8 ms·

New Zealand to ban cigarettes for future generations

27 points by vladharbuz 5y ago

errcorrectcode 5y ago
Dumb. Prohibition never works.
jjgreen 5y ago
Those born after 2008 are forbidden from buying cigarettes Those born after 2012 will be forbidden from buying spirits, only beer with less that 4% ABV Those born after 2016 will not be permitted to go outside in the winter without nice warm mittens. Those born after 2021 will not be allowed to cross the road without holding mummy's hand ever so tightly.
belval 5y ago
I don't smoke yet I find this ridiculous, how much of a nanny state can New Zealand be? If you want to make something disappear you educate the people through advertising campaigns and whatnot. This seems incredibly short sighted in the sense that people won't magically stop smoking because they can't buy their cigarettes at the convenience store. Also purely on principle, the idea that there are things that are forbidden based on the year you were born seems like weird discrimination to me.
- sam_goody 5y ago
  Or, you start piling on taxes. 10% tax on cigs for a year, with a 2% compounded increase every year after. In all likelyhood, it will never make up for the cost to the country - I once saw a detailed study on the costs in treatment, support for families, etc. But at some point, poeple will start phasing out smoking by themselves. Also, the black market will less likely develop, since it will remain legal. And will not change overnight.
  - ffwacom 5y ago
    As the majority of the costs of smokes will be tax, you’ll have to do better than 2% to beat inflation.
  - jjgreen 5y ago
    > it will never make up for the cost to the country The opposite is true -- smokers contribute much more in taxes than the cost of smoking related illnesses [1], and more importantly, die younger so tend not to have the long lingering (very expensive) deaths of non-smokers. See "The smoke screen" ("Yes, Prime Minister", 1986) for a comedic take on this. [1] https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/ https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes...
    - xwolfi 5y ago
      I like the idea to say we actually help the country rather than are a burden. Plus we're generally less dogmatic, more able to commit little rebellions and care less about the consequence of our naughty behaviour so we may bring something to a country of robot health nuts whose sole worries in life are self preservation and tax savings. Now I wouldnt go so far as to encourage people to smoke, it's still an annoying daemon running permanently bothering you constantly to refill the craving.
    - 1cvmask 5y ago
      This is the video you are referring to: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751841/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751841/ Will check it out.
  - inkyoto 5y ago
    Australia has had a progressive tobacco sin tax being indexed annually for a number of years now. The average price of a packet of cigarettes is now close to AUD 40 (give or take a few $$ and up from being AUD 9 back in 2008 circa). People still smoke and chain smoke. The question remains: do sin taxes actually work to compel people to give up smoking, or they merely benefit the state treasury?
    - CuriouslyC 5y ago
      Even if the tax doesn't cause people to give up smoking, it can offset the costs incurred by the state due to cigarette related health and sanitation issues. Let the retards kill themselves slowly, as long as I don't have to smell it or pay for their health care.
- 14 5y ago
  New laws come into effect all the time. Like the age of consent to have sex is determined by laws and has changed over time. Also some laws allow for grandfather clauses like seat belts in antique cars for example if your car is old enough you are exempt from needing to have them. Would you feel better if they worded the laws different? Say those born before 2008 are grandfathered clause to the old rules but those born after the new age to buy smoke is 110 years old. No it isn’t banning you but rather just raised the age limit a little. Lastly smoking is disgusting who cares if it feels like a nanny state, there are lots of things they do this with that we accept. We can’t buy explosives because that is dangerous and so is smoking.
- boxed 5y ago
  Why do you think it's ridiculous for cigarettes only? Why not criticize the ban on led paint? After all that's also poison. I think if you think about it for a few seconds you realize that this law isn't so much banning cigarettes as it is removing an exception for a specific poison.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Lead paint isn’t pleasurable or addictive? What a silly comparison.
- refurb 5y ago
  Agreed terrible law. You’re just creating a black market for smuggled tobacco. I predict they’ll back off this before long. Or won’t enforce it. Just tax it heavily - cigarettes are almost $20/pack in NYC and the problem solved itself. Not sure if it’s proximity to China but NZ and Australia seem to have a fetish for authoritarianism that other Western countries don’t.
  - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
    oh boy. you don't know about high taxing. "sin goods" is what its called and the governments do their best to tax the shit out of it. what happens? nothing. people continue to beg borrow and steal to get it. government only benefits from higher tax collection rather than a reduction. https://www.indiafilings.com/learn/gst-rate-cess-tobacco-cigarettes/ https://www.indiafilings.com/learn/gst-rate-cess-tobacco-cig... read this. the tax rate on tobacco products in india is 28%+204%. so, the costing is , $100+$28+$204= $332. has that stopped or even lowered the consumption of tobacco products in india? absolutely not. its not about authoritarianism when it comes to such issues. alcohol is banned in many countries across the world. "muslims" are most of them. do they have to enforce drunk driving ban or sale of liquor to minors or is there alcoholic epidemic in those countries? do people get wasted on the streets ? they might have other problems but not alcohol is not one of them. i personally want this law to succeed because while i do not smoke, people i know do and i have seen teens get "attracted" to this because "oh i have depression. lets smoke", those stuff. there will be consequences but if i read it correctly, its not about people who are current addicts but future expected ones. they "don't" know what cigarettes are or what they do. if done properly, these people will not grow up to find their corner shop selling tobacco and in some years, many people will not see smoking a cigarette as "normal" which it currently is.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Jesus. The point of the tax is not only to discourage but also offset the costs to society. If you think making mind altering substances illegal works let me introduce the “War on Drugs” which has been a complete failure.
