8 ms·

I've been fantasizing about visiting or even moving to NZ because of certain liberal policies they have implemented, but if they outlaw smoking or pass other na

I've been fantasizing about visiting or even moving to NZ because of certain liberal policies they have implemented, but if they outlaw smoking or pass other nanny state laws, I will 100% avoid them in perpetuity. Smoking or not smoking is one of the simplest expressions of individual liberty, and it is tragic how many countries are jumping on the illiberal bandwagon to take away basic physical freedoms from their citizens.

below43 5y ago
As a NZer who values clean air, I fully support your boycott of this country.
nodesocket 5y ago
I also fall under the libertarian bucket "it's your body, do what you want..." unfortunately there is a double standard for liberals where free choice only applies to some very specific carve outs (i.e. abortion) but other things (mandatory covid vaccines or banning smoking) they feel it's their moral duty to dictate to everybody.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Well, it's your body, do what you want... but don't smoke around me. And don't infect me. Your freedom to choose should not extend to imposing consequences on me. For that matter, it's your body, but a fetus isn't your body.
  - totony 5y ago
    Well it's your body... But don't do X around me because it affects me in Y way. But I can do Z because I decide the tradeoffs. It's a flawed logic, because most actions extend consequences on others. Although I agree with not smoking in people's face.
  - Rury 5y ago
    >Your freedom to choose should not extend to imposing consequences on me Conversely, your desire to be free from smoke should not extend to imposing consequences on those that don't. The problem is, at some point, there's a conflict on where to draw the line. Because, as soon as the line is drawn, freedoms have been limited/reduced/compromised in a way.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Absolutely true. Freedom given almost always equals the opposite freedom taken from someone else. So let me try again, hopefully with a bit more precision: If you want to do something to your own body in a way that doesn't affect me, then I have little basis for fighting over where the line should be drawn. You want to smoke in your house? Knock yourself out. You want to smoke in your car? Go for it. You want to smoke in my face? Now we have a battle about where that line is going to be drawn - whose freedom will be lost, yours or mine. Now I at least have legitimate grounds for arguing that your freedom should be the one to lose.
      - Rury 5y ago
        And I think that's plenty reasonable. Not trying to argue, was just pointing out the problem that underlies all politics: conflicts in wills (or even from strictly a libertarian viewpoint, conflict in freedoms, since freedom is a core principle held by libertarians).
    - current_mike 5y ago
      You can't twist this to make it about both parties. The burden is on the acting individual to not harm others with their choices. Real world personal responsibility is where the line is drawn. Not some idealistic notion of freedom to do whatever you want.
      - Rury 5y ago
        That's a political philosophy, not a fact. Just as libertarianism is a political philosophy.
  - mariusor 5y ago
    Allow me to preface what I'm saying with the fact that I fully support abortion rights for women everywhere. However saying that abortion has no consequences on people around the mother is plainly naive. The father will be affected at the least. I've never heard anyone vocally supporting abortion rights consider for any moment if or how much of the decision should be made together with the father. That to me is wrong and equally immoral. It's always "my body, my rules", not "my baby, my rules" as I think it should be, at least to an extent.
    - mecha_ghidorah 5y ago
      > I've never heard anyone vocally supporting abortion rights consider for any moment if or how much of the decision should be made together with the father. That to me is wrong and equally immoral. It's always "my body, my rules", not "my baby, my rules" as I think it should be, at least to an extent. I absolutely 100% think ultimately women should have the right to choose an abortion or not but I've always found the way pro-abortion people suggest that those on the other side are motivated by wanting to take rights away from women. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you believe a fetus counts as a human being you'd be opposed to abortion because you don't like the idea of killing humans, not because you want to keep women down. I wonder if the rhetoric about choosing an abortion or not rarely even mentioning the father is partly to reinforce the branding of abortion as a women's rights type issue instead of a more general reproductive rights issue? Because as a man I'm pro-abortion not just for the good of pregnant women who want to choose to have one, but also for their partners who may not want to have a baby either. I certainly don't want a child (neither does my partner) and I certainly would worry about her somehow ending up pregnant if we didn't live somewhere you could get abortions
