't put them in the bin. Also cigarettes, chip packets, plastic things sandwiches come in, etc etc etc

    • djones145 on 14/12/2021 - 14:30
      +88

      get real br0
      we need to think differently
      ban the cause….

      BAN PEOPLE!

      • capslock janitor on 17/12/2021 - 14:16

        go to sangapor

      • Kangal on 17/12/2021 - 17:00

        Dr Jones is correct, let's cancel humans

      • brendanm on 14/12/2021 - 14:34
        +67

        I don't think coke or hot chips are necessary foods.

        • try2bhelpful on 14/12/2021 - 14:36
          +28

          Let alone cigarettes.

          • zestorer on 16/12/2021 - 14:28
            -1

            @try2bhelpful: tax revenue? (i know, offset by more hospitalisations)

            • try2bhelpful on 16/12/2021 - 14:46
              +1

              @zestorer: It is a dance of revenue lost due to premature deaths vs hospital costs vs not lingering so long etc. The thing to keep in mind is if they were trying to get this product approved,nowdays,it would never get a sniff in.

          • brendanm on 14/12/2021 - 14:52
            +23

            @Herbse: It's a struggle to call coke food. Some sort of acidic conglomeration of various substances. Food can come without packets.

            • MS Paint on 14/12/2021 - 15:14
              +18

              @brendanm: To clarify we are talking about coca cola?

              • Guybrush57 on 14/12/2021 - 16:09

                @MS Paint: Try the Coke No Zero

              • brendanm on 14/12/2021 - 17:28
                +6

                @MS Paint: Either really. One comes in a can, one comes in zip lock bags. On one hand, the can is easier to recycle, however the one in the bag is probably not as harmful to your health.

              • RiseAndRuin on 14/12/2021 - 18:23
                +2

                @MS Paint: To each their own coke I guess…

          • eug on 14/12/2021 - 15:12
            +5

            @Herbse:

            It's a food. And food is necessary.

            Coke doesn't provide any benefit to the consumer other than flavour.

            • juki on 16/12/2021 - 00:41
              +1

              @eug: i find it helps if you have an upset stomach or ate some pretty bad food thats travelling too fast

              • love2buy on 16/12/2021 - 14:58

                @juki: I agree. It somehow helps me digest better.

          • Quantumcat on 14/12/2021 - 15:23
            +5

            @Herbse: Diet coke or coke zero impart no energy or nutrition to their imbibers. So not food.

          • Butt Scratcher on 16/12/2021 - 12:04

            @Herbse:

            It's a food. And food is necessary.

            You do realise chewing gum is considered a food and is regulated as such. Nice contradiction bud.

            Are you gunna ask us to ban dogs too because there are irresponsible owners that let their dogs shit all over the place.

        • Dreamcast on 16/12/2021 - 10:34
          +3

          You take that back! Hot chips = life.

      • GrueHunter on 14/12/2021 - 19:13
        +15

        "There is now very good evidence that [certain] sugar-free gum has positive benefits on dental health, above and beyond other measures such as using fluoride toothpaste and fluoridated water," (Laurence Walsh from the University of Queensland School of Dentistry) says…Chewing the right sugar-free gum can also help those at high risk of tooth decay, such as teenagers, whose diet is often not as good as it should be. People who drink a lot of soft drinks or sports drinks and those whose saliva production is affected by medication, exercise or lifestyle would also benefit.

        I trust this expert advice will make you change your mind, you being a rational person who cares about evidence and who adjusts their opinions when faced with new evidence.

        • Haliax on 15/12/2021 - 21:23
          +1

          That study is probably talking about Xylitol, a sugar noted for inhibiting the growth of bacteria that cause tooth decay.

          Unfortunately, the sugar is also known for its laxative effect at 50g* and causing hy-poglycemia in pets at a dose of 100 mg/kg .

          Besides, media sources will often report a
          potential correlation a correlation, hence it is best not to appeal to an authority when the methodology of study isn't know. Hell, the study could be based on nothing more than a P Value, which frequently happens.

          *Depends on the source of the Xylitol.

          That stated I don't think banning gum is a good idea, just increase the penalties for littering.

          • banana365 on 15/12/2021 - 22:43

            @Haliax: There is also gum containing Recaldent. It's an Australian invention/discovery that actually helps rebuild damaged enamel. I've used it for the last five years or so and have had almost no issues with my teeth since then. Previously I'd had major sensitivity problems.

          • GrueHunter on 15/12/2021 - 22:54
            +1

            @Haliax: What study? Did you even click the link?

            It doesn't talk about xylitol at all - just saliva, and a longer-term increase in ongoing saliva production.