- viraptor 5y ago
  > you educate the people through advertising campaigns and whatnot Keep in mind that the smoking industry can and will outspend almost any government on product advertisement and available information, unless laws forbid it. We had a time of "your doctor recommends smoking [brand X]" already. Let's not enable that again.
  - belval 5y ago
    To me that's part of advertising campaigns though. I am young enough that tobacco company were effectively never allowed to advertise their product anywhere in my country for as long as I was in it.
- 1cvmask 5y ago
  It is hard to beat the US as a nanny state where we even regulate diving boards in swimming pools, a license to serve drinks as a bartender (depends on state) and not only how you live but how you die (the licenses for funeral parlors are highly regulated in many states to benefit the mob). https://craftybartending.com/bartending-license/ https://craftybartending.com/bartending-license/
  - ElCapitanMarkla 5y ago
    Don't worry we've got the liquor license in NZ too. Only someone on duty has to hold the license though, it's usually a manager. "license" is a very strong word in this case, it's basically a course that takes about 2 hours that you can't really fail.
- schwartzworld 5y ago
  > This seems incredibly short sighted in the sense that people won't magically stop smoking because they can't buy their cigarettes at the convenience store. Cigarettes are awful, producing a minor buzz at best that you stop feeling after you're fully addicted (which doesn't take long). How many of us started as social smokers only to suddenly find yourself at a pack a day? Additionally, the companies that manufacture and sell cigarettes lied about their harmfulness for decades. Other measures like education might work, except that the whole world knows smoking is harmful now and people still do it. Most people start young, at a time when it's hard to imagine ever being old and sick. My college friends used to call them "cancer sticks" as in "can I bum a cancer stick". Taxes don't really work either, and they disproportionately affect poor people. Coincidentally poor people are more likely to smoke cigarettes. I hated paying $10 a pack, but I did it. In exchange for feeling like a cool guy for three minutes, you get brown teeth, smelly fingers, litter everywhere... And the addiction is real. I haven't been a smoker for 8 years and I still think about them once a day or so. It's deeper than the physical addiction because when you are a smoker, you smoke often.
xupybd 5y ago
Euthanasia is legal in NZ. Yet you can't kill your self slowly with cigarettes? We're also likely to legalize cannabis soon... So you'll be able to smoke just not cigarettes.
- refurb 5y ago
  It’s just moralizing from the left instead of the right. The left used to be all about personal freedom but it was always about “acceptable personal freedom”, just like the right.
1_player 5y ago
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493740
aestetix 5y ago
The US tried banning alcohol with a constitutional amendment, and later repealed it with another amendment. In general, when the government tries to police what someone can do with their own body, it does not end well.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  Unless it's abortion when there's an ideological majority on a stuffed SCOTUS.
  - polski-g 5y ago
    The current abortion setup in America is by judicial dictat, not by legislation. If Roe is overturned, then the legislators could actually make policies that their constituents want.
tinus_hn 5y ago
Inevitable considering that many more people die from smoking than from Covid-19 and it was acceptable to cancel civil rights to counteract Covid-19.
timonoko 5y ago
In some countries they pack cigarettes in ugly green boxes and ban imported brands. Maybe it was in NZ? Anyways those local brands were just horrible like smoking wet paper rolls. Then I just happened to ask "Marlboro" at a kiosk and the dude checked me out for 2 seconds and got a pack Genuine American Cancer Pacifiers from under the counter. It was not particularly expensive even. This was how these problems was handled in that country.
esarbe 5y ago
That's ridiculous law; you can discriminate by age, because this only applies to transient population groups, but you cannot discriminate by year-of-birth. I doubt this will hold up in court.
cardosof 5y ago
If the state is responsible for paying your health bills, it should also be able to give you incentives towards a healthier lifestyle. Therefore, it should ban everything that may, given some level of consumption, cause addiction & physical or mental harm: cigars, drugs, alcohol, gambling, sugar & sweets, some medicines, social media & smartphones.
snoopen 5y ago
I'm kind of surprised about the negative reaction to this. Keep in mind the NZ health system provides universal cover. So unlike the US for example it's tax payers who cover the medical bill if your cancer sticks give you cancer and seek treatment. Education only goes so far. People are easily fallible in the face of peer pressure, perceived societal elevation and outside market advertising. Finding simple pleasure in something is not a good enough reason to keep something legal. I'd welcome a similar ban here in Australi. If for no other reason than to protect others especially given the number of people I still see to this day smoking around infants and children.
- sceptical 5y ago
  Alcohol will be next. Same arguments apply.
  - growse 5y ago
    > Alcohol will be next. Same arguments apply. Alcohol doesn't kill half of its long term consumers. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco
  - nautilius 5y ago
    Alcohol doesn’t kill the guy standing next to you while you consume. And if it does (DUI) it’s regulated already.