- sneak 5y ago
  Both failure to vaccinate as well as smoking causes direct and proximate damage to those around you. Say what you will about bodily autonomy, but there isn't a double standard. The right to swing your fist, et c. Abortion doesn't count under this scheme because of the postulate that a fetus is not a human being yet.
  - nodesocket 5y ago
    Except that if you get vaccinated, why does it matter if hypothetically I am not vaccinated? True story, I got Moderna, three months later I got Covid along with a group of my friends all vaccinated with either Moderna or J&J. Anyway, don't want this to diverge into a covid shitshow argument. The problem is that the US government is trying to mandate if you don't get vaccinated then you lose your job. That's an issue for me.
    - HarryHirsch 5y ago
      [flagged]
    - sneak 5y ago
      The simple answer? Vaccinated people, while they can spread covid from a breakthrough infection, spread much less covid than unvaccinated people, and they have a shorter period of time while they are contagious. You significantly reduce the risk of transmitting covid to others (should you become infected) by being vaccinated. They're not trying to mandate that you lose your job, they're trying to mandate (as they already do - see OSHA's current body of regulations) that workplaces are safe physical environments for people to be in. It's the same story with workplaces without fire exits being illegal. Even if you don't agree with it, it is definitely logically coherent. As much as I don't want unvaccinated people around, I also disagree with violent coercion, so I'm not sure that I am 100% philosophically on board with the state's right to regulate trade between private parties whatsoever - but if they can rightfully require fire exits or building safety codes, they can require vaccinations in a work environment.
  - totony 5y ago
    Parent is confusing liberalism with socialism. So is the US. Being liberal would mean embracing freedom. But socialist liberal is a mostly self contradicting ideological position, because you always have that "freedom until I decide that freedom affects me too much."
- conqueso 5y ago
  An individual's decision to terminate their pregnancy does have malignant effects on the general population. The same cannot be said for not getting vaccinated and smoking.
  - conqueso 5y ago
    Correction: does not*
sneak 5y ago
If the government can legitimately regulate the sale of alcohol, fentanyl, or methamphetamine, they can legitimately regulate (including ban) the sale of coffee or cigarettes.
baconhigh 5y ago
Public health system == we get to ban smoking if we want. You are free to express your individual liberty wherever you currently are, please stay there.
- tmnvix 5y ago
  Smoking is taxed very heavily in NZ - to the point that smokers are a net financial benefit to the public health system.
  - stubish 5y ago
    Money is only part of the problem. At least in Australia, the shortages of Doctors in regional areas is a problem that doesn't go away simply by throwing money at it. An unhealthy population strains what is a limited resource.
    - unmole 5y ago
      Obese people are far more likely to strain healthcare systems than smokers.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      > the shortages of Doctors in regional areas is a problem that doesn't go away simply by throwing money at it. Have they tried offering $5M per year to the doctor? $10M?
  - brokenmachine 5y ago
    "There would be an estimated NZ$5 billion ($4.7 billion) in savings on future public health expenditure as a result of the plans." - NZ Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-free-generation-with-lifetime-tobacco-ban-20211209-p59g7d.html https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-f...
    - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
stubish 5y ago
Freedom to smoke does not work with public health services, as your freedom to harm yourself is also harming your fellow citizens who have to pay for your treatments. You can't even have a system where people get to opt out of public health coverage, or you end up with people dying on the streets who opted out and later find they can't cover their health costs.
- 650 5y ago
  Freedom to consume more than 3000 calories/day does not work with public health services, as your freedom to harm yourself is also harming your fellow citizens who have to pay for your treatments. You can't even have a system where people get to opt out of public health coverage, or you end up with people dying on the streets who opted out and later find they can't cover their health costs. Not a shot at you, just a comment about the dangers of excess paternalism. (slippery slope)
  - MCllorf 5y ago
    If they took the same heavy-handed approach to diet that they took with smoking I'd find the policy approach a lot more tolerable honestly. Just picking one or the other seems like discrimination because I think generally being fat is comparably unhealthy to smoking.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Smokers pay more into the health care system than they extract because of premature deaths. Should non-smokers pay a health tax for not smoking?