            • Haliax on 16/12/2021 - 00:50

              @GrueHunter: *

              Sorry, my mistake the article is actually talking about gum with CPP-ACP, that's neat. However, I believe this is more anecdotal evidence than a scientific consensus, so it shouldn't be used as evidence.

        • juki on 16/12/2021 - 00:44

          i remember some doctor/dentists coming to our school to tell us it was bad for dentition or salivary glands (granted this goes back many many years and i wasnt too interested )

          it doesnt seem like gum is good in the article you linked, more like the lesser of two evils for people with already bad habits

      • kaleidoscope on 15/12/2021 - 23:33

        Looks like the only thing getting banned through hard negs is OP’s strong opinion. 🤯

    • cameldownunder on 14/12/2021 - 15:07
      +3

      50 cents deposit on each bottle, No exclusion.

      Also cigarettes

      Those bloody cigarette butts. Additional Tax Levy or whatever to subsidize the road cleanup. But then you have people emptying their ashtrays in the parking lots :-(

      • Peck on 15/12/2021 - 10:57
        +7

        It amazes me that a lot of smokers think that it is ok to throw a cigarette butt. Even some who would never normally throw litter.

        • tebbybabes on 16/12/2021 - 00:27

          Many years ago, I was a smoker of many years. Yep, I'm one of them that did think that cigarette butts would just degrade, kinda like ashes in a campfire. I figured it was just cellulose fibre. How wrong I was.

        • Bren20 on 16/12/2021 - 14:48

          a friend justified it that they decompose within 12 months

          That somewhat made me more okay with it, until I saw a bird trying to eat one

    • EightImmortals on 14/12/2021 - 15:36
      +5

      And wet-wipes. That cost councils millions to drag bog-monsters out of the sewerage system each year.

      • try2bhelpful on 14/12/2021 - 15:40
        +2

        Fat Bergs.

        A combination of wet wipes, fat, grease etc poured down the sewers.

        Read on if you dare

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatberg

      • Bren20 on 16/12/2021 - 14:48
        +2

        might be being pedantic, but council don't generally run sewerage systems

        • EightImmortals on 16/12/2021 - 15:11
          +1

          Then what was my mate the plumber who works for the council talking about?

    • abuch47 on 15/12/2021 - 21:53

      sounds lovely

  • LordSydney on 14/12/2021 - 14:29
    +24

    The world would definitely be a better place without it. While we're at it, can we ban smoking too?

    • Herbse on 14/12/2021 - 14:33
      -3

      We're slowly getting there. With the increased prices through taxes, no advertising, plain packages and overall unappeal to them.
      It's rare to know or see someone smoking compared to 10 years ago.

      • try2bhelpful on 14/12/2021 - 14:41
        +15

        Your lips to God’s ears. Having lost both parents to smoking related diseases I don’t wish that on anyone. They had to drain fluid out of my mother’s chest cavity to allow her to breath. My mother had a huge personality but, in the end, she shrunk to one chair in the corner and each breath was an effort. From the time we knew she was sick, to her dying, was 6 weeks. In all honesty, given how bad she was, this was a blessing.

        • Oofy Doofy on 16/12/2021 - 13:33
          +1

          Your mother accepted the future consequences for a shortened life and/or some suffering before she passed away. My aunt was the same, my grandparents too. In saying that my grandparents lived to be 60ish (Gramps didn't want to have a heart bypass, chose to keel over at random instead) and 74. My grandmother was so addicted to smoking, since pre ww2, that she even used to smoke in the shower. Even when she was pale as a ghost, needed a heart operation (didnt care to have one) and couldn't walk much anymore, she still smoked.

          I don't see any issue with smoking if people accept the consequences. Everybody is going to wear out at some point.

          • try2bhelpful on 16/12/2021 - 14:50

            @Oofy Doofy: My parents smoked in the car when my brother was a severe asthmatic. The problem is smokers, particularly of that era, didn’t take into account what is happening around them. However, I think if mum, really, thought she would end up the way she did she, probably, wouldn’t have smoked. They don’t think it will happen to them.

            • Oofy Doofy on 16/12/2021 - 17:07

              @try2bhelpful: I get what you're saying. My parents moved back to QLD because I had such severe asthma as a child. My father still smoked in the car, my mother was always saying he was being really dismissive of my illness. In the end he kept doing it, but just wound down the windows and smoked less often in the car.

              In terms of cancer or copd etc, I think they know very well what could happen, but its years and years away in their mind. Kicking the can down the road

    • jv on 14/12/2021 - 15:27
      +11

      While we're at it, can we ban smoking too?

