11 ms·

New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

67 points by colinprince 5y ago

petre 5y ago
They could have just banned it in public or put it under offensive behaviour. This will only drive tobacco underground. People already buy contraband tobacco products and drugs.
karaterobot 5y ago
> "If nothing changes, it would be decades till Māori smoking rates fall below 5 per cent, and this government is not prepared to leave people behind." I'm not from New Zealand, so it's officially none of my business. But, this quote in particular seems so patronizing.
vanusa 5y ago
Or in other words - to treat them as children, for the rest of their lives.
theandrewbailey 5y ago
The war on drugs expands.
bovermyer 5y ago
I like this. It's certainly more possible in New Zealand than in a corporate-owned country like the USA.
- golemotron 5y ago
  That's the least of the reasons it wouldn't work in the USA. It would be a civil rights issue. Age discrimination.
  - PretzelPirate 5y ago
    Legally, doesn’t age discrimination only protect people over 40? Would it apply to banning people under the age of 14 from ever doing something? https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination
    - golemotron 5y ago
      Civil rights under the Constitution are largely about protecting freedom from government action. The US does not have laws that prohibit liberties disparately among adults. The NZ law would be a non-starter in the US.
- hourislate 5y ago
  I will have you know our corporate overlords own a good chunk of New Zealand also and any resistance is futile! But what's up with Jacinda? Is she afraid of Maori adults, why not just ban tobacco entirely?
  - sleepysysadmin 5y ago
    >But what's up with Jacinda? Is she afraid of Maori adults, why not just ban tobacco entirely? Kind of side line question. Jacinda got a huge result in the election. Their majority and nearly majority popular vote effectively authorizes them do whatever they please. So why not go all the way on all their efforts?
    - thriftwy 5y ago
      Getting 99% of votes does not entitle you from expropriating the capital of remaining 1%. It does not work that way.
      - sleepysysadmin 5y ago
        >Getting 99% of votes does not entitle you from expropriating the capital of remaining 1%. It does not work that way. Well I'm not saying Jacinda is planning to do this? In fact I never checked out their platform or plans. Perhaps they are?
dougmwne 5y ago
Sidestepping questions of personal freedom, I think the method here is interesting. No one will have their access to buy cigarettes taken away. Some people will never receive the access in the first place. It’s easier to not grant access than to grant it, then take it away. I wonder if this could have other legal applications.
- zamalek 5y ago
  I fully support the spirit of this legislation, because I'm a recovered nicotine addict and I wish I had never been granted access to nicotine when I first experimented with it. > Some people will never receive the access in the first place This simply isn't true. People will purchase nicotine from older people, while that's still possible, and then there will be a blossoming bootleg nicotine market. We've seen prohibition fail enough times to know that it simply doesn't work.
  - MayeulC 5y ago
    I agree that tobacco access will drip down over to the younger generations, however, should a decent percentage of stores or users comply with this: 1. Market will shrink, making tobacco more difficult to obtain for current users and suppliers 2. Population will age, and it will become harder and harder for new generations to obtain access. 3. At some point, the policy might be considered excessive and abolished. However, there is no time frame for that. 5 years? 50 years? Will it have accomplished anything? 4. (same as your last point) As legalization of other drugs seems to gain traction, this seems like a weird position to take. Would illegal trafficking of tobacco increase, with the usual downsides? Instead of a blanket ban, would a huge tax increase work better? Keeping the same age restrictions. I can imagine most people preferring a legal, though more expensive, procurement source. Of course, that discriminates against a growing part of the population, but so does a ban. And in both cases, it helps you not to take up the habit in the fist place.
    - standardUser 5y ago
      Your first two points have been proven comprehensively false by actual failed attempts at drug prohibition throughout modern history.
sorry_outta_gas 5y ago
Do the same with murder simulating video games next pls
0xbadcafebee 5y ago
Kind of missing the point, though. Why do so many Maori adults smoke? Attack the cause, not the effect.
thriftwy 5y ago
What happens when they grow up and make something illegal for you in return?
- optymizer 5y ago
  "something" that can cause lung cancer? I guess it's just going to save lives.
beardyw 5y ago
