New Zealand Bans Cigarette Sales to Everyone Born After 2008(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
New Zealand Bans Cigarette Sales to Everyone Born After 2008
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/14/world/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban.html
32 comments
>"Wow, what an incredible victory for NZ public health."
That's one way of looking at it; another would be to say that it's a significant erosion of liberty effectuated against the young.
Should governments ban all activities which surpass a certain risk threshold? Examples might include drinking alcohol, skiing, mountain climbing, ice climbing, motorcycling, and consumption of unhealthy foods (however you might define them).
That's one way of looking at it; another would be to say that it's a significant erosion of liberty effectuated against the young.
Should governments ban all activities which surpass a certain risk threshold? Examples might include drinking alcohol, skiing, mountain climbing, ice climbing, motorcycling, and consumption of unhealthy foods (however you might define them).
>Should governments ban all activities which surpass a certain risk threshold?
The purpose of regulating personal activities is to mitigate negative externalities to society, not to eliminate personal risk. Thus, whether and how something should be regulated is a function of both how probable it is to cause said externalities, and the overall absolute impact of them.
The negative externalities of skiing or mountain climbing are that others in society have to pay for healthcare costs associated with injuries sustained from these inherently risky activities. However, on an absolute level, skiing/climbing injuries are rare enough that society has decided to eat this minimal cost.
Smoking, on the other extreme, is much more common and has externalities that extend beyond healthcare costs to the smoker [*], e.g. secondhand smoke and litter from cigarette butts. Thus, on an absolute level, its externalities have been deemed unacceptably large by society. But rather than banning smoking outright, there are other ways to mitigate these externalities (bill smokers directly for smoking-related healthcare costs, restrict smoking to areas that minimize secondhand smoke exposure, have draconian fines for littering, etc.)
This argument can also apply to alcohol (e.g. draconian penalties for drunk driving) or unhealthy food (bill healthcare costs associated with obesity directly to the patient) [*].
[*] Yes, I am aware of studies that claim smoking/obesity causes a net decrease of healthcare costs, since most expensive healthcare occurs in old age, which smokers/obese people are less likely to reach. If indeed these studies are true, that should be factored into the actuarial calculus.
The purpose of regulating personal activities is to mitigate negative externalities to society, not to eliminate personal risk. Thus, whether and how something should be regulated is a function of both how probable it is to cause said externalities, and the overall absolute impact of them.
The negative externalities of skiing or mountain climbing are that others in society have to pay for healthcare costs associated with injuries sustained from these inherently risky activities. However, on an absolute level, skiing/climbing injuries are rare enough that society has decided to eat this minimal cost.
Smoking, on the other extreme, is much more common and has externalities that extend beyond healthcare costs to the smoker [*], e.g. secondhand smoke and litter from cigarette butts. Thus, on an absolute level, its externalities have been deemed unacceptably large by society. But rather than banning smoking outright, there are other ways to mitigate these externalities (bill smokers directly for smoking-related healthcare costs, restrict smoking to areas that minimize secondhand smoke exposure, have draconian fines for littering, etc.)
This argument can also apply to alcohol (e.g. draconian penalties for drunk driving) or unhealthy food (bill healthcare costs associated with obesity directly to the patient) [*].
[*] Yes, I am aware of studies that claim smoking/obesity causes a net decrease of healthcare costs, since most expensive healthcare occurs in old age, which smokers/obese people are less likely to reach. If indeed these studies are true, that should be factored into the actuarial calculus.
I think this represents an honest take, but it illustrates why there is such a chasm between the people applauding this kind of thing and those that are horrified.
You must understand that not everybody believes that this is the role of society. Are we living in a free country or a glorified HOA?
A progressive might applaud this - seems very smart, actuarial, fair, etc. And might put down a conservative that keeps harping on intangibles like freedom as being crude or simple minded or worse evil or in concert with evil things (as decided by the progressive) like Big Tobacco. Of course cancer sticks are bad.
But don't assume - it could be that some people see the problem not about tobacco, but have thought about three moves ahead about several ways this can go very, very wrong. This kind of relationship with the government, well meaning at the beginning or not, will end up going only one way.
You must understand that not everybody believes that this is the role of society. Are we living in a free country or a glorified HOA?