27 points by vladharbuz 5y ago

Dumb. Prohibition never works.

Those born after 2008 are forbidden from buying cigarettes Those born after 2012 will be forbidden from buying spirits, only beer with less that 4% ABV Those born after 2016 will not be permitted to go outside in the winter without nice warm mittens. Those born after 2021 will not be allowed to cross the road without holding mummy's hand ever so tightly.

belval 5y ago

I don't smoke yet I find this ridiculous, how much of a nanny state can New Zealand be? If you want to make something disappear you educate the people through advertising campaigns and whatnot. This seems incredibly short sighted in the sense that people won't magically stop smoking because they can't buy their cigarettes at the convenience store. Also purely on principle, the idea that there are things that are forbidden based on the year you were born seems like weird discrimination to me.

sam_goody 5y ago
Or, you start piling on taxes. 10% tax on cigs for a year, with a 2% compounded increase every year after. In all likelyhood, it will never make up for the cost to the country - I once saw a detailed study on the costs in treatment, support for families, etc. But at some point, poeple will start phasing out smoking by themselves. Also, the black market will less likely develop, since it will remain legal. And will not change overnight.
- ffwacom 5y ago
  As the majority of the costs of smokes will be tax, you’ll have to do better than 2% to beat inflation.
- jjgreen 5y ago
  > it will never make up for the cost to the country The opposite is true -- smokers contribute much more in taxes than the cost of smoking related illnesses [1], and more importantly, die younger so tend not to have the long lingering (very expensive) deaths of non-smokers. See "The smoke screen" ("Yes, Prime Minister", 1986) for a comedic take on this. [1] https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/ https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes...
  - xwolfi 5y ago
    I like the idea to say we actually help the country rather than are a burden. Plus we're generally less dogmatic, more able to commit little rebellions and care less about the consequence of our naughty behaviour so we may bring something to a country of robot health nuts whose sole worries in life are self preservation and tax savings. Now I wouldnt go so far as to encourage people to smoke, it's still an annoying daemon running permanently bothering you constantly to refill the craving.
  - 1cvmask 5y ago
    This is the video you are referring to: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751841/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751841/ Will check it out.
- inkyoto 5y ago
  Australia has had a progressive tobacco sin tax being indexed annually for a number of years now. The average price of a packet of cigarettes is now close to AUD 40 (give or take a few $$ and up from being AUD 9 back in 2008 circa). People still smoke and chain smoke. The question remains: do sin taxes actually work to compel people to give up smoking, or they merely benefit the state treasury?
  - CuriouslyC 5y ago
    Even if the tax doesn't cause people to give up smoking, it can offset the costs incurred by the state due to cigarette related health and sanitation issues. Let the retards kill themselves slowly, as long as I don't have to smell it or pay for their health care.
14 5y ago
New laws come into effect all the time. Like the age of consent to have sex is determined by laws and has changed over time. Also some laws allow for grandfather clauses like seat belts in antique cars for example if your car is old enough you are exempt from needing to have them. Would you feel better if they worded the laws different? Say those born before 2008 are grandfathered clause to the old rules but those born after the new age to buy smoke is 110 years old. No it isn’t banning you but rather just raised the age limit a little. Lastly smoking is disgusting who cares if it feels like a nanny state, there are lots of things they do this with that we accept. We can’t buy explosives because that is dangerous and so is smoking.
boxed 5y ago
Why do you think it's ridiculous for cigarettes only? Why not criticize the ban on led paint? After all that's also poison. I think if you think about it for a few seconds you realize that this law isn't so much banning cigarettes as it is removing an exception for a specific poison.
- refurb 5y ago
  Lead paint isn’t pleasurable or addictive? What a silly comparison.
refurb 5y ago