I fully support this, but sadly there will be kids to whom possession and the smoking of cigarettes will be even more a sign of the utmost coolness. And, as I understand it there will be a time when a 35 year old can buy cigarettes but a 34 year old can't. That's going to be interesting.
- gadflyinyoureye 5y ago
  Here’s the problem with tobacco. It becomes a public expense when the community has to pay the health bill. The same arguments that people who refuse COVID vaccines should be cut off from the community (jobs, commerce, etc) applies to tobacco. Tobacco costs lives and can inflict damage on those not personally using.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    "Here’s the problem with tobacco." Funny how that is the exact same problem as with exercise, diet, driving, and just generally existing in a society.
    - mitigating 5y ago
      Smoking is addictive. This makes it more difficult for a person to change their behavior compared to exercising more, eating healthy, and driving better (I'm assuming you meant people who drive poorly?)
  - errcorrectcode 5y ago
    So does heroin. Decriminalizing its use with treatment works while prohibition never does. You're barking up the wrong tree if you believe outlawing tobacco is a valid solution.
  - scythe 5y ago
    >The same arguments that people who refuse COVID vaccines should be cut off from the community (jobs, commerce, etc) applies to tobacco. When was the last time an ER or ICU was closed to new patients because of lung cancer? The problem with COVID denialism isn't that they impose the usual sort of healthcare costs but that they produce correlated emergencies which strain the hospital beyond its usual operating capacity.
siliconunit 5y ago
soon we'll own our lives to some 'benign' all knowledgeable government...I guess it's where everything is heading, all needs to be measured, assessed, risks calculated, resources optimized.. and nobody seems to be too worried, maybe it's just evolution in action... quite terrifying if you ask me.
swlp21 5y ago
The price increases (10% per year since 2011) have created a market for stolen and counterfeit cigarettes already. Creating a slow-roll prohibition will not stop people wanting to smoke tobacco products - in fact, previous evidence (e.g. alcohol and cannabis as things most people know about) shows that people are motivated to partake by the very idea of it being illicit. The product of US prohibition was the creation of extremely wealthy alcohol running families who are nowadays big (legitimate) businesses in North America, built up through the wealth of the illegal operations during prohibition. While the intention (zero smoking) would save many from suffering horrible deaths, observation of basic human motivation suggests the NZ experiment is more likely to make a few people extremely wealthy and not actually stop tobacco smoking at all, no matter how much better off people would be by not smoking.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  > the NZ experiment is more likely to make a few people extremely wealthy and not actually stop tobacco smoking The trend is pretty good, and numbers are steadily falling. E-cigarettes have been vowing though. The below stats obviously pre-date the change announced. https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/annual-update-key-results-2020-21-new-zealand-health-survey https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/annual-update-key-res...
  - stuaxo 5y ago
    This is the thing, as drugs go cigarettes aren't a particularly good one.
- snarf21 5y ago
  Good points. Like you said, kids drink underage and kids smoke underage. People buy heroin, etc. even though it is illegal. We'd be better off making these things legal for those 18+, tax them and use that to fund addiction recovery (we already have addicts but no one is paying for recovery).
  - chrischattin 5y ago
    The Portuguese model has been wildly successful.
elzbardico 5y ago
As an ex-smoker I would love if nobody ever smoked again and this scourge was eliminated from the face of earth. But not at this price. A few years of life more will never justify another war on drugs and this level of government control.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  I lost a good number of men on my mom's side to tobacco and generally hate it. Prohibition doesn't work and anyone who supports "quick fix" criminalization of substances is a fool.
jimbob45 5y ago
Any NZers on that know if this is likely to pass? We have bills like this in the US a few times a year but they never have real chances of being signed into law.
howeyc 5y ago
Because prohibition worked out so well in the past. And the war on drugs is a supreme success.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  Roll the tanks because Jimmy sells loosies.
bigyikes 5y ago
