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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    110 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      110 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        110 months ago

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

        • RaivoKulli
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            10 months 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.

            • RaivoKulli
              link
              fedilink
              English
              110 months ago

              It seems strange to me to even consider the two as ways of combating litter

              • TWeaK
                link
                fedilink
                English
                110 months ago

                Well, cannisters are the only real problem here. All the expert advise said the drug was a non-issue, however there are certainly a lot of cannisters being left all over the place, creating a visible problem. Criminalising it probably won’t do anything about the visible problem, it will just incur costs and make otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

                • RaivoKulli
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  110 months ago

                  I was just saying that the deposit systems aren’t as simple as one might initially think.

                  I’ve done laughing gas and while it was fun I don’t really care whether it’s legal or not. It seems like a very minor thing.

                • MidgePhoto
                  link
                  fedilink
                  010 months ago

                  @TWeaK @RaivoKulli B12 consumption causing spinal cord degeneration is an issue.
                  Also N2O is a greenhouse gas, and supports combustion more effectively than pure oxygen, not very bad in small quantities and controlle,d spaces.

                  • TWeaK
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    110 months ago

                    Yes, there are problems with long term or excessive use, I shouldn’t have said it was a non-issue.

      • MidgePhoto
        link
        fedilink
        010 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            010 months 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.

            • RaivoKulli
              link
              fedilink
              English
              110 months ago

              I don’t think you get what I mean. Customer buys from store A and pays them the deposit and returns them to store B who gives the customer the deposit amount. Store A doesn’t care, they got the deposit, didn’t have to return it to the customer. Store B had to give the deposit amount to customer even though they didn’t get the original deposit amount. See how it might be a nuisance to store B? That’s why you need some organization for the system.

            • RaivoKulli
              link
              fedilink
              English
              110 months ago

              Might want to give it some thought what it took to actually run it. I grew up with bottle and can deposit system but it would be a disservice to not recognize what it took to get it running and what it takes to run it now.