A progressive might applaud this - seems very smart, actuarial, fair, etc. And might put down a conservative that keeps harping on intangibles like freedom as being crude or simple minded or worse evil or in concert with evil things (as decided by the progressive) like Big Tobacco. Of course cancer sticks are bad.
But don't assume - it could be that some people see the problem not about tobacco, but have thought about three moves ahead about several ways this can go very, very wrong. This kind of relationship with the government, well meaning at the beginning or not, will end up going only one way.
> some people see the problem not about tobacco, but have thought about three moves ahead about several ways this can go very, very wrong. This kind of relationship with the government, well meaning at the beginning or not, will end up going only one way.
This was my first thought. I hate cigarettes with a passion, but allowing the government to encroach on small freedoms like this is a slippery slope. I think it is better to disincentivize things like cigarettes through taxation.
This was my first thought. I hate cigarettes with a passion, but allowing the government to encroach on small freedoms like this is a slippery slope. I think it is better to disincentivize things like cigarettes through taxation.
to me, the issues come from a couple places:
- who gets to judge what is or is not a social ill? For example cigarettes bad, marijuana good? these are merely the whims of a fickle mob mentality. witch trials and mass paranoia are now canonized
- bureaucratic inertial. governments are big. big and really inefficient. when you put so much of your existence in the hands of a government, you'll then demand so much more from it too. when it gets so big to be ungovernable, even if everyone agrees on what's right to do it becomes impossible. US VA administration and the tar pits of ancient la brea.
- the above two issues presume a vast majority involved are honest brokers. but that historically appears to be not at all the case. with such centralized power, the thirst of the dark personalities is inescapable. so the facade may be painted legitimate, but very quickly the actual power will become very, very dark.
- who gets to judge what is or is not a social ill? For example cigarettes bad, marijuana good? these are merely the whims of a fickle mob mentality. witch trials and mass paranoia are now canonized
- bureaucratic inertial. governments are big. big and really inefficient. when you put so much of your existence in the hands of a government, you'll then demand so much more from it too. when it gets so big to be ungovernable, even if everyone agrees on what's right to do it becomes impossible. US VA administration and the tar pits of ancient la brea.
- the above two issues presume a vast majority involved are honest brokers. but that historically appears to be not at all the case. with such centralized power, the thirst of the dark personalities is inescapable. so the facade may be painted legitimate, but very quickly the actual power will become very, very dark.
Drinking alcohol and motorcycling do have some government mandated controls, including some based upon age.
In addition to alcohol, a great many chemical substances fall under government controls. Particularly where the public health risk is deemed of high cost.
In that context, how is this so significant or different?
In addition to alcohol, a great many chemical substances fall under government controls. Particularly where the public health risk is deemed of high cost.
In that context, how is this so significant or different?
"You can't drink alcohol until you are 21" is a very different law than "You can't ever drink alcohol if you were born after 2001".
I would gladly give up some "liberty" if we could go ahead and cleanse some of the degeneracy from my society. I don't need the "freedom" to smoke.
Also, smoking =/= mountain climbing.
Also, smoking =/= mountain climbing.
What about the freedoms you value that I'd cleanse?
I am aware that smoking isn't the same as mountain climbing, it would have been redundant for me to list the same thing more than once. Each of the activities on the list is distinguishable from the others.
I am aware that smoking isn't the same as mountain climbing, it would have been redundant for me to list the same thing more than once. Each of the activities on the list is distinguishable from the others.
Fools easily give up "liberty".
Well, cigarettes are addictive after a while.
So by starting to smoke you could argue that your liberty is already being taken away from you to an extent and you're instead an unwilling slave to the tobacco industry.
Where is your "liberty" then?
So by starting to smoke you could argue that your liberty is already being taken away from you to an extent and you're instead an unwilling slave to the tobacco industry.
Where is your "liberty" then?
Well, I don't need the freedom to smoke. So, by having that freedom "taken away", what have I lost?
I'll gladly give at least that one thing up to live in a society of healthier people.
I'll gladly give at least that one thing up to live in a society of healthier people.
Degeneracy is a pretty strong word here for what is a relatively minor vice, don't you think?