The amount of support for drug prohibition in this thread really surprises me. Why shouldn’t an adult have the freedom to smoke and put themselves at high risk of lung cancer? If it’s “for their own good”, what makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self? I hope lives are saved, but dang, it just hurts me a little bit to see personal liberty curbed. There’s no way this will result in an illegal drug market for cigarettes, right?
- crate_barre 5y ago
  It’s weird right? Some times I look at interesting places like Qatar and Abu Dhabi and think, ‘I wouldn’t mind going there for a bit, see what it’s like’. Then I realize they banned alcohol, and the women are constricted, and so on. Nice mountains New Zealand, wish I could have a smoke on one of them, you know, like Gandalf.
- MayeulC 5y ago
  > If it’s “for their own good”, what makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self? FWIW, it's easier to justify when the government pays for expensive healthcare bills that ensue. Like making helmets and seatbelts mandatory, etc. I know people who are mad at helmet-less cyclists because they will cost tax money if they have an accident: it isn't only their personal life they put on the line, they're risking other people's money. However small the final amount is on an individual level, it adds up. In the US, there are talks of making voluntarily unvaccinated patients fit their entire Covid-19 hospitalization bill.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Synaesthesia 5y ago
  Its a pretty miserable and quite deadly addictive narcotic. No legitimate medical use, and an unusually hugh incidence of cancer. Its certainly a harm on society. I can't really think of much benefit, most smokers are happy to quit. But if you look at the US, they have dramatically decreased smoking with education and gentle discouragement. Maybe also look at the reason why some people get addicted in the first place, it's often due to trauma.
cies 5y ago
It will only get cooler. And you put age discrimination in the law book. Sure there is some age discrimination in the lawbooks for kids/elderly have some different laws applicable to them. But this is discriminating against a generation not an age group. I prefer the "tax the shit out of it" approach. Possibly with a tax that is calculated based on your wealth/income (as all discouragements taxes should be, or they only apply to poorer peeps)
- maccolgan 5y ago
  You think that the harm is positively correlated with income out of all things? And you want to present your income to a cig store out of all places?
  - cies 5y ago
    Maybe have some tax-thing so they show up on your tax statement. Same for other discouragement tax and also fines. Making them flat for all is basically saying poorer can we financially ravaged some something the rich would not even worry a tiny bit. If you know how alcohol is sold in Sweden you may get the drift of what I'd like to see: totally available but very controlled.
can16358p 5y ago
Preventing people from buying something that affects their own body should be illegal. It's their own body. (Anti smoker here)
- vegarab 5y ago
  I agree. But if you are smoking next to me, now I am too.
  - can16358p 5y ago
    It should be illegal to affect anyone by the smoke. My dream system would be: If you are at a public place but there is no one else around (clearly defined by distance), that would be okay. If there's a single person they would have right to sue you and it's your responsibility to ensure you aren't affecting anyone as the smoker. If in doubt, you can smoke home. My point is, anyone should be able to anything to their own body as long as their actions aren't affecting other people. Anything from smoking/secondhand smoke to harder drugs/driving under influence etc would be judged by the same logic. I don't smoke and actually hate smoke, but I don't feel that I have any right to prevent anyone from smoking, as long as their smoke doesn't get in contact with me.
- FinanceAnon 5y ago
  What if my taxes are paying for their healthcare? (I don't support completely banning smoking, but just playing devil's advocate here)
  - can16358p 5y ago
    The system is wrong. Everybody should be paying for their own healthcare OR if there will be public healthcare, people who are at higher risk due to their own actions (like smoking) should not be covered by healthcare/pay an extra to be covered etc. I definitely agree with you on someone shouldn't be paying for someone else's healthcare.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
vegarab 5y ago
I get all the hesitancy in the comments here about the freedom of an adult to have a cigarette. However, smoking is a case where; if you're having a smoke at the same bus stop as me, I am inhaling that crap too.
- maccolgan 5y ago
  The solution to this lies in the statement.
cynusx 5y ago
Surely kids below the age threshold will love to break the rules and try it out. There is one upside though, which is that enforcement becomes progressively easier. At some point every young person that smokes is breaking the law. I think they could just make the product worse (e.g. banning filters; adding supplements to make it more bitter) and then individuals will naturally opt to avoid smoking.
- thriftwy 5y ago
  I don't think that people will ever break the law by smoking. It's selling which is usually made illegal, not buying. Going after a person is much harder than going after business making money.
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
Go look for 'lung cancer' statistics post ~2007. It's going to be quite difficult to find this data and when you do... Why are lung cancer rates WAY WAY up? Tobacco smoking is way down in part due to 'education' and tremendous taxes. The reason they dont really show the post 2007 data is that it's really bad. It destroys the correlation that tobacco is even involved in lung cancer. In fact, it now looks like tobacco's toxicity might have been kind of a chemotherapy poison holding back lung cancer. Worse yet, all the 'education' means nobody at all is looking into it. Everyone just blames tobacco still. I'm not saying go buy a pack of cigarettes, but creating a black market like NZ is about to do is the wrong choice.
andrew_eit 5y ago
I kind of torn between two opinions here. On the one hand - an adult should be able to make their own choices regarding something like this. I mean, we're all slowly decaying day-by-day and I can understand that one might want to live while their alive and suffer the consequences of a shorter lifespan. Also sometimes one could argue it's actually encouraged not to become obsessed with _never_ doing anything that is bad for your health, we all accept that there's value in stress reduction to sometimes just go out and have an intense night with friends, order in some junk food or just do something really risky for the adrenaline rush. On the other hand - the intense addiction factor of cigarettes is really quite terrifying and is really unprecedented when compared to other unhealthy habits. A lifelong smoker who quit once told me that the Cigarette, is more like a companion. There in the good times, (celebrate, have a cig), there in the bad, there when you wake up, take a break, or call it a day. They are optimized to be a lifelong companion and the amount of suffering caused by them (directly - to the smoker and indirectly - to loved ones impacted by their addiction) is significant enough (IMHO) to warrant questioning of its impact to human life. Alone 80-90% of lung cancer deaths are attributed to smoking [1], that isn't some minor thing at all. And although for some people cigarettes may start or may always be just a source of relaxation or indulgence occasionally on a night out, once the addiction and habits set in, it becomes a point of stress and suffering when they are not available - which IMO negates any benefits they might provide at the start. You also don't see this sort of wide spread addiction with things like cigars - which to me is a dead giveaway that they are not just some form of indulgence. I personally would love to see them disappear and never return. I think they provide far more suffering to the individual and individuals surrounding smokers than any of the benefits could ever hope to offset. If that's not possible, then I'd be satisfied if the addictive substances in them were highly regulated and reduced or removed entirely. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm
AQuantized 5y ago
Almost all evidence suggests that decriminalization or even full legalization is the path for substance legislation. Anyone believing criminalization to be an efficacious way to reducing drug addiction or related damages has either buried their head in the sand to almost every study and real world example, or has ulterior motives.
sys_64738 5y ago
This is just silly. If you're an adult (i.e. 18+) then you should be able to smoke if you want. You can't have agist rules that segment the population like this because it simply doesn't work and isn't a government's right to dictate who can/cannot smoke. No, I don't smoke.
margofx 5y ago
I'm not against smoking but I believe that it should not be illegal, but controlled.
stevenalowe 5y ago
The article mentions Bhutan’s ban but fails to note the unintended consequences: a huge increase in smoking and black markets [0] [0] https://www.vapingpost.com/2017/07/18/bhutans-tobacco-ban-disaster/ https://www.vapingpost.com/2017/07/18/bhutans-tobacco-ban-di...
ChrisArchitect 5y ago
amazing out of the box idea and wish them all the best. Crazy to think smoking anywhere is ok especially during an airborne pandemic and the notion that spewing out that crap from your mouth/nose is okay anywhere at all where there are or aren't other people is nuts. Not inside. Not outside. Not down the street. It not ok to invade other people's personal space. Same as anything pandemic. The entitlement is as much a plague as the virus itself.
joeman1000 5y ago
They will just buy grey/black-market ‘chop-chop’ tobacco from one of the numerous Chinese smoke shops instead. These shops are commonplace in Australia, so I assume it’s the same in NZ.

67 points by colinprince 5y ago

They could have just banned it in public or put it under offensive behaviour. This will only drive tobacco underground. People already buy contraband tobacco products and drugs.

karaterobot 5y ago

> "If nothing changes, it would be decades till Māori smoking rates fall below 5 per cent, and this government is not prepared to leave people behind." I'm not from New Zealand, so it's officially none of my business. But, this quote in particular seems so patronizing.

vanusa 5y ago

Or in other words - to treat them as children, for the rest of their lives.

theandrewbailey 5y ago

The war on drugs expands.

bovermyer 5y ago

I like this. It's certainly more possible in New Zealand than in a corporate-owned country like the USA.

golemotron 5y ago
That's the least of the reasons it wouldn't work in the USA. It would be a civil rights issue. Age discrimination.
- PretzelPirate 5y ago
  Legally, doesn’t age discrimination only protect people over 40? Would it apply to banning people under the age of 14 from ever doing something? https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination
  - golemotron 5y ago
    Civil rights under the Constitution are largely about protecting freedom from government action. The US does not have laws that prohibit liberties disparately among adults. The NZ law would be a non-starter in the US.
hourislate 5y ago
I will have you know our corporate overlords own a good chunk of New Zealand also and any resistance is futile! But what's up with Jacinda? Is she afraid of Maori adults, why not just ban tobacco entirely?
- sleepysysadmin 5y ago
  >But what's up with Jacinda? Is she afraid of Maori adults, why not just ban tobacco entirely? Kind of side line question. Jacinda got a huge result in the election. Their majority and nearly majority popular vote effectively authorizes them do whatever they please. So why not go all the way on all their efforts?
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    Getting 99% of votes does not entitle you from expropriating the capital of remaining 1%. It does not work that way.
    - sleepysysadmin 5y ago
      >Getting 99% of votes does not entitle you from expropriating the capital of remaining 1%. It does not work that way. Well I'm not saying Jacinda is planning to do this? In fact I never checked out their platform or plans. Perhaps they are?

dougmwne 5y ago

Sidestepping questions of personal freedom, I think the method here is interesting. No one will have their access to buy cigarettes taken away. Some people will never receive the access in the first place. It’s easier to not grant access than to grant it, then take it away. I wonder if this could have other legal applications.

zamalek 5y ago
I fully support the spirit of this legislation, because I'm a recovered nicotine addict and I wish I had never been granted access to nicotine when I first experimented with it. > Some people will never receive the access in the first place This simply isn't true. People will purchase nicotine from older people, while that's still possible, and then there will be a blossoming bootleg nicotine market. We've seen prohibition fail enough times to know that it simply doesn't work.
- MayeulC 5y ago
  I agree that tobacco access will drip down over to the younger generations, however, should a decent percentage of stores or users comply with this: 1. Market will shrink, making tobacco more difficult to obtain for current users and suppliers 2. Population will age, and it will become harder and harder for new generations to obtain access. 3. At some point, the policy might be considered excessive and abolished. However, there is no time frame for that. 5 years? 50 years? Will it have accomplished anything? 4. (same as your last point) As legalization of other drugs seems to gain traction, this seems like a weird position to take. Would illegal trafficking of tobacco increase, with the usual downsides? Instead of a blanket ban, would a huge tax increase work better? Keeping the same age restrictions. I can imagine most people preferring a legal, though more expensive, procurement source. Of course, that discriminates against a growing part of the population, but so does a ban. And in both cases, it helps you not to take up the habit in the fist place.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    Your first two points have been proven comprehensively false by actual failed attempts at drug prohibition throughout modern history.

sorry_outta_gas 5y ago

Do the same with murder simulating video games next pls

0xbadcafebee 5y ago

Kind of missing the point, though. Why do so many Maori adults smoke? Attack the cause, not the effect.

thriftwy 5y ago

What happens when they grow up and make something illegal for you in return?

optymizer 5y ago
"something" that can cause lung cancer? I guess it's just going to save lives.

beardyw 5y ago

I fully support this, but sadly there will be kids to whom possession and the smoking of cigarettes will be even more a sign of the utmost coolness. And, as I understand it there will be a time when a 35 year old can buy cigarettes but a 34 year old can't. That's going to be interesting.

gadflyinyoureye 5y ago
Here’s the problem with tobacco. It becomes a public expense when the community has to pay the health bill. The same arguments that people who refuse COVID vaccines should be cut off from the community (jobs, commerce, etc) applies to tobacco. Tobacco costs lives and can inflict damage on those not personally using.
- standardUser 5y ago
  "Here’s the problem with tobacco." Funny how that is the exact same problem as with exercise, diet, driving, and just generally existing in a society.
  - mitigating 5y ago
    Smoking is addictive. This makes it more difficult for a person to change their behavior compared to exercising more, eating healthy, and driving better (I'm assuming you meant people who drive poorly?)
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  So does heroin. Decriminalizing its use with treatment works while prohibition never does. You're barking up the wrong tree if you believe outlawing tobacco is a valid solution.
- scythe 5y ago
  >The same arguments that people who refuse COVID vaccines should be cut off from the community (jobs, commerce, etc) applies to tobacco. When was the last time an ER or ICU was closed to new patients because of lung cancer? The problem with COVID denialism isn't that they impose the usual sort of healthcare costs but that they produce correlated emergencies which strain the hospital beyond its usual operating capacity.

siliconunit 5y ago

soon we'll own our lives to some 'benign' all knowledgeable government...I guess it's where everything is heading, all needs to be measured, assessed, risks calculated, resources optimized.. and nobody seems to be too worried, maybe it's just evolution in action... quite terrifying if you ask me.

swlp21 5y ago

The price increases (10% per year since 2011) have created a market for stolen and counterfeit cigarettes already. Creating a slow-roll prohibition will not stop people wanting to smoke tobacco products - in fact, previous evidence (e.g. alcohol and cannabis as things most people know about) shows that people are motivated to partake by the very idea of it being illicit. The product of US prohibition was the creation of extremely wealthy alcohol running families who are nowadays big (legitimate) businesses in North America, built up through the wealth of the illegal operations during prohibition. While the intention (zero smoking) would save many from suffering horrible deaths, observation of basic human motivation suggests the NZ experiment is more likely to make a few people extremely wealthy and not actually stop tobacco smoking at all, no matter how much better off people would be by not smoking.

lostlogin 5y ago
> the NZ experiment is more likely to make a few people extremely wealthy and not actually stop tobacco smoking The trend is pretty good, and numbers are steadily falling. E-cigarettes have been vowing though. The below stats obviously pre-date the change announced. https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/annual-update-key-results-2020-21-new-zealand-health-survey https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/annual-update-key-res...
- stuaxo 5y ago
  This is the thing, as drugs go cigarettes aren't a particularly good one.
snarf21 5y ago
Good points. Like you said, kids drink underage and kids smoke underage. People buy heroin, etc. even though it is illegal. We'd be better off making these things legal for those 18+, tax them and use that to fund addiction recovery (we already have addicts but no one is paying for recovery).
- chrischattin 5y ago
  The Portuguese model has been wildly successful.

elzbardico 5y ago

As an ex-smoker I would love if nobody ever smoked again and this scourge was eliminated from the face of earth. But not at this price. A few years of life more will never justify another war on drugs and this level of government control.

errcorrectcode 5y ago
I lost a good number of men on my mom's side to tobacco and generally hate it. Prohibition doesn't work and anyone who supports "quick fix" criminalization of substances is a fool.

jimbob45 5y ago

Any NZers on that know if this is likely to pass? We have bills like this in the US a few times a year but they never have real chances of being signed into law.

howeyc 5y ago

Because prohibition worked out so well in the past. And the war on drugs is a supreme success.

errcorrectcode 5y ago
Roll the tanks because Jimmy sells loosies.