      NZ have started…

      • juki on 16/12/2021 - 00:48
        +2

        good on them, for once

        • Scantu on 16/12/2021 - 10:47
          -1

          Negative - it's lame and discriminatory. If it was real they would ban it for everyone. They are banning it for younger people only because they know they can politically get away with it.

          • ccarnage on 17/12/2021 - 08:41
            +2

            @Scantu: I sort of agree, but at the same time I think that it’s the only way they could do it. Read the anecdotes on just this post alone and you’ll see people who‘d they’d rather die than give it up, so you can’t reasonably hope to wean them off it (combination of chemical addiction but also obstinance). This was the only way to really do it, prevent people who aren’t addicted from ever getting into it.

            • try2bhelpful on 17/12/2021 - 08:54
              +1

              @ccarnage: Agree. The stats tend to show if people don’t get hooked when they are young there is a lot less chance they will start when they are older. However, not getting kids addicted to a habit that makes them reek, affects their health and costs them thousands of dollars is, politically, astute as well. Win/win.

              • Scantu on 17/12/2021 - 19:06

                @try2bhelpful: I'm not against stopping young people smoking - I'm sure the results are profound. I'm against discriminating against any group just because it is politically expedient.

                • try2bhelpful on 18/12/2021 - 08:33

                  @Scantu: We discriminate against people based on age all the time. We don’t let five year olds vote. I’ve got an over 60 seniors card. You can’t buy alcohol until you are over 18. In the teenage years there is still a lot of maturity of decision making that needs to occur. On just about any scale you can mention stopping people getting addicted to smoking is a great idea. Age discrimination is all around you, and for far less justifiable reasons than to try to avoid young people being saddled with an expensive, antisocial, unhealthy habit. Every time smoking is restricted the “discrimination” flag is raised but the real discrimination is other people’s spaces being invaded by cigarette smoke. Every smoking restriction has been fought tooth and nail and every change has been a great improvement. Even smokers prefer smoke free environments most of the time.Pick a battle that is worthy of your time; this isn’t it.

                  • AwesomeAndrew on 18/12/2021 - 15:10

                    @try2bhelpful: These are different. 5 year olds won't be allowed to vote as long as they are 5 years old, but once they turn 18 then they can vote. But the smoking ban means that the younger generation will never be able to smoke. Although I agree that smoking is bad, I don't think that this sort of discrimination should be allowed.

                    • try2bhelpful on 19/12/2021 - 09:20

                      @AwesomeAndrew: The concept is, eventually, it is illegal for everyone so the age discrimination goes away. This is a case where age discrimination works for the person rather than against them. However, we can agree to disagree on this one.

            • Scantu on 17/12/2021 - 19:04
              -1

              @ccarnage: Definitely, I'm not saying it isn't effective. It's just discriminatory. In a democracy you shouldn't go "Nah, doing it properly is too hard so we're just going to force people, forget principles for a minute".

              Well, yeah its hard. Tallying votes is hard. Convicting someone criminally is hard. Doesn't mean we don't do it the right way.

          • Lockieasy on 18/12/2021 - 04:19

            @Scantu: Well, also in a democracy you vote for a government to make decisions for the benefit of society as a whole.

            Banning smoking for young people is the only way to weed out the habit as they're unlikely to already be addicted. Whereas banning it completely would go about as well as Prohibition did in the 1920's as it would be stupidly difficult to even enforce.

            • Scantu on 18/12/2021 - 19:18

              @Lockieasy: You are under a false impression of how democratic societies work, as most people are unfortunately. You don't just get to make any law you vote for.

              Banning smoking for young people is the only way

              And statements like this are the reason. That is not backed up scientifically. That is your opinion. And the NZ government is going around implementing someone's opinion, when different solutions exist, in a discriminatory way. I have a strong feeling that RoL countries are literally a bubble unfortunately as most think like you do.

              • try2bhelpful on 19/12/2021 - 09:27

                @Scantu: This is how democratic societies work. There are lots of dangerous good we don’t let in the country and, given the death rate from smoking, these would fall under this category if they tried to introduce them now days.

                I gre up when smoking, everywhere, was considered normal. Not only was it dangerous to people around them but everyone’s hair, and clothes, reeked of cigarette smoke. Imagine being in a 10 hour flight with smokers? I’ve done it.

                Every time smoking is restricted the “sky will fall”. Funny enough it doesn’t. We restrict a lot of things we find dangerous like guns. Cigarette smoking in this country has killed a lot more people than guns.

                • Scantu on 19/12/2021 - 12:42

                  @try2bhelpful:

                  This is how democratic societies work

                  It actually genuinely isn't. What I will give you - it is unfortunately what most people who aren't educated about democratic societies think it works though.

                  All the rest of your reply is irrelevant. "I sat on a plane with smoke" is not a reason to allow undemocratic discrimination. We also have a poor human rights record, we trample free speech, we do not afford people due process, all because it "makes things easy".

                  A little reality check for you - just because a country like Australia does it, does not make it the right thing to do, or the democratic thing to do. Your lack of understanding that doesn't make it any better.

                  • try2bhelpful on 22/12/2021 - 23:41

                    @Scantu: Honestly. It is hie democratic societies do things. You may not like it but it does. It is a shame that people don’t understand how they truly, work but I can’t help that.

          • Eeples on 22/12/2021 - 17:52
            -1

            @Scantu: This is good discrimination.

            • Scantu on 22/12/2021 - 21:10

              @Eeples: Sorry there isn't such a thing. It's astounding how many people are confused about foundational democratic values. Some things we just don't do - even if they have a net positive effect.

              • Eeples on 22/12/2021 - 21:52

                @Scantu: Indeed it is astounding how confused some people are regarding types of discrimination.

                Next you will be telling me that not allowing under 18s to buy alcohol is ‘discrimination’ and bad too. Nope, it’s another example of good discrimination.

                • Scantu on 23/12/2021 - 00:20

                  @Eeples: We wait until people have capacity to be able to make choices - then that's it.

                  The only barrier is cognitive development.

                  If you want this to be specific now - these laws will discriminate two fully grown, fully-capable adults against each other purely due to age - it's morally reprehensible.

                  If you do not see why that is different to the 18 thing then you are beyond helping.

                  • Eeples on 23/12/2021 - 01:22

                    @Scantu: If what you say is truely morally reprehensible (which I disagree with because of the obvious greater good) you have 5 years to overturn this measure.

                    Good luck.

                    PS. there are of course many age discriminatory mechanisms in our society. The old aged pension for one.

                    • Scantu on 23/12/2021 - 11:30

                      @Eeples: It is morally reprehensible - both in the actual effect of the law, and the incredibly disrespectful way that the government of NZ has chosen to exclude young people from the Rule of Law.

                      Once again, the "greater good" is an absolutely terrible justification for anything. Like - really bad. You can look into history for why.

                      I'm sorry but you do not have a good understanding of when it's appropriate to make these kinds of laws - age of capacity and the old age pension are terrible examples. I know it may feel like a good example to you but they aren't. Giving someone the old age pension isn't taking someone's capacity to make decisions away.

                      • try2bhelpful on 23/12/2021 - 16:46

                        @Scantu: What is "morally reprehensible" is not trying to, effectively, address an issue that leads to life long addiction and death. The fact that this product is not banned, world wide, is morally reprehensible. The greater good is why we have banned things like asbestos. They might be useful, in some processes, but they do more damage than good. Every year we stop hundreds of products being imported into Australia because they don't meet Australian standards. For the "greater good" we have decided to takeaway someone's capacity to make a decision on buying, and using, them. The difference here is, rather than outright banning cigarettes, a decision has been made to gradually remove the harm by trying to ensure people don't get addicted in the first place. Let's hope the next step is a, concerted, attempt to get people to give up cigarettes in the "eligible" age group. Wouldn't it be fantastic to have a society where cigarette smoking no longer occurs. The biggest impediment is big business, and trade, pushing tobacco on countries that don't want it.

                        • Scantu on 23/12/2021 - 21:23

                          @try2bhelpful: I'm sorry mate I know you tried and that's a big paragraph but it just isn't relevant.

                          banned things like asbestos

                          Not based on the age of the person using it, we didn't.

                          this product is not banned, world wide, is morally reprehensible

                          Sure - may be we could find common ground on that. The key part being for everyone at the same time.

                          stop hundreds of products being imported into Australia because they don't meet Australian standards

                          Those standards apply regardless of age :)

                          I am completely against doing something to a group of adults because of an intrinsic quality about them they can't help. Just because that makes it harder to do - doesn't make it right to discriminate.

                          • try2bhelpful on 23/12/2021 - 22:35

                            @Scantu: So you don’t like our greater good and you reject our age options.

                            In the past things have been phased according to ages. Deals have been grandfathered so the apply to some people and not others.

                            If it was banned for all people then people of a certain age would never get a chance to experience it anyway. Frankly I think the whole point of your argument is a tad spurious.

                            At certain times things change as it ever has done.