I personally don't think so. The deleterious nature of smoking is pretty severe and leads to a lot of problems that don't just affect the individual.
Smokers are more likely to contract (and spread) tuberculosis, for example. They are more likely to die early due to one or more expensive diseases that tax the healthcare system. Also, the fact that they smoke influences other people to do so!
So, I would say, yes, cigarettes are degenerate. Society needs to grow out of such vices.
Smokers are more likely to contract (and spread) tuberculosis, for example. They are more likely to die early due to one or more expensive diseases that tax the healthcare system. Also, the fact that they smoke influences other people to do so!
So, I would say, yes, cigarettes are degenerate. Society needs to grow out of such vices.
[deleted]
You'd probably need to frame it in some financial way. For example, allow health insurance companies to deny coverage to smokers, and disallow public health insurance (like Medi-Cal) from insuring smokers. Unfortunately, this would likely be a literal slippery slope back down to allowing health insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
Most, if not all people have moved to vapes, which are not covered by this law. Ie kids can still buy them.
This is only shifting deck chairs on the Titanic, not any meaningful change.
This is only shifting deck chairs on the Titanic, not any meaningful change.
Are vapes as bad for kids as cigarettes?
This will probably be as effective as banning underaged drinking in the US.
The only upside is that NZ is fine with vaping. So they aren't cutting people off from nicotine, they are just banning more harmful forms of it.
The only upside is that NZ is fine with vaping. So they aren't cutting people off from nicotine, they are just banning more harmful forms of it.
"It's so hard to imagine ever implementing reforms like these in the US"
Ever is a long time. Are you familiar with Prohibition?
Ever is a long time. Are you familiar with Prohibition?
Prohibition is the only constitutional amendment to ever be repealed, and was only on the books for 14 years. It's an absolute embarrassment. A lot of people died, as well.
Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster. I really can't come up with a better illustration of why Americans won't go for a wide spread ban on tobacco. Prohibition perfectly illustrates the exact opposite of your argument.
Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster. I really can't come up with a better illustration of why Americans won't go for a wide spread ban on tobacco. Prohibition perfectly illustrates the exact opposite of your argument.
>> Prohibition perfectly illustrates the exact opposite of your argument
What do you think my argument is? For me it is not hard to imagine things ever happening when they already happened.
What do you think my argument is? For me it is not hard to imagine things ever happening when they already happened.
Trying to extrapolate how people would feel about a new law based solely on the existence of a similar law is disingenuous at best. You're ignoring that the law was massively unpopular, was seldom enforced, almost never respected, and it was the only amendment to have been repealed.
Saying that Americans would take a ban on tobacco because they banned alcohol doesn't hold up because alcohol was never actually banned. The law existed, yes, but alcohol was always available to pretty much everyone.
Repealing a constitutional amendment is massively difficult. That should tell you a lot about how Americans felt about it.
I'm saying prohibition is a perfect example of why Americans won't support a total ban on tobacco because it very explicitly and very definitively shows how much they did not support a total ban on alcohol. They hated the ban so much that they had to change the constitution. You can't get any more definitive than that.
Saying that Americans would take a ban on tobacco because they banned alcohol doesn't hold up because alcohol was never actually banned. The law existed, yes, but alcohol was always available to pretty much everyone.
Repealing a constitutional amendment is massively difficult. That should tell you a lot about how Americans felt about it.
I'm saying prohibition is a perfect example of why Americans won't support a total ban on tobacco because it very explicitly and very definitively shows how much they did not support a total ban on alcohol. They hated the ban so much that they had to change the constitution. You can't get any more definitive than that.
>> Repealing a constitutional amendment is massively difficult
But passing one isn't?
Massively unpopular?
Please tell me how a massively unpopular law ever becomes a constitutional amendment. It does not happen.
"Ratification was achieved on January 16, 1919 when Nebraska became the 36th of the 48 states to ratify the amendment. On January 29, acting secretary of state Frank L. Polk certified the ratification. By 1922, 46 states had ratified the amendment.
