• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New Zealand to phase out smoking

The Don

Penultimate Amazing
The Don
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
39,885
Location
Sir Fynwy
I find these measures, aimed at stopping people from starting smoking, to be very interesting indeed.

Anyone born after 2008 will not be able to buy cigarettes or tobacco products in their lifetime, under a law expected to be enacted next year.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-59589775

New Zealand is determined to achieve a national goal of reducing its national smoking rate to 5% by 2025, with the aim of eventually eliminating it altogether.
Click to expand...

Key to my not smoking for the last 6+ years has been a lack of opportunity since smoking has been banned in the UK in most public spaces. I'd support a similar law being brought in to stop people starting to smoke (though whether I'd feel the same about a similar law applied to alcohol is another matter entirely :o)
 
Nanny statism.

People can commit fast or slow suicide in many different ways, from smoking to obesity (a massive problem in NZ amongst Maori and Pacific Islanders) to alcohol overuse to drug use (didn’t NZ decriminalise cannabis use?).

Stupid law. Do NZ politicians not understand that banning smoking will only lead to a huge black market?

Tax smokers highly and make them pay heavily for health care caused by smoking.
 
lionking said:
Nanny statism.

People can commit fast or slow suicide in many different ways, from smoking to obesity (a massive problem in NZ amongst Maori and Pacific Islanders) to alcohol overuse to drug use (didn’t NZ decriminalise cannabis use?).

Stupid law. Do NZ politicians not understand that banning smoking will only lead to a huge black market?
Tax smokers highly and make them pay heavily for health care caused by smoking.
Click to expand...
Spot on.

I can only assume that politicians love prohibition because they have a vested interest in organized crime.
 
lionking said:
Nanny statism.

People can commit fast or slow suicide in many different ways, from smoking to obesity (a massive problem in NZ amongst Maori and Pacific Islanders) to alcohol overuse to drug use (didn’t NZ decriminalise cannabis use?).

Stupid law. Do NZ politicians not understand that banning smoking will only lead to a huge black market?

Tax smokers highly and make them pay heavily for health care caused by smoking.
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
Spot on.

I can only assume that politicians love prohibition because they have a vested interest in organized crime.
Click to expand...

I'm not in favour of the law, but is it true this will cause a black market?

The idea is that this will be phased in generationally with anyone born after 2008 not allowed to ever smoke.

The shops will continue to sell them so presumably the problem will simply be underaged smokers - for example, in 2051 you will be underaged if you are 42.

I think it will be hard to enforce it on those grounds, and it is clearly age discriminatory because adults above the age where they have to be protected like children will not be able to smoke, unless they are over, say, 43.

I more or less prefer extending what The Don is talking about which is just to make it more difficult to smoke in public. By reducing those opportunities you will probably get a much lower take-up of smoking (probably - though I am not sure).
 
I'm dubious on whether such bans would be effective, but the idea that smokers will do their smoking in private to avoid the goon squad seems appealing to me as a nonsmoker. No more fog of smoke in front of doorways, hide your shame in secret :D
 
lionking said:
Oh who cares what a country smaller than a city in Australia does anyway
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good place to test all these theories expressed in this thread. Let’s meet back here in 50 years and see how it went.
 
There are benefits to smoking. It seems they should compensate the young people somehow for depriving them of these benefits.
 
lionking said:
Nanny statism.

People can commit fast or slow suicide in many different ways, from smoking to obesity (a massive problem in NZ amongst Maori and Pacific Islanders) to alcohol overuse to drug use (didn’t NZ decriminalise cannabis use?).

Stupid law. Do NZ politicians not understand that banning smoking will only lead to a huge black market?

Tax smokers highly and make them pay heavily for health care caused by smoking.
Click to expand...

But smoking is murder by proxi.
You don't just poison yourself, but all those around you that have to breathe in your cancer fog. If smokers were to wear a glass bubble containing their poison gas in public that would work too.
 
With the introduction of vape pens, I would bet there will be a black market. They're extremely easy to acquire and all you'd have to do is find a way to sneak them on the island.

I smoke on Friday nights when I have a drink. Probably a total of 3-5 during the course of that evening. I think it would be a ripoff to not be able to do it because other people have a problem with it.
 
junkshop said:
There are? I'm a smoker, and I can't think of any*.

What are they?





* Except for looking really cool, obviously. :D
Click to expand...

It is a stimulant. People enjoy how their body feels when it is on a stimulant.

In all the conversations about drugs, people always downplay the benefits. Drugs get you high, and getting high feels good, and that is a benefit.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is a stimulant. People enjoy how their body feels when it is on a stimulant.

In all the conversations about drugs, people always downplay the benefits. Drugs get you high, and getting high feels good, and that is a benefit.
Click to expand...

They also help you poop!
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is a stimulant. People enjoy how their body feels when it is on a stimulant.

In all the conversations about drugs, people always downplay the benefits. Drugs get you high, and getting high feels good, and that is a benefit.
Click to expand...

OK, but I would argue that that is a benefit of nicotine, moreso than smoking, and there are other safer, more effective, more pleasant, and more socially accepable methods of taking nicotine.

You stated that there were benefits, plural, to smoking. What, beyond this somewhat dubious one, are the others?
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
But smoking is murder by proxi.
You don't just poison yourself, but all those around you that have to breathe in your cancer fog. If smokers were to wear a glass bubble containing their poison gas in public that would work too.
Click to expand...

The same for driving, and for many industries utilizing any heating processes. Ban 'em all I say!
 
junkshop said:
OK, but I would argue that that is a benefit of nicotine, moreso than smoking, and there are other safer, more effective, more pleasant, and more socially accepable methods of taking nicotine.