                            • Scantu on 24/12/2021 - 00:52

                              @try2bhelpful: Sorry once again you miss the mark and demonstrate you fundamentally don't understand the problem:

                              Deals have been grandfathered

                              Yep - lets take CGT for example. CGT free on assets grandfathered in. Guess what age you have to be for that one - it doesn't matter. You can be any age. Grandfathering is totally, unequivocally different. I understand that they may "feel" the same to you but when you fundamentally break down what it is - it isn't the same thing.

                              If it was banned for all people then people of a certain age would never get a chance to experience it anyway.

                              This is precisely a dictatorship mentality. It surprises me constantly that we actually managed to evolve into a democracy. The mentality of "If I can prohibit you experiencing it, you won't ask for it" is very, very, very dangerous. Once again - look to history for why.

                              Frankly I think the whole point of your argument is a tad spurious.

                              Now this I do actually find offensive. I can understand you are confronted that I won't just say "nah screw em I know what's best for them", but that just is not how you do things in a democratic society. I find your inability to comprehend this concept to be lazy, boring, and missing the point intentionally.

                              At certain times things change as it ever has done.

                              This is not english.

    • RiseAndRuin on 14/12/2021 - 18:24
      +4

      Those are just symptoms, we need to address the root cause. Ban humans.

    • Inzo on 15/12/2021 - 19:18
      +7

      i dont know how people afford to smoke these days.

      I quit 10 years ago, when i was buying a carton a week at roughly $90 a carton.

      I looked up what that same carton would cost me these days - between $350 and $399… a week

      Cheaper to develop a coke habbit……. ok maybe not, but nearly.

      • LordSydney on 15/12/2021 - 23:21

        Sounds like the Tobacco Tax is working then.

        The World Bank Group’s Global Tobacco Control Program assists countries in designing tobacco tax policy reforms and increasing tobacco tax rates as a win-win-win policy measure to: (i) achieve public health goals by hiking prices, reducing smoking, and preventing initiation among youth, (ii) raise domestic resources for investments that benefit the entire population, and (iii) enhance equity by reducing health risks associated with tobacco-attributable diseases and the risk impoverishment due to high out-of-pocket expenditures among the lowest income population groups, who tend to be more responsive in reducing consumption when facing higher tobacco prices. In addition, it supports countries in addressing illicit tobacco trade by strengthening customs systems.

      • trapper on 16/12/2021 - 17:23

        Couldn't you just buy online? have some rando from the Ukraine post you a pack a day.

        Less than $1 a pack so who cares if half of them don't make it.

        • try2bhelpful on 18/12/2021 - 08:35

          And wondering what is in the packets that do. Asbestos filters anyone?

          • trapper on 19/12/2021 - 01:08

            @try2bhelpful: The same international brands we can buy here, they have there.

            They are not fakes with asbestos filters.

            • try2bhelpful on 19/12/2021 - 09:16
              -1

              @trapper: If you are importing them after market I wouldn’t be guaranteeing that.

  • Benoffie on 14/12/2021 - 14:38
    +13

    Try being a teacher where chewing gum is back as a fad and schools don't allow you to make students scrub the stuff off. Gets in the carpet, under chair backs, everywhere 🤢

  • rektrading on 14/12/2021 - 14:55
    +15

    Singapore isn't a role model the world should follow.

    In October 2014, the Supreme Court of Singapore upheld the government’s ban on homosexuality, effectively ruling that gay men must stay ‘in-the-closet’ or face a two year prison term. These laws were designed to defend what Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong described as traditional Singaporean family values.

    .

    Attention all graffiti artists! Popping open a bottle of spray paint to express your creativity in Singapore is a big no-no and will not be tolerated – in fact, if caught, you will be caned. Caning is a form of corporal punishment where the convicted person is whipped on the bare skin with a cane comprised of rattan.

    .

    According to the Central Narcotics Bureau, cannabis is a class A drug listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act. Possession or consumption of cannabis penalties can sentence criminals to prison for up to 10 years or fined of $20,000 and in some cases, both.

    .

    The Singapore Government’s regulations for nudity are surprising. “Any person who appears nude in a public place; or in a private place and is exposed to public view, shall be guilty of an offence.” These “nudists” are even fined if a neighbour catches a glimpse of slight nudity and makes a complaint. So if you feel like roaming around in your hotel room in the nude, keep in mind fines run up to $2,000 and prison sentences for up to three months, or both.

    .

    Singapore Statutes Online states chewing gum penalty fines for first-time convictions may range up to $100,000, a prison sentence of up to two years, or both. Plus, penalties rise with each subsequent conviction.

    Joffery would be proud

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join