Agreed terrible law. You’re just creating a black market for smuggled tobacco. I predict they’ll back off this before long. Or won’t enforce it. Just tax it heavily - cigarettes are almost $20/pack in NYC and the problem solved itself. Not sure if it’s proximity to China but NZ and Australia seem to have a fetish for authoritarianism that other Western countries don’t.
- 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  oh boy. you don't know about high taxing. "sin goods" is what its called and the governments do their best to tax the shit out of it. what happens? nothing. people continue to beg borrow and steal to get it. government only benefits from higher tax collection rather than a reduction. https://www.indiafilings.com/learn/gst-rate-cess-tobacco-cigarettes/ https://www.indiafilings.com/learn/gst-rate-cess-tobacco-cig... read this. the tax rate on tobacco products in india is 28%+204%. so, the costing is , $100+$28+$204= $332. has that stopped or even lowered the consumption of tobacco products in india? absolutely not. its not about authoritarianism when it comes to such issues. alcohol is banned in many countries across the world. "muslims" are most of them. do they have to enforce drunk driving ban or sale of liquor to minors or is there alcoholic epidemic in those countries? do people get wasted on the streets ? they might have other problems but not alcohol is not one of them. i personally want this law to succeed because while i do not smoke, people i know do and i have seen teens get "attracted" to this because "oh i have depression. lets smoke", those stuff. there will be consequences but if i read it correctly, its not about people who are current addicts but future expected ones. they "don't" know what cigarettes are or what they do. if done properly, these people will not grow up to find their corner shop selling tobacco and in some years, many people will not see smoking a cigarette as "normal" which it currently is.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Jesus. The point of the tax is not only to discourage but also offset the costs to society. If you think making mind altering substances illegal works let me introduce the “War on Drugs” which has been a complete failure.
viraptor 5y ago
> you educate the people through advertising campaigns and whatnot Keep in mind that the smoking industry can and will outspend almost any government on product advertisement and available information, unless laws forbid it. We had a time of "your doctor recommends smoking [brand X]" already. Let's not enable that again.
- belval 5y ago
  To me that's part of advertising campaigns though. I am young enough that tobacco company were effectively never allowed to advertise their product anywhere in my country for as long as I was in it.
1cvmask 5y ago
It is hard to beat the US as a nanny state where we even regulate diving boards in swimming pools, a license to serve drinks as a bartender (depends on state) and not only how you live but how you die (the licenses for funeral parlors are highly regulated in many states to benefit the mob). https://craftybartending.com/bartending-license/ https://craftybartending.com/bartending-license/
- ElCapitanMarkla 5y ago
  Don't worry we've got the liquor license in NZ too. Only someone on duty has to hold the license though, it's usually a manager. "license" is a very strong word in this case, it's basically a course that takes about 2 hours that you can't really fail.
schwartzworld 5y ago
> This seems incredibly short sighted in the sense that people won't magically stop smoking because they can't buy their cigarettes at the convenience store. Cigarettes are awful, producing a minor buzz at best that you stop feeling after you're fully addicted (which doesn't take long). How many of us started as social smokers only to suddenly find yourself at a pack a day? Additionally, the companies that manufacture and sell cigarettes lied about their harmfulness for decades. Other measures like education might work, except that the whole world knows smoking is harmful now and people still do it. Most people start young, at a time when it's hard to imagine ever being old and sick. My college friends used to call them "cancer sticks" as in "can I bum a cancer stick". Taxes don't really work either, and they disproportionately affect poor people. Coincidentally poor people are more likely to smoke cigarettes. I hated paying $10 a pack, but I did it. In exchange for feeling like a cool guy for three minutes, you get brown teeth, smelly fingers, litter everywhere... And the addiction is real. I haven't been a smoker for 8 years and I still think about them once a day or so. It's deeper than the physical addiction because when you are a smoker, you smoke often.

xupybd 5y ago

Euthanasia is legal in NZ. Yet you can't kill your self slowly with cigarettes? We're also likely to legalize cannabis soon... So you'll be able to smoke just not cigarettes.

refurb 5y ago
It’s just moralizing from the left instead of the right. The left used to be all about personal freedom but it was always about “acceptable personal freedom”, just like the right.

1_player 5y ago

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493740

aestetix 5y ago

The US tried banning alcohol with a constitutional amendment, and later repealed it with another amendment. In general, when the government tries to police what someone can do with their own body, it does not end well.

errcorrectcode 5y ago
Unless it's abortion when there's an ideological majority on a stuffed SCOTUS.
- polski-g 5y ago
  The current abortion setup in America is by judicial dictat, not by legislation. If Roe is overturned, then the legislators could actually make policies that their constituents want.

tinus_hn 5y ago

Inevitable considering that many more people die from smoking than from Covid-19 and it was acceptable to cancel civil rights to counteract Covid-19.

timonoko 5y ago

In some countries they pack cigarettes in ugly green boxes and ban imported brands. Maybe it was in NZ? Anyways those local brands were just horrible like smoking wet paper rolls. Then I just happened to ask "Marlboro" at a kiosk and the dude checked me out for 2 seconds and got a pack Genuine American Cancer Pacifiers from under the counter. It was not particularly expensive even. This was how these problems was handled in that country.

esarbe 5y ago

That's ridiculous law; you can discriminate by age, because this only applies to transient population groups, but you cannot discriminate by year-of-birth. I doubt this will hold up in court.

cardosof 5y ago

If the state is responsible for paying your health bills, it should also be able to give you incentives towards a healthier lifestyle. Therefore, it should ban everything that may, given some level of consumption, cause addiction & physical or mental harm: cigars, drugs, alcohol, gambling, sugar & sweets, some medicines, social media & smartphones.

snoopen 5y ago

I'm kind of surprised about the negative reaction to this. Keep in mind the NZ health system provides universal cover. So unlike the US for example it's tax payers who cover the medical bill if your cancer sticks give you cancer and seek treatment. Education only goes so far. People are easily fallible in the face of peer pressure, perceived societal elevation and outside market advertising. Finding simple pleasure in something is not a good enough reason to keep something legal. I'd welcome a similar ban here in Australi. If for no other reason than to protect others especially given the number of people I still see to this day smoking around infants and children.

sceptical 5y ago
Alcohol will be next. Same arguments apply.
- growse 5y ago
  > Alcohol will be next. Same arguments apply. Alcohol doesn't kill half of its long term consumers. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco
- nautilius 5y ago
  Alcohol doesn’t kill the guy standing next to you while you consume. And if it does (DUI) it’s regulated already.