Health experts criticise new NZ government's shock reversal of smoking ban(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Health experts criticise new NZ government's shock reversal of smoking ban
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67540190
33 comments
Classic false economy, short sighted tax cuts now but increased health care costs, death and misery.
Would a compromise be possible? To allow people freedom over their own bodies while not burdening the larger society with their choices? Freedom with consequences?
Perhaps cigarette smokers should be made ineligible for cancer and CVD treatment? This wouldn’t address second hand smoke, of course, but it might be a good start?
Perhaps cigarette smokers should be made ineligible for cancer and CVD treatment? This wouldn’t address second hand smoke, of course, but it might be a good start?
The normal approach is exceptionally high taxes on product that cause economic and social harm to a country but that only goes so far and in my opinion often under estimates the true cost.
[deleted]
Sozialverträgliches Frühableben
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialvertr%C3%A4gliches_Fr%C3...
Sorry, there is no english entry for it. It means to die early in a way compatible to the health-/insurance- and retirement systems, by not 'overstretching' them. As in: Work hard, contribute, but don't profit(too much).
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialvertr%C3%A4gliches_Fr%C3...
Sorry, there is no english entry for it. It means to die early in a way compatible to the health-/insurance- and retirement systems, by not 'overstretching' them. As in: Work hard, contribute, but don't profit(too much).
To fund tax cuts. Wealth transfer from smokers to non-smokers. Except that everyone will deal with the effects on the healthcare system.
I am not at all shocked that someone identifying themselves as a "tobacco control researcher" would take issue with their life's work being pushed back against. This might be my American-ness speaking but I find most kinds of bans like this to be quite distasteful, and the people pushing for them are often distasteful people as well (possibly a case of moral crusader zealotry).
I think it is your American-ness speaking, but as a Brit I’m inclined to agree. I suppose the best arguments for having such bans would relate to the secondhand effects of smoke, etc. Another would be the burden it causes to the national health service (therefore affecting non-smokers too), but the amount of tax being paid probably offsets that anyway.
I have mixed feelings on this, partially from personal experience. In general, I'm against bans and believe primarily in personal responsibility and accountability (this probably betrays my political leanings).
However...
(Sorry, I'm about to rant, and I apologize to anyone who's about to suffer reading through this.)
Having fairly recently watched my father pass (1.5 years ago) from the effects of COPD acquired as a direct result of cigarette smoking, the 8 months in hospice care, his struggle for every single breath, and the personal tribulations this placed upon my mother and I as his caretakers, I can say for certain there is nothing good to be had for anyone from this (and that's before the effects of second-hand smoke). During his life, smoking ruled every habit, every trip, every moment of his life. You literally couldn't go anywhere without having to break somewhere along the line for him to smoke. And it wasn't just COPD: Atherosclerosis, aortic aneurysm, high blood pressure (and the litany of medication to treat it), poor health, poor quality of life, etc.; some from smoking, some from the greatly reduced exercise tolerance resulting from smoking and subsequent sedentary life. But, I also know that banning it will never happen because our governments, too, are addicted—the revenue prospect is too great and too appealing.
I admit I should have no part in this debate because of my personal experiences, and I certainly recognize the influence emotions play as a consequence, but of all things that "should" be banned, tobacco is probably one of them.
I have a friend who's smoked off and on most of his life. He's about my age (early 40s) and is already seeing some of these effects. Addictions are powerful, and there's very little you can do until they decide they're ready to quit. He knows what happened to my dad. He knows it'll happen to him.
However...
(Sorry, I'm about to rant, and I apologize to anyone who's about to suffer reading through this.)
Having fairly recently watched my father pass (1.5 years ago) from the effects of COPD acquired as a direct result of cigarette smoking, the 8 months in hospice care, his struggle for every single breath, and the personal tribulations this placed upon my mother and I as his caretakers, I can say for certain there is nothing good to be had for anyone from this (and that's before the effects of second-hand smoke). During his life, smoking ruled every habit, every trip, every moment of his life. You literally couldn't go anywhere without having to break somewhere along the line for him to smoke. And it wasn't just COPD: Atherosclerosis, aortic aneurysm, high blood pressure (and the litany of medication to treat it), poor health, poor quality of life, etc.; some from smoking, some from the greatly reduced exercise tolerance resulting from smoking and subsequent sedentary life. But, I also know that banning it will never happen because our governments, too, are addicted—the revenue prospect is too great and too appealing.
I admit I should have no part in this debate because of my personal experiences, and I certainly recognize the influence emotions play as a consequence, but of all things that "should" be banned, tobacco is probably one of them.
I have a friend who's smoked off and on most of his life. He's about my age (early 40s) and is already seeing some of these effects. Addictions are powerful, and there's very little you can do until they decide they're ready to quit. He knows what happened to my dad. He knows it'll happen to him.
Nicotine is more addictive than weed [1], and we’ve seen how productive prohibition was with that one.
[1] https://www.uclahealth.org/news/nicotine-e-cigarettes-cannab...
[1] https://www.uclahealth.org/news/nicotine-e-cigarettes-cannab...
> would have banned cigarette sales next year to anyone born after 2008.
Laws discriminating on age should be repelled everywhere.
Laws discriminating on age should be repelled everywhere.
But it’s not arbitrarily discriminating based on age; it’s using age as a (reasonable) proxy for whether or not you might have an existing dependency on nicotine.
Would you consider laws saying ‘drivers who predate the requirement for a licence do not require one’ to be discriminatory?
Would you consider laws saying ‘drivers who predate the requirement for a licence do not require one’ to be discriminatory?
If it was permanent, as this law was intended to be, then yes. I think that when someone born after 2008 hits their country's decided upon age of majority, they should be able to smoke, drink, or take part in any other of societies vices should they so choose.