You stated that there were benefits, plural, to smoking. What, beyond this somewhat dubious one, are the others?
Click to expand...

The fact that smoking delivers nicotine is a benefit for smoking. Other methods generate that benefit, but that doesn't make it no longer a benefit.
 
lionking said:
Oh who cares what a country smaller than a city in Australia does anyway
Click to expand...
This guy, probably:
lionking said:
Nanny statism.

People can commit fast or slow suicide in many different ways, from smoking to obesity (a massive problem in NZ amongst Maori and Pacific Islanders) to alcohol overuse to drug use (didn’t NZ decriminalise cannabis use?).

Stupid law. Do NZ politicians not understand that banning smoking will only lead to a huge black market?

Tax smokers highly and make them pay heavily for health care caused by smoking.
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
I guess just the one.
Click to expand...

Returning, then, to your original statement:

BobTheCoward said:
There are benefits to smoking. It seems they should compensate the young people somehow for depriving them of these benefits.
Click to expand...

Given that there are other (arguably better) ways to access the one benefit you identified, does it still seem to you that young people should be compensated if they are deprived of being able to smoke?
 
junkshop said:
Returning, then, to your original statement:



Given that there are other (arguably better) ways to access the one benefit you identified, does it still seem to you that young people should be compensated if they are deprived of being able to smoke?
Click to expand...

yes. Because they chose this one, this is their most preferred method and must switch to a less preferred method.
 
Defy them, Bob!

BobTheCoward said:
I guess just the one.
Click to expand...

Don't play their mind games! If people live dull lives n wanna smoke cuz they bored, that's good enough for any TRUE libertarian!

You wouldn't like new zealand anyway. Damn place is all outdoors.
 
BobTheCoward said:
yes. Because they chose this one, this is their most preferred method and must switch to a less preferred method.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside, for the time being, that you are now specifying only young people that already smoke (not a distinction you previously made): Would the benefits of not smoking (lower risk of cancer, emphysema, stroke, heart disease, overall higher life expectancy, and so on) be adequate compensation, in your view?
 
Last edited:
Alternatively, you could apply a surcharge on tobacco, say 150% for everybody, and 300% for younger folks. Increases could be phased in yearly: 400%, 550% (just to keep 'em on their toes), 700%, and so on. Revenue from the surcharge would probably decrease as smoking and chewing became harder to afford, but what came in could be spent on work programs for offenders: picking up trash, cleaning sewers, emigrating permanently, etc.

Also, I think a year in jail for anybody found smoking within 100 meters of children would be awfully nice. Sort of nannying.
 
junkshop said:
Leaving aside, for the time being, that you are now specifying only young people that already smoke (not a distinction you previously made): Would the benefits of not smoking (lower risk of cancer, emphysema, stroke, heart disease, overall higher life expectancy, and so on) be adequate compensation, in your view?
Click to expand...

No. They already determined the benefit was worth the cost for them. You are still making them worse off.

Making them worse off for terrible reasons by the way
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is a stimulant. People enjoy how their body feels when it is on a stimulant.

In all the conversations about drugs, people always downplay the benefits. Drugs get you high, and getting high feels good, and that is a benefit.
Click to expand...

I suppose one might regard it that way, but a smoker would not.
 
The Don said:
I find these measures, aimed at stopping people from starting smoking, to be very interesting indeed.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-59589775



Key to my not smoking for the last 6+ years has been a lack of opportunity since smoking has been banned in the UK in most public spaces. I'd support a similar law being brought in to stop people starting to smoke (though whether I'd feel the same about a similar law applied to alcohol is another matter entirely :o)
Click to expand...
Good. Education doesn't seem to work, as with die-hard anti-vax nuts, coercion does.
 
lionking said:
Oh who cares what a country smaller than a city in Australia does anyway
Click to expand...
Awww....

And you're also wrong; there is no city in Australia with a population greater than that of New Zealand. You might want to check your facts in future.
 
Steve said:
The same for driving, and for many industries utilizing any heating processes. Ban 'em all I say!
Click to expand...
IC engines are dying. Most combustion heating, excluding the also dying solid fuels, are extremely clean.
 
junkshop said:
Leaving aside, for the time being, that you are now specifying only young people that already smoke (not a distinction you previously made): Would the benefits of not smoking (lower risk of cancer, emphysema, stroke, heart disease, overall higher life expectancy, and so on) be adequate compensation, in your view?
Click to expand...

BobTheCoward said:
No. They already determined the benefit was worth the cost for them. You are still making them worse off.

Making them worse off for terrible reasons by the way
Click to expand...

OK, What would be adequate compensation?

ETA: what terrible reasons have I given?
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Nanny statism.
Click to expand...

Yes, Cinderella and her minions are good at that.

lionking said:
(didn’t NZ decriminalise cannabis use?).
Click to expand...

Nope.

lionking said:
Stupid law. Do NZ politicians not understand that banning smoking will only lead to a huge black market?
Click to expand...

Not only do they know, the current price level of cigarettes has already created a massive black market, so they know exactly what will happen.

But it's ok - the gangs will need extra income, having doubled their membership in the past few years. Plus, we have all those 501 deportees who need some income.

lionking said:
Tax smokers highly and make them pay heavily for health care caused by smoking.
Click to expand...

The economic benefits to the government are a lot more than just taxes, which already far outweigh medical costs. The savings in age pensions are truly astronomical.

But the government will be long gone and it'll be someone else's problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom