4 ms·

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

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.
  - errcorrectcode 5y ago
    Nope. Criminal gangs will keep smokers in cigarettes.
jboggan 5y ago
Voting, freedom of movement, free speech . . . the possibilities are endless. New Zealand is certainly on the vanguard of this sort of political innovation.
morcheeba 5y ago
I think it's a step in the direction of personal freedom, because addictive substances are kinda the opposite of free will.
- pixl97 5y ago
  This gets really messy when you start talking about physical addiction versus mental addictions. Not to mention substances that are only physically addictive to some people.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Yeah, till the day the concept of being addicted to read the wrong books arise.
  - r00fus 5y ago
    That's an inapt slippery slope analogy. The supposed bastion of freedom, the US, still has states where books are banned. And abortion is functionally banned. Not all freedoms are the same. Losing one doesn't equate with losing all of them. Equating the freedom to become addicted (or indebted perpetually) is not the same as the freedom to read or travel, etc.
    - elzbardico 5y ago
      Who gives the right to define something as addictive and therefore, bad, and other stuff as not and therefore virtuos. Why do we got the right to moralize some stuff as being "an slave of a substance". Aren't we all slaves of water, nutrition, companionship, shelter? Why do I get to feel superior to the cocaine user?
      - r00fus 5y ago
        > Who gives the right to define something as addictive and therefore, bad Data. Decades of data and the societal costs of ignoring addictive substances. The rest of your comment is a set of false equivalencies.
qball 5y ago
>I wonder if this could have other legal applications. Not in any country that believes in equality before the law; the concept is that you're not allowed to create 2 classes of citizens, which is what this law effectively does. Not that the US is at all perfect in this regard, and nearly every state establishes some form of this, but effectively making a group of citizens permanent children should be troubling to anyone who values the concept of equality before the law.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Until we get suffrage for minors, banning cigarettes is peanuts.
- dougmwne 5y ago
  I have a higher social security retirement age than my parents, even though life expectancy is dropping. We absolutely have different rules for different cohorts today in the US. Maybe there are times when cohort based law is a good tool, and times when it is not or should be unconstitutional.
  - qball 5y ago
    >We absolutely have different rules for different cohorts today in the US. Crucially, however, none of those rules involve criminal or civil penalties (outside of the distinction between who is and is not considered a full member of society; there are no tiers between full members outside of "does qualify as an adult" and "does not qualify"). It's worth noting that the part of the Constitution that deals with this was laid down after the US fought an incredibly destructive 4-year war against itself *to deny itself its own ability to pass cohort-based law*, though it took a good 100 years after that war for the results to be fully incorporated. Of course, the US certainly isn't perfect in this regard, and this can be abused in the other direction ("In its majestic equality the law forbids both rich and poor to sleep beneath bridges...") but "honor what the 14th says" remains the cultural law of the land for very good reason. >Maybe there are times when cohort based law is a good tool Apartheid schemes and Jim Crow laws have always enjoyed wide popular support- they all have valid anecdotal backing (and scientific backing, if you consider P-hacking valid science), direct society in ways those not targeted by the law find preferable, and have enjoyed wildly popular support amongst the groups not targeted by the law. That's fundamentally what cohort-based law is; society hasn't managed to solve the obvious abuse problems that come with "but I'm too lazy to solve this problem the right way" or "the solution to the problem compatible with human rights is taking too long", because without fail that's what it always becomes.
elzbardico 5y ago
Well if I was a New Zealand smoker I would sleep at peace knowing that I will have a profitable side-career with a government granted monopoly in my retirement. “Hey kid, do you want your cigarettes? Pass the money and get out of my lawn!”
donatj 5y ago
Everyone under the limit is having their access to buy cigarettes taken away. I think the view that the government grants rights rather than takes away natural freedoms is a dangerous view.
oleganza 5y ago
It is completely backwards. Letting government think that it's an institution that grants rights and tells how to live instead of helping people sort out conflicts while letting everyone decide how to live their lives is a sure way to destroy society. Because power-hungry sociopaths would be the first to play such game. Good parents don't parent via restrictions, but by offering kids something better to do with their time. Restrictions are powerful if they are super-clear and super-limited ("do not kill", "do not steal"). Just making a pile of good-to-have "don'ts" diminishes the effect and risks brewing revolt. If you manage society and worry that people smoke too much or drink too much, or don't do enough sports, or eat junk food, figure out a way to make a better alternative more available and more satisfying. Be a good parent who guides to a better way, not an annoying parent who simply barks "no" left and right.

