There will be exemptions for legitimate uses of nitrous oxide, for example in medical or catering industries. The gas is commonly used as a painkiller and for producing whipped cream in cooking.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So why not make it legitimate with a deposit scheme?

    • Blake [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And even better, also legalise drugs like weed which these are being used as a legal substitute for?

        • can@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Neither is alcohol. But with freer access to cannabis in Canada fewer are drinking as much.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Absolutely, although I wouldn’t say NOS is substituted for weed all that much. Also, the legal limit for weed and driving should be raised, particularly since the government asked the scientific community where the level of impairment was and then set it lower.

        • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m in favour of legalising drugs, but driving is dangerous and should only be done when you are sober and able to give your full attention.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Absolutely, however if the level of intoxication is below the level of impairment, then the drug is not having a negative effect on driving.

          • Tropic420@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            We have this discussion currently about Weed in Germany. Its so annoying to See articles with headlines Like “cannabis behind the wheel” etc. Noone ist advocating for people to Drive under the influence. But If i smoked a Joint on friday and get stopped on monday, i’ll lose my drivers license even though im sober. Drugs stay in your system way longer than the actual effect.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s in no way unfeasible - and the deposits end up paying for the ongoing operation of the system.

        Which is better, addressing the littering problem directly, or criminalising and litigating against a bunch of people with a law that can’t be enforced if they have a can of cream on them?

        • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The deposit is just a deposit, it doesn’t pay for anything. Are you sure you understand how the deposit in this case works? You pay for something and you get that back when you return the item.

          Maybe you should look into something like the Finnish bottle deposit scheme. It’s great but those take quite some time and effort to set up and get running properly.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not everyone returns and collects the deposit back, these deposits end up funding the operations.

            If the Finnish scheme is anything like the German scheme, that’s what I was thinking of. Although it doesn’t need to be quite so widespread with machines inside every supermarket.

            • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They’ll have to wait with just taking the deposit money since for quite a long time you wouldn’t know if they’re returning it or not. And if it’s anything like other systems, you can return it to different place than the one you paid for, which requires moving money around and whatnot. And there’s the issue of getting them from the stores to be recycled and overall upkeep and governance of the system and so on.

              The systems are a lot more complex than one might think at first.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I didn’t say it was simple, but it’s straightforward and very far from unfeasible.

                • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It sure is a thing that can be done, it’s just a lot of effort and possibly cost for what it might achieve

                  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    But there are tons of costs with criminalisation, too. The cost of police time, the cost of court time, the cost of prison, the loss of production from otherwise good citizens being made into criminals. Which is the better use of public resources? Which would be more effective at actually preventing cannisters from being left around everywhere?

                    Edit: If anything, making it illegal could lead to more litter. People aren’t going to hang on to their empties if they could be used as evidence of a crime.

              • MidgePhoto@photog.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                @RaivoKulli @TWeaK if someone hands you 10 cans, they’ve handed you 10 cans. How don’t you know?
                They don’t need tracking.

                (If a store hands you 100kg of cans, they’ve handed you 100kg. Audit would need you to weigh them and know their name, but little else.)

                • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m sure shops will be happy to pay out of pocket for cans not purchased from them. You’d need some form of balancing in the system.

                  Like I said, seems very simple if you don’t really think about it.

                  • MidgePhoto@photog.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    @RaivoKulli Why wouldn’t they be? If they sell a thousand cans they’ve paid a thousand deposits.
                    If they return a thousand cans they get back their thousand deposits.

                    The cans, as with R White’s lemonade bottles once upon a time, are fungible.

                    They’ll need a tin of pennies.