  - brokenmachine 5y ago
    >Smokers pay more into the health care system than they extract because of premature deaths. Citation please.
aahortwwy 5y ago
New Zealand has one of the best representative democracies in the world. It's weird that you differentiate the country from its people, like they don't have a say in policy-making. When you read about a policy like this it's reasonable to assume that it enjoys broad support among the population; and that if it doesn't, it will be overturned in due time. > I will 100% avoid them in perpetuity. Good idea.
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  This sounds incredibly undemocratic to me. To deny a goods to a portion of the population arbitrarily sounds shocking. There will be 2 classes of people from now on: those who can smoke and those who can't. Not that i agree with the american concept of democracy, that every law has to conform exactly to their constitution, but this seems like a worrying sign.
  - aahortwwy 5y ago
    Democracy and liberty are different things.
    - FridayoLeary 5y ago
      I think i agree with what you are saying but only to an extent. After enough liberty has been removed your democracy falls apart. I think this law crosses the line of what's acceptable in a democratic state. Also, I meant that the American definition is that democracy and liberty are not different things.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  51% democracy vs 100% democracy
bandushrew 5y ago
They are not banning smoking, just the sale of certain tobacco products.
flyingchipmann 5y ago
As a non smoker I agree. So now we just take round trip and go back to banning again? Should we go back to banning weed too? How about banning alcohol? I just don't understand how certain policy makers are thinking. Is this the new war on drug? Aren't restricting and economic incentives enough? Just why? edit: the downvotes without comments are funny. Could downvoters comment, and let's have a healthy discussion about banning smoking/alcohol/weed?
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  This same country almost just passed a cannabis legalization referendum. It brings to mind episode 8 from season 2 of Silicon Valley: > When Jian Yang nonchalantly reveals Monica’s smoker status to one of her co-workers, Erlich scolds him. “This is Palo Alto,” he begins. “People are lunatics about smoking! We do not have the freedoms you have in China!” Sure enough, Laurie corners Monica at the end of the day to perform an “anti-smoking intervention” complete with stuffed animals and the now-immortal line, “No one ever died from secondhand heroin.” https://www.vulture.com/2015/06/silicon-valley-recap-season-2-episode-8.html https://www.vulture.com/2015/06/silicon-valley-recap-season-...
  - flyingchipmann 5y ago
    Exactly. If they are so hardcore on smoking, how are they going to deal with other soft drugs? and hard drugs? It's like 'left' and 'right' have the same ban hammer with just different targets. Don't people see how damaging this is?
Something1234 5y ago
You smoking infringes on my right to clean air in a restaurant.
current_mike 5y ago
Addiction is now freedom? I used to express my liberty by creeping around carparks late at night and sifting through bins looking for cigarette butts to feed my addiction. Freedom is harming others with second hand smoke? https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/cancer-prevention/smoking/second-hand-smoke/ https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/cancer-prevention/smoking/s... Freedom is to cost taxpayers billions of dollars? https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-...
- shukantpal 5y ago
  1. You can smoke in your home or where people are okay being around you 2. The cost is the fault of policies like universal healthcare that ultimately the taxpayers decided on giving. If they don’t like smokers, give an opt out.
kiwithrowaway 5y ago
I'm a kiwi, and if that's how you feel you should stay away. We're probably not the place for you. We have a a target of being a smokefree country by 2025 to encourage a healthier population, especially among our more vulnerable communities. NZ is not America, so I don't imagine these other policies would go down well either: * We have a socialised healthcare system where you get treated for free, it's not perfect but nobody has to sell their house to pay for treatment. * We have a scheme called ACC where if you get injured and can't work they pay 80% of your salary while you recover. * We have an attitude of "Guns are a privilege, not a right". * Lockdown's aren't popular here, but on the other hand we have a population of 5 million plus and so far only about 44 covid deaths. Something to note here is that we have a representative democracy, which isn't perfect, but you can be sure that the policies in place are those supported by the majority of the population. I won't be commenting on this any further because I don't really care. Life is good here, it works for me and there's no shortage of people who wish they could move here but can't.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  Correction - not encourage but enforce a healthy population.