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.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  Nope. Criminal gangs will keep smokers in cigarettes.

jboggan 5y ago

Voting, freedom of movement, free speech . . . the possibilities are endless. New Zealand is certainly on the vanguard of this sort of political innovation.

morcheeba 5y ago

I think it's a step in the direction of personal freedom, because addictive substances are kinda the opposite of free will.

pixl97 5y ago
This gets really messy when you start talking about physical addiction versus mental addictions. Not to mention substances that are only physically addictive to some people.
elzbardico 5y ago
Yeah, till the day the concept of being addicted to read the wrong books arise.
- r00fus 5y ago
  That's an inapt slippery slope analogy. The supposed bastion of freedom, the US, still has states where books are banned. And abortion is functionally banned. Not all freedoms are the same. Losing one doesn't equate with losing all of them. Equating the freedom to become addicted (or indebted perpetually) is not the same as the freedom to read or travel, etc.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    Who gives the right to define something as addictive and therefore, bad, and other stuff as not and therefore virtuos. Why do we got the right to moralize some stuff as being "an slave of a substance". Aren't we all slaves of water, nutrition, companionship, shelter? Why do I get to feel superior to the cocaine user?
    - r00fus 5y ago
      > Who gives the right to define something as addictive and therefore, bad Data. Decades of data and the societal costs of ignoring addictive substances. The rest of your comment is a set of false equivalencies.

qball 5y ago

>I wonder if this could have other legal applications. Not in any country that believes in equality before the law; the concept is that you're not allowed to create 2 classes of citizens, which is what this law effectively does. Not that the US is at all perfect in this regard, and nearly every state establishes some form of this, but effectively making a group of citizens permanent children should be troubling to anyone who values the concept of equality before the law.

kelseyfrog 5y ago
Until we get suffrage for minors, banning cigarettes is peanuts.
dougmwne 5y ago
I have a higher social security retirement age than my parents, even though life expectancy is dropping. We absolutely have different rules for different cohorts today in the US. Maybe there are times when cohort based law is a good tool, and times when it is not or should be unconstitutional.
- qball 5y ago
  >We absolutely have different rules for different cohorts today in the US. Crucially, however, none of those rules involve criminal or civil penalties (outside of the distinction between who is and is not considered a full member of society; there are no tiers between full members outside of "does qualify as an adult" and "does not qualify"). It's worth noting that the part of the Constitution that deals with this was laid down after the US fought an incredibly destructive 4-year war against itself *to deny itself its own ability to pass cohort-based law*, though it took a good 100 years after that war for the results to be fully incorporated. Of course, the US certainly isn't perfect in this regard, and this can be abused in the other direction ("In its majestic equality the law forbids both rich and poor to sleep beneath bridges...") but "honor what the 14th says" remains the cultural law of the land for very good reason. >Maybe there are times when cohort based law is a good tool Apartheid schemes and Jim Crow laws have always enjoyed wide popular support- they all have valid anecdotal backing (and scientific backing, if you consider P-hacking valid science), direct society in ways those not targeted by the law find preferable, and have enjoyed wildly popular support amongst the groups not targeted by the law. That's fundamentally what cohort-based law is; society hasn't managed to solve the obvious abuse problems that come with "but I'm too lazy to solve this problem the right way" or "the solution to the problem compatible with human rights is taking too long", because without fail that's what it always becomes.

elzbardico 5y ago

Well if I was a New Zealand smoker I would sleep at peace knowing that I will have a profitable side-career with a government granted monopoly in my retirement. “Hey kid, do you want your cigarettes? Pass the money and get out of my lawn!”

donatj 5y ago

Everyone under the limit is having their access to buy cigarettes taken away. I think the view that the government grants rights rather than takes away natural freedoms is a dangerous view.

oleganza 5y ago

It is completely backwards. Letting government think that it's an institution that grants rights and tells how to live instead of helping people sort out conflicts while letting everyone decide how to live their lives is a sure way to destroy society. Because power-hungry sociopaths would be the first to play such game. Good parents don't parent via restrictions, but by offering kids something better to do with their time. Restrictions are powerful if they are super-clear and super-limited ("do not kill", "do not steal"). Just making a pile of good-to-have "don'ts" diminishes the effect and risks brewing revolt. If you manage society and worry that people smoke too much or drink too much, or don't do enough sports, or eat junk food, figure out a way to make a better alternative more available and more satisfying. Be a good parent who guides to a better way, not an annoying parent who simply barks "no" left and right.