The problem with smoking in particular is that it costs taxpayers obscene amounts of money compared to the other things you listed, in addition to straining the healthcare system which affects people who didn’t intentionally poison themselves.
Cigarettes are also a public nuisance, littering the streets and affecting other people with smoke. I can’t open the windows in my house due to chain smoking neighbours. These people have a right to smoke, yet I don’t have a right to breathe clean air in my own home - pretty unfair if you ask me.
Cigarettes are also a public nuisance, littering the streets and affecting other people with smoke. I can’t open the windows in my house due to chain smoking neighbours. These people have a right to smoke, yet I don’t have a right to breathe clean air in my own home - pretty unfair if you ask me.
Preach
> Laws discriminating on age should be repelled everywhere.
I'd disagree.
I think its a good thing that countries have minimum driving ages, minimum drinking ages, minimum age of consent for sex and minimum ages where people can vote and enter into contracts.
I'd disagree.
I think its a good thing that countries have minimum driving ages, minimum drinking ages, minimum age of consent for sex and minimum ages where people can vote and enter into contracts.
This was not adding a minimum age to smoking, it was enforcing a permanent ban on people born after 2008 from ever purchasing tobacco products.
> This was not adding a minimum age to smoking, it was enforcing a permanent ban on people born after 2008 from ever purchasing tobacco products.
sure, fully agree with you but that has nothing to do with the comment I was replying to.
sure, fully agree with you but that has nothing to do with the comment I was replying to.
It has everything to do with the comment you replied, you just chose to purposefully ignore the obvious point.
I quoted the comment i replied to.
I was responding to this blanket comment.
> Laws discriminating on age should be repelled everywhere.
I disagree with that and gave various examples as to why I consider that to be a bad idea.
I stand by the comment as do many other people based on the upvotes.
I was responding to this blanket comment.
> Laws discriminating on age should be repelled everywhere.
I disagree with that and gave various examples as to why I consider that to be a bad idea.
I stand by the comment as do many other people based on the upvotes.
You changed the context from rules that apply to people born after a certain year, to rules applied to everyone regardless of year.
I could be born in 2008 or 2007 either way I need to be 16. But I could be born in 2007 and buy smokes.
I could be born in 2008 or 2007 either way I need to be 16. But I could be born in 2007 and buy smokes.
A smoke ban for that age group would be pointless where I live because no one (“”) that young smoke. They use other tobacco products (ones without any second-hand effects).
If anything it might have a backfire effect.
If anything it might have a backfire effect.
The point isn’t to stop that particular age group from smoking; it’s to eliminate cigarettes in the long term (eg 70 years).
What distinction are you making? In 70 years time all the current smokers are going to be dead.
Unless you think that smoking can come into vogue again. Like a cycle.
Unless you think that smoking can come into vogue again. Like a cycle.
It already seems to be somewhat more fashionable than it was, say, ten years ago here in the UK, and in France it still seems like all the young people smoke.
The numbers are way down on thirty years ago, but I don’t think it’s ever going to go to zero on its own. Especially when the image of smoking is so embedded into parts of popular culture that aren’t likely to become less cool over time.
The numbers are way down on thirty years ago, but I don’t think it’s ever going to go to zero on its own. Especially when the image of smoking is so embedded into parts of popular culture that aren’t likely to become less cool over time.
An absolutely ungodly number of people smoke in Europe. I feel like in the us it's sort of become trashy to smoke traditional cigarettes.
You aren’t understanding the law. The idea was to prevent people born after 2008 buying cigarettes.
In 2028, the minimum age to buy cigarettes would be 20.
In 2048, it would be 40.
In 2093 (70 years from now), it would be 85.
So in 70 years, with this law, smokers would basically not exist. It ages people out of smoking. Without the law, the percentage of the population who smoke will remain relatively constant as people who turn 18 start smoking.
In 2028, the minimum age to buy cigarettes would be 20.
In 2048, it would be 40.
In 2093 (70 years from now), it would be 85.
So in 70 years, with this law, smokers would basically not exist. It ages people out of smoking. Without the law, the percentage of the population who smoke will remain relatively constant as people who turn 18 start smoking.
> So in 70 years, with this law, smokers would
... all be criminals.
Prohibiting addictive substances that have a sufficient penetration doesn't eliminate use.
... all be criminals.
Prohibiting addictive substances that have a sufficient penetration doesn't eliminate use.
> You aren’t understanding the law. The idea was to prevent people born after 2008 buying cigarettes.
No, that’s exactly how I understood it... which is categorically different from laws like a minimum voting age.
No, that’s exactly how I understood it... which is categorically different from laws like a minimum voting age.
Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.
The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?
If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.
The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?
If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.
> Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.
Don’t pivot. You claimed that I didn’t understand the law. Then you explained the law to me (thanks, by the way) exactly as I understood it.
> Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.
> The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?
Oh I see: if the law is implemented and there is no backfire effect for 65 years then how could there be a backfire effect! This is like arguing in 1920 that Prohibition won’t backfire since people in 2020 won’t remember what alcohol being legal was like.
> If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.
Oh give me a break! I am not changing my argument! I corrected your “correction” of how I “don’t understand” the law. That was the whole point of my comment.
You can have your “argument victory” for all I care.
Don’t pivot. You claimed that I didn’t understand the law. Then you explained the law to me (thanks, by the way) exactly as I understood it.
> Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.
> The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?
Oh I see: if the law is implemented and there is no backfire effect for 65 years then how could there be a backfire effect! This is like arguing in 1920 that Prohibition won’t backfire since people in 2020 won’t remember what alcohol being legal was like.
> If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.
Oh give me a break! I am not changing my argument! I corrected your “correction” of how I “don’t understand” the law. That was the whole point of my comment.
You can have your “argument victory” for all I care.