- kiwiThrowAway2 5y ago
  Classic Kiwi feelgoodism. I am also a Kiwi (living on and off overseas for the last 15 years, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Australia, US, Germany, UK & Singapore) so hopefully can bring some balance to this discussion. I am perpetually in awe of and sick of the amount of dilusion the average New Zealander experiences and broadcasts (case in point). The average kiwi is also under a mighty misconception as to where they think they stand in the world (clue: on the arse end of it). Facts, New Zealand is comprised of a largely low acheiving population, working menial jobs with poor productivity and extremely insular world views. New Zealands education system is largely underperforming and failing its students, hence the prevelance of weird national coping memes like sport and "worlds best at covid" and Mātauranga Māori, (take a look at the trend of the University of Aucklands rankings over the last decade, dont bother looking for the other Unis they are all 200+ & 500+). NZ's commercial landscape is an utter backwards wasteland with a system of Monopolys and Duopolys that ensure competition and fair market principles are never practiced and that top dollar is paid and extraordinary gross margins are retained. NZX is a joke of an exchange with a smattering of piss poor listings; All of this topped off with a brain dead political class and archaic public beuracracy. Simply put NZ has a fetish with incompetence. * We have a socialised healthcare system where you get treated for free, it's not perfect but nobody has to sell their house to pay for treatment. > Its still shit enough that most people pay for and get private insurance. * We have a scheme called ACC where if you get injured and can't work they pay 80% of your salary while you recover. > Cool, but again most people in the world get income protection insurance and pay much less tax, but I guess having something foisted on you gets you going. (Also ACC are out of control, they have assets far in excess of their actuarial obligations. Also fully captured by cronies, see recent exit of international portfolio manager Nicholas Bagnall to setup Te Ahumairangi Asset Management, ACC are now paying him in excess of $10m p.a. fees now, out - jobs for the boys... (PS his track record is shit, yet it was all pushed through without due process). * We have an attitude of "Guns are a privilege, not a right". > Cool. Hasnt always been that way, infact its more a recent phenomena which is really just the result of arse covering for the polices incompetence running background checks and you know doing what is their job... * Lockdown's aren't popular here, but on the other hand we have a population of 5 million plus and so far only about 44 covid deaths. >Congrats, Jacinda did a good job for a bit and then she and her ministers utterly dropped the ball, increased national debt by close to 2x, caused asset price inflation to all but surely lock out most of the next generation of New Zealanders from owning property, bankrupted 1000's of business, but hey thats all good you only had 44 deaths... Get some perspective, when are the borders opening again? must be nice to get out of Auckland some time, oh wait. Its a fucking shitshow. Must be good to go and take an antigen test when you arent feeling flash - yeah right... >I won't be commenting on this any further because I don't really care. Oh great, if someone makes a valid counterpoint, you have already dismissed them, how very forward looking of you. Sure life might be good for you, but its pretty suboptimal for many others in the nation, which traditionally prided itself on a lack of social heirarcy and fair go. Both of which are flat on their back dead. I dont blame OP for not wanting to move to NZ, fact is it really doesnt stack up as that an attractive place for most people with a clue. Until New Zealand gets some real strategic focus and long termism, its fucked. I dont see a bright future for a country that thinks producing primary agricultaral commodities as its main source of balancing trade as smart in 2021 and beyond. Synthetic protein will utterly crush farmers.
brokenmachine 5y ago
>Smoking or not smoking is one of the simplest expressions of individual liberty In a vacuum, maybe, but what about the individual liberty of others who are damaged by your secondhand smoke? What about the individual liberty of others who have to pay for your health care when you become one of the 2/3 of smokers who die from it? I'm Australian and way more likely to move there to live with this law. When I was there last, I was horrified that they still allow this disgusting antisocial behavior at outside eating areas. It was like stepping back in time, and not in a good way. I honestly could not care less what anybody puts in their body, as long as they keep it to themselves. Unfortunately smokers rarely keep it to themselves.