bigyikes 5y ago

The amount of support for drug prohibition in this thread really surprises me. Why shouldn’t an adult have the freedom to smoke and put themselves at high risk of lung cancer? If it’s “for their own good”, what makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self? I hope lives are saved, but dang, it just hurts me a little bit to see personal liberty curbed. There’s no way this will result in an illegal drug market for cigarettes, right?

crate_barre 5y ago
It’s weird right? Some times I look at interesting places like Qatar and Abu Dhabi and think, ‘I wouldn’t mind going there for a bit, see what it’s like’. Then I realize they banned alcohol, and the women are constricted, and so on. Nice mountains New Zealand, wish I could have a smoke on one of them, you know, like Gandalf.
MayeulC 5y ago
> If it’s “for their own good”, what makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self? FWIW, it's easier to justify when the government pays for expensive healthcare bills that ensue. Like making helmets and seatbelts mandatory, etc. I know people who are mad at helmet-less cyclists because they will cost tax money if they have an accident: it isn't only their personal life they put on the line, they're risking other people's money. However small the final amount is on an individual level, it adds up. In the US, there are talks of making voluntarily unvaccinated patients fit their entire Covid-19 hospitalization bill.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Synaesthesia 5y ago
Its a pretty miserable and quite deadly addictive narcotic. No legitimate medical use, and an unusually hugh incidence of cancer. Its certainly a harm on society. I can't really think of much benefit, most smokers are happy to quit. But if you look at the US, they have dramatically decreased smoking with education and gentle discouragement. Maybe also look at the reason why some people get addicted in the first place, it's often due to trauma.

cies 5y ago

It will only get cooler. And you put age discrimination in the law book. Sure there is some age discrimination in the lawbooks for kids/elderly have some different laws applicable to them. But this is discriminating against a generation not an age group. I prefer the "tax the shit out of it" approach. Possibly with a tax that is calculated based on your wealth/income (as all discouragements taxes should be, or they only apply to poorer peeps)

maccolgan 5y ago
You think that the harm is positively correlated with income out of all things? And you want to present your income to a cig store out of all places?
- cies 5y ago
  Maybe have some tax-thing so they show up on your tax statement. Same for other discouragement tax and also fines. Making them flat for all is basically saying poorer can we financially ravaged some something the rich would not even worry a tiny bit. If you know how alcohol is sold in Sweden you may get the drift of what I'd like to see: totally available but very controlled.

can16358p 5y ago

Preventing people from buying something that affects their own body should be illegal. It's their own body. (Anti smoker here)

vegarab 5y ago
I agree. But if you are smoking next to me, now I am too.
- can16358p 5y ago
  It should be illegal to affect anyone by the smoke. My dream system would be: If you are at a public place but there is no one else around (clearly defined by distance), that would be okay. If there's a single person they would have right to sue you and it's your responsibility to ensure you aren't affecting anyone as the smoker. If in doubt, you can smoke home. My point is, anyone should be able to anything to their own body as long as their actions aren't affecting other people. Anything from smoking/secondhand smoke to harder drugs/driving under influence etc would be judged by the same logic. I don't smoke and actually hate smoke, but I don't feel that I have any right to prevent anyone from smoking, as long as their smoke doesn't get in contact with me.
FinanceAnon 5y ago
What if my taxes are paying for their healthcare? (I don't support completely banning smoking, but just playing devil's advocate here)
- can16358p 5y ago
  The system is wrong. Everybody should be paying for their own healthcare OR if there will be public healthcare, people who are at higher risk due to their own actions (like smoking) should not be covered by healthcare/pay an extra to be covered etc. I definitely agree with you on someone shouldn't be paying for someone else's healthcare.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

vegarab 5y ago

I get all the hesitancy in the comments here about the freedom of an adult to have a cigarette. However, smoking is a case where; if you're having a smoke at the same bus stop as me, I am inhaling that crap too.

maccolgan 5y ago
The solution to this lies in the statement.

cynusx 5y ago

Surely kids below the age threshold will love to break the rules and try it out. There is one upside though, which is that enforcement becomes progressively easier. At some point every young person that smokes is breaking the law. I think they could just make the product worse (e.g. banning filters; adding supplements to make it more bitter) and then individuals will naturally opt to avoid smoking.