The following states ratified the amendment:
Mississippi: January 7, 1918
Virginia: January 11, 1918
Kentucky: January 14, 1918
North Dakota: January 25, 1918
South Carolina: January 29, 1918
Maryland: February 13, 1918
Montana: February 19, 1918
Texas: March 4, 1918
Delaware: March 18, 1918
South Dakota: March 20, 1918
Massachusetts: April 2, 1918
Arizona: May 24, 1918
Georgia: June 26, 1918
Louisiana: August 3, 1918
Florida: November 27, 1918
Michigan: January 2, 1919
Ohio: January 7, 1919
Oklahoma: January 7, 1919
Idaho: January 8, 1919
Maine: January 8, 1919
West Virginia: January 9, 1919
California: January 13, 1919
Tennessee: January 13, 1919
Washington: January 13, 1919
Arkansas: January 14, 1919
Illinois: January 14, 1919
Indiana: January 14, 1919
Kansas: January 14, 1919
Alabama: January 15, 1919
Colorado: January 15, 1919
Iowa: January 15, 1919
New Hampshire: January 15, 1919
Oregon: January 15, 1919
North Carolina: January 16, 1919
Utah: January 16, 1919
Nebraska: January 16, 1919
Missouri: January 16, 1919
Wyoming: January 16, 1919
Minnesota: January 17, 1919
Wisconsin: January 17, 1919
New Mexico: January 20, 1919
Nevada: January 21, 1919
New York: January 29, 1919
Vermont: January 29, 1919
Pennsylvania: February 25, 1919
New Jersey: March 9, 1922"
Massively unpopular.
That's your actual argument. Massively unpopular.
But passing one isn't?
Massively unpopular?
Please tell me how a massively unpopular law ever becomes a constitutional amendment. It does not happen.
"Ratification was achieved on January 16, 1919 when Nebraska became the 36th of the 48 states to ratify the amendment. On January 29, acting secretary of state Frank L. Polk certified the ratification. By 1922, 46 states had ratified the amendment.
The following states ratified the amendment:
Mississippi: January 7, 1918
Virginia: January 11, 1918
Kentucky: January 14, 1918
North Dakota: January 25, 1918
South Carolina: January 29, 1918
Maryland: February 13, 1918
Montana: February 19, 1918
Texas: March 4, 1918
Delaware: March 18, 1918
South Dakota: March 20, 1918
Massachusetts: April 2, 1918
Arizona: May 24, 1918
Georgia: June 26, 1918
Louisiana: August 3, 1918
Florida: November 27, 1918
Michigan: January 2, 1919
Ohio: January 7, 1919
Oklahoma: January 7, 1919
Idaho: January 8, 1919
Maine: January 8, 1919
West Virginia: January 9, 1919
California: January 13, 1919
Tennessee: January 13, 1919
Washington: January 13, 1919
Arkansas: January 14, 1919
Illinois: January 14, 1919
Indiana: January 14, 1919
Kansas: January 14, 1919
Alabama: January 15, 1919
Colorado: January 15, 1919
Iowa: January 15, 1919
New Hampshire: January 15, 1919
Oregon: January 15, 1919
North Carolina: January 16, 1919
Utah: January 16, 1919
Nebraska: January 16, 1919
Missouri: January 16, 1919
Wyoming: January 16, 1919
Minnesota: January 17, 1919
Wisconsin: January 17, 1919
New Mexico: January 20, 1919
Nevada: January 21, 1919
New York: January 29, 1919
Vermont: January 29, 1919
Pennsylvania: February 25, 1919
New Jersey: March 9, 1922"
Massively unpopular.
That's your actual argument. Massively unpopular.
You're still hanging your entire argument on the mere existence of the law and ignoring the reality of the situation.
You should read into the history of the law, because the facts disagree with you.
You should read into the history of the law, because the facts disagree with you.
Sooo... section 40A says a person must not sell/deliver a smoked tobacco product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009 and then section 40B says a person must not, in a public place, supply a smoked tobacco product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009. Seems pretty easy to circumvent - giving away for free, bundling with other merchandise, gifting... I don't see anything about prohibiting smoking per se.
The younger crowd prefers vaping, this will just force tobacco companies to push eCigs
It's so hard to imagine ever implementing reforms like these in the US. The political resistance would be insurmountable ("individual freedom," etc). It's a good thing the anti-smoking policies from 1960s proved durable -- they'd be impossible to enact today.