below43 5y ago

As a NZer who values clean air, I fully support your boycott of this country.

nodesocket 5y ago

I also fall under the libertarian bucket "it's your body, do what you want..." unfortunately there is a double standard for liberals where free choice only applies to some very specific carve outs (i.e. abortion) but other things (mandatory covid vaccines or banning smoking) they feel it's their moral duty to dictate to everybody.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Well, it's your body, do what you want... but don't smoke around me. And don't infect me. Your freedom to choose should not extend to imposing consequences on me. For that matter, it's your body, but a fetus isn't your body.
- totony 5y ago
  Well it's your body... But don't do X around me because it affects me in Y way. But I can do Z because I decide the tradeoffs. It's a flawed logic, because most actions extend consequences on others. Although I agree with not smoking in people's face.
- Rury 5y ago
  >Your freedom to choose should not extend to imposing consequences on me Conversely, your desire to be free from smoke should not extend to imposing consequences on those that don't. The problem is, at some point, there's a conflict on where to draw the line. Because, as soon as the line is drawn, freedoms have been limited/reduced/compromised in a way.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Absolutely true. Freedom given almost always equals the opposite freedom taken from someone else. So let me try again, hopefully with a bit more precision: If you want to do something to your own body in a way that doesn't affect me, then I have little basis for fighting over where the line should be drawn. You want to smoke in your house? Knock yourself out. You want to smoke in your car? Go for it. You want to smoke in my face? Now we have a battle about where that line is going to be drawn - whose freedom will be lost, yours or mine. Now I at least have legitimate grounds for arguing that your freedom should be the one to lose.
    - Rury 5y ago
      And I think that's plenty reasonable. Not trying to argue, was just pointing out the problem that underlies all politics: conflicts in wills (or even from strictly a libertarian viewpoint, conflict in freedoms, since freedom is a core principle held by libertarians).
  - current_mike 5y ago
    You can't twist this to make it about both parties. The burden is on the acting individual to not harm others with their choices. Real world personal responsibility is where the line is drawn. Not some idealistic notion of freedom to do whatever you want.
    - Rury 5y ago
      That's a political philosophy, not a fact. Just as libertarianism is a political philosophy.
- mariusor 5y ago
  Allow me to preface what I'm saying with the fact that I fully support abortion rights for women everywhere. However saying that abortion has no consequences on people around the mother is plainly naive. The father will be affected at the least. I've never heard anyone vocally supporting abortion rights consider for any moment if or how much of the decision should be made together with the father. That to me is wrong and equally immoral. It's always "my body, my rules", not "my baby, my rules" as I think it should be, at least to an extent.
  - mecha_ghidorah 5y ago
    > I've never heard anyone vocally supporting abortion rights consider for any moment if or how much of the decision should be made together with the father. That to me is wrong and equally immoral. It's always "my body, my rules", not "my baby, my rules" as I think it should be, at least to an extent. I absolutely 100% think ultimately women should have the right to choose an abortion or not but I've always found the way pro-abortion people suggest that those on the other side are motivated by wanting to take rights away from women. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you believe a fetus counts as a human being you'd be opposed to abortion because you don't like the idea of killing humans, not because you want to keep women down. I wonder if the rhetoric about choosing an abortion or not rarely even mentioning the father is partly to reinforce the branding of abortion as a women's rights type issue instead of a more general reproductive rights issue? Because as a man I'm pro-abortion not just for the good of pregnant women who want to choose to have one, but also for their partners who may not want to have a baby either. I certainly don't want a child (neither does my partner) and I certainly would worry about her somehow ending up pregnant if we didn't live somewhere you could get abortions
sneak 5y ago
Both failure to vaccinate as well as smoking causes direct and proximate damage to those around you. Say what you will about bodily autonomy, but there isn't a double standard. The right to swing your fist, et c. Abortion doesn't count under this scheme because of the postulate that a fetus is not a human being yet.
- nodesocket 5y ago
  Except that if you get vaccinated, why does it matter if hypothetically I am not vaccinated? True story, I got Moderna, three months later I got Covid along with a group of my friends all vaccinated with either Moderna or J&J. Anyway, don't want this to diverge into a covid shitshow argument. The problem is that the US government is trying to mandate if you don't get vaccinated then you lose your job. That's an issue for me.
  - HarryHirsch 5y ago
    [flagged]
  - sneak 5y ago
    The simple answer? Vaccinated people, while they can spread covid from a breakthrough infection, spread much less covid than unvaccinated people, and they have a shorter period of time while they are contagious. You significantly reduce the risk of transmitting covid to others (should you become infected) by being vaccinated. They're not trying to mandate that you lose your job, they're trying to mandate (as they already do - see OSHA's current body of regulations) that workplaces are safe physical environments for people to be in. It's the same story with workplaces without fire exits being illegal. Even if you don't agree with it, it is definitely logically coherent. As much as I don't want unvaccinated people around, I also disagree with violent coercion, so I'm not sure that I am 100% philosophically on board with the state's right to regulate trade between private parties whatsoever - but if they can rightfully require fire exits or building safety codes, they can require vaccinations in a work environment.
- totony 5y ago
  Parent is confusing liberalism with socialism. So is the US. Being liberal would mean embracing freedom. But socialist liberal is a mostly self contradicting ideological position, because you always have that "freedom until I decide that freedom affects me too much."
conqueso 5y ago
An individual's decision to terminate their pregnancy does have malignant effects on the general population. The same cannot be said for not getting vaccinated and smoking.
- conqueso 5y ago
  Correction: does not*

sneak 5y ago

If the government can legitimately regulate the sale of alcohol, fentanyl, or methamphetamine, they can legitimately regulate (including ban) the sale of coffee or cigarettes.

baconhigh 5y ago

Public health system == we get to ban smoking if we want. You are free to express your individual liberty wherever you currently are, please stay there.

tmnvix 5y ago
Smoking is taxed very heavily in NZ - to the point that smokers are a net financial benefit to the public health system.
- stubish 5y ago
  Money is only part of the problem. At least in Australia, the shortages of Doctors in regional areas is a problem that doesn't go away simply by throwing money at it. An unhealthy population strains what is a limited resource.
  - unmole 5y ago
    Obese people are far more likely to strain healthcare systems than smokers.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > the shortages of Doctors in regional areas is a problem that doesn't go away simply by throwing money at it. Have they tried offering $5M per year to the doctor? $10M?
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  "There would be an estimated NZ$5 billion ($4.7 billion) in savings on future public health expenditure as a result of the plans." - NZ Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-free-generation-with-lifetime-tobacco-ban-20211209-p59g7d.html https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-f...
  - InvertedRhodium 5y ago

stubish 5y ago

Freedom to smoke does not work with public health services, as your freedom to harm yourself is also harming your fellow citizens who have to pay for your treatments. You can't even have a system where people get to opt out of public health coverage, or you end up with people dying on the streets who opted out and later find they can't cover their health costs.

650 5y ago
Freedom to consume more than 3000 calories/day does not work with public health services, as your freedom to harm yourself is also harming your fellow citizens who have to pay for your treatments. You can't even have a system where people get to opt out of public health coverage, or you end up with people dying on the streets who opted out and later find they can't cover their health costs. Not a shot at you, just a comment about the dangers of excess paternalism. (slippery slope)
- MCllorf 5y ago
  If they took the same heavy-handed approach to diet that they took with smoking I'd find the policy approach a lot more tolerable honestly. Just picking one or the other seems like discrimination because I think generally being fat is comparably unhealthy to smoking.
ipaddr 5y ago
Smokers pay more into the health care system than they extract because of premature deaths. Should non-smokers pay a health tax for not smoking?
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  >Smokers pay more into the health care system than they extract because of premature deaths. Citation please.

aahortwwy 5y ago

New Zealand has one of the best representative democracies in the world. It's weird that you differentiate the country from its people, like they don't have a say in policy-making. When you read about a policy like this it's reasonable to assume that it enjoys broad support among the population; and that if it doesn't, it will be overturned in due time. > I will 100% avoid them in perpetuity. Good idea.