thriftwy 5y ago
I don't think that people will ever break the law by smoking. It's selling which is usually made illegal, not buying. Going after a person is much harder than going after business making money.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

Go look for 'lung cancer' statistics post ~2007. It's going to be quite difficult to find this data and when you do... Why are lung cancer rates WAY WAY up? Tobacco smoking is way down in part due to 'education' and tremendous taxes. The reason they dont really show the post 2007 data is that it's really bad. It destroys the correlation that tobacco is even involved in lung cancer. In fact, it now looks like tobacco's toxicity might have been kind of a chemotherapy poison holding back lung cancer. Worse yet, all the 'education' means nobody at all is looking into it. Everyone just blames tobacco still. I'm not saying go buy a pack of cigarettes, but creating a black market like NZ is about to do is the wrong choice.

andrew_eit 5y ago

I kind of torn between two opinions here. On the one hand - an adult should be able to make their own choices regarding something like this. I mean, we're all slowly decaying day-by-day and I can understand that one might want to live while their alive and suffer the consequences of a shorter lifespan. Also sometimes one could argue it's actually encouraged not to become obsessed with _never_ doing anything that is bad for your health, we all accept that there's value in stress reduction to sometimes just go out and have an intense night with friends, order in some junk food or just do something really risky for the adrenaline rush. On the other hand - the intense addiction factor of cigarettes is really quite terrifying and is really unprecedented when compared to other unhealthy habits. A lifelong smoker who quit once told me that the Cigarette, is more like a companion. There in the good times, (celebrate, have a cig), there in the bad, there when you wake up, take a break, or call it a day. They are optimized to be a lifelong companion and the amount of suffering caused by them (directly - to the smoker and indirectly - to loved ones impacted by their addiction) is significant enough (IMHO) to warrant questioning of its impact to human life. Alone 80-90% of lung cancer deaths are attributed to smoking [1], that isn't some minor thing at all. And although for some people cigarettes may start or may always be just a source of relaxation or indulgence occasionally on a night out, once the addiction and habits set in, it becomes a point of stress and suffering when they are not available - which IMO negates any benefits they might provide at the start. You also don't see this sort of wide spread addiction with things like cigars - which to me is a dead giveaway that they are not just some form of indulgence. I personally would love to see them disappear and never return. I think they provide far more suffering to the individual and individuals surrounding smokers than any of the benefits could ever hope to offset. If that's not possible, then I'd be satisfied if the addictive substances in them were highly regulated and reduced or removed entirely. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm

AQuantized 5y ago

Almost all evidence suggests that decriminalization or even full legalization is the path for substance legislation. Anyone believing criminalization to be an efficacious way to reducing drug addiction or related damages has either buried their head in the sand to almost every study and real world example, or has ulterior motives.

sys_64738 5y ago

This is just silly. If you're an adult (i.e. 18+) then you should be able to smoke if you want. You can't have agist rules that segment the population like this because it simply doesn't work and isn't a government's right to dictate who can/cannot smoke. No, I don't smoke.

margofx 5y ago

I'm not against smoking but I believe that it should not be illegal, but controlled.

stevenalowe 5y ago

The article mentions Bhutan’s ban but fails to note the unintended consequences: a huge increase in smoking and black markets [0] [0] https://www.vapingpost.com/2017/07/18/bhutans-tobacco-ban-disaster/ https://www.vapingpost.com/2017/07/18/bhutans-tobacco-ban-di...

ChrisArchitect 5y ago

amazing out of the box idea and wish them all the best. Crazy to think smoking anywhere is ok especially during an airborne pandemic and the notion that spewing out that crap from your mouth/nose is okay anywhere at all where there are or aren't other people is nuts. Not inside. Not outside. Not down the street. It not ok to invade other people's personal space. Same as anything pandemic. The entitlement is as much a plague as the virus itself.

joeman1000 5y ago

They will just buy grey/black-market ‘chop-chop’ tobacco from one of the numerous Chinese smoke shops instead. These shops are commonplace in Australia, so I assume it’s the same in NZ.