FridayoLeary 5y ago
This sounds incredibly undemocratic to me. To deny a goods to a portion of the population arbitrarily sounds shocking. There will be 2 classes of people from now on: those who can smoke and those who can't. Not that i agree with the american concept of democracy, that every law has to conform exactly to their constitution, but this seems like a worrying sign.
- aahortwwy 5y ago
  Democracy and liberty are different things.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    I think i agree with what you are saying but only to an extent. After enough liberty has been removed your democracy falls apart. I think this law crosses the line of what's acceptable in a democratic state. Also, I meant that the American definition is that democracy and liberty are not different things.
shukantpal 5y ago
51% democracy vs 100% democracy

bandushrew 5y ago

They are not banning smoking, just the sale of certain tobacco products.

flyingchipmann 5y ago

As a non smoker I agree. So now we just take round trip and go back to banning again? Should we go back to banning weed too? How about banning alcohol? I just don't understand how certain policy makers are thinking. Is this the new war on drug? Aren't restricting and economic incentives enough? Just why? edit: the downvotes without comments are funny. Could downvoters comment, and let's have a healthy discussion about banning smoking/alcohol/weed?

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
This same country almost just passed a cannabis legalization referendum. It brings to mind episode 8 from season 2 of Silicon Valley: > When Jian Yang nonchalantly reveals Monica’s smoker status to one of her co-workers, Erlich scolds him. “This is Palo Alto,” he begins. “People are lunatics about smoking! We do not have the freedoms you have in China!” Sure enough, Laurie corners Monica at the end of the day to perform an “anti-smoking intervention” complete with stuffed animals and the now-immortal line, “No one ever died from secondhand heroin.” https://www.vulture.com/2015/06/silicon-valley-recap-season-2-episode-8.html https://www.vulture.com/2015/06/silicon-valley-recap-season-...
- flyingchipmann 5y ago
  Exactly. If they are so hardcore on smoking, how are they going to deal with other soft drugs? and hard drugs? It's like 'left' and 'right' have the same ban hammer with just different targets. Don't people see how damaging this is?

Something1234 5y ago

You smoking infringes on my right to clean air in a restaurant.

current_mike 5y ago

Addiction is now freedom? I used to express my liberty by creeping around carparks late at night and sifting through bins looking for cigarette butts to feed my addiction. Freedom is harming others with second hand smoke? https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/cancer-prevention/smoking/second-hand-smoke/ https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/cancer-prevention/smoking/s... Freedom is to cost taxpayers billions of dollars? https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-...

shukantpal 5y ago
1. You can smoke in your home or where people are okay being around you 2. The cost is the fault of policies like universal healthcare that ultimately the taxpayers decided on giving. If they don’t like smokers, give an opt out.

kiwithrowaway 5y ago

I'm a kiwi, and if that's how you feel you should stay away. We're probably not the place for you. We have a a target of being a smokefree country by 2025 to encourage a healthier population, especially among our more vulnerable communities. NZ is not America, so I don't imagine these other policies would go down well either: * We have a socialised healthcare system where you get treated for free, it's not perfect but nobody has to sell their house to pay for treatment. * We have a scheme called ACC where if you get injured and can't work they pay 80% of your salary while you recover. * We have an attitude of "Guns are a privilege, not a right". * Lockdown's aren't popular here, but on the other hand we have a population of 5 million plus and so far only about 44 covid deaths. Something to note here is that we have a representative democracy, which isn't perfect, but you can be sure that the policies in place are those supported by the majority of the population. I won't be commenting on this any further because I don't really care. Life is good here, it works for me and there's no shortage of people who wish they could move here but can't.

shukantpal 5y ago
Correction - not encourage but enforce a healthy population.
kiwiThrowAway2 5y ago
Classic Kiwi feelgoodism. I am also a Kiwi (living on and off overseas for the last 15 years, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Australia, US, Germany, UK & Singapore) so hopefully can bring some balance to this discussion. I am perpetually in awe of and sick of the amount of dilusion the average New Zealander experiences and broadcasts (case in point). The average kiwi is also under a mighty misconception as to where they think they stand in the world (clue: on the arse end of it). Facts, New Zealand is comprised of a largely low acheiving population, working menial jobs with poor productivity and extremely insular world views. New Zealands education system is largely underperforming and failing its students, hence the prevelance of weird national coping memes like sport and "worlds best at covid" and Mātauranga Māori, (take a look at the trend of the University of Aucklands rankings over the last decade, dont bother looking for the other Unis they are all 200+ & 500+). NZ's commercial landscape is an utter backwards wasteland with a system of Monopolys and Duopolys that ensure competition and fair market principles are never practiced and that top dollar is paid and extraordinary gross margins are retained. NZX is a joke of an exchange with a smattering of piss poor listings; All of this topped off with a brain dead political class and archaic public beuracracy. Simply put NZ has a fetish with incompetence. * We have a socialised healthcare system where you get treated for free, it's not perfect but nobody has to sell their house to pay for treatment. > Its still shit enough that most people pay for and get private insurance. * We have a scheme called ACC where if you get injured and can't work they pay 80% of your salary while you recover. > Cool, but again most people in the world get income protection insurance and pay much less tax, but I guess having something foisted on you gets you going. (Also ACC are out of control, they have assets far in excess of their actuarial obligations. Also fully captured by cronies, see recent exit of international portfolio manager Nicholas Bagnall to setup Te Ahumairangi Asset Management, ACC are now paying him in excess of $10m p.a. fees now, out - jobs for the boys... (PS his track record is shit, yet it was all pushed through without due process). * We have an attitude of "Guns are a privilege, not a right". > Cool. Hasnt always been that way, infact its more a recent phenomena which is really just the result of arse covering for the polices incompetence running background checks and you know doing what is their job... * Lockdown's aren't popular here, but on the other hand we have a population of 5 million plus and so far only about 44 covid deaths. >Congrats, Jacinda did a good job for a bit and then she and her ministers utterly dropped the ball, increased national debt by close to 2x, caused asset price inflation to all but surely lock out most of the next generation of New Zealanders from owning property, bankrupted 1000's of business, but hey thats all good you only had 44 deaths... Get some perspective, when are the borders opening again? must be nice to get out of Auckland some time, oh wait. Its a fucking shitshow. Must be good to go and take an antigen test when you arent feeling flash - yeah right... >I won't be commenting on this any further because I don't really care. Oh great, if someone makes a valid counterpoint, you have already dismissed them, how very forward looking of you. Sure life might be good for you, but its pretty suboptimal for many others in the nation, which traditionally prided itself on a lack of social heirarcy and fair go. Both of which are flat on their back dead. I dont blame OP for not wanting to move to NZ, fact is it really doesnt stack up as that an attractive place for most people with a clue. Until New Zealand gets some real strategic focus and long termism, its fucked. I dont see a bright future for a country that thinks producing primary agricultaral commodities as its main source of balancing trade as smart in 2021 and beyond. Synthetic protein will utterly crush farmers.

brokenmachine 5y ago

>Smoking or not smoking is one of the simplest expressions of individual liberty In a vacuum, maybe, but what about the individual liberty of others who are damaged by your secondhand smoke? What about the individual liberty of others who have to pay for your health care when you become one of the 2/3 of smokers who die from it? I'm Australian and way more likely to move there to live with this law. When I was there last, I was horrified that they still allow this disgusting antisocial behavior at outside eating areas. It was like stepping back in time, and not in a good way. I honestly could not care less what anybody puts in their body, as long as they keep it to themselves. Unfortunately smokers rarely keep it to themselves.