18 ms·

New Zealand passes legislation banning cigarettes for future generations

175 points by petodo 4y ago

petodo 4y ago
actually discussed here, but it didn't gain a lot of points, so not much visibility for such big news https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33967454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33967454
- jamesvnz 4y ago
  Big news? It's certainly not a topic of active conversation in NZ. It was talked about for a day or two when it was announced a while back - I haven't seen a single news article about it recently, nor has anyone talked about it. The opposition political parties haven't made a big deal out of it either that I've noticed. I don't think anyone really cares. With vaping still being allowed - it's all a bit moot. Anyone born after 2008 is going to be buying a vape.
  - over_bridge 4y ago
    I'm also from NZ. No one cares about this really. Smoking is already unpopular and people feel little sympathy for the plight of future smokers. We don't have the same culture of personal freedoms at any cost as many commenters here. It's gross so get rid of it.
thatguy0900 4y ago
How generous of the grown ups to ban things for other people but not yourself. Like it's objectively a good thing but it seems so silly and immature to me. How good could society be by now if we could get every generation to pass restrictions on the vices of the next generation only, I suppose. Edit: I know talking about down voting is discouraged, but since I'm being downvoted, why not go further? Alcohol is also objectively bad, why not implement this for alchohol? You would presumably even avoid all the rum running and speak easys and mass organized crime you had with the US doing the first time around if everyone who already enjoyed it got to keep doing it. Would you also find this law but for alcohol reasonable?
- stevehawk 4y ago
  I can't upvote this enough. This is a mind blowing precedent for New Zealand, and scarily, every country. I can't imagine how Boomers in the USA could be drooling at this concept.
  - hedora 4y ago
    In the US, it is the opposite. The younger generations are (correctly) panicking over climate change, but the octegenarians in congress are working tirelessly to make sure that we'll continue burning the planet down for decades after they've kicked the bucket.
- Arubis 4y ago
  This is a totally reasonable point. Interestingly, so is its inversion: "How thoughtful of the grown ups to prevent harm to other people, even knowing it won't save themselves."
  - avbanks 4y ago
    But I don't understand that, if we're operating on under the premise that smoking is bad for all (which it is), then why not ban it for all now? Thats sets a horrible precedent.
    - Arubis 4y ago
      It's kind of a harm reduction-style argument. The premise here is that banning smoking for a group more likely to already be addicted might be a non-starter, so let's at least reduce harm where we can. A fairer way might be to say "people that don't already have an established history of smoking can never buy cigarettes going forward", but that immediately creates an unhealthy incentive for everyone to go out and buy their first pack right now.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Any credence to it's better to prevent someone from starting than trying to get someone to stop? Trying to find a way to see this from a positive view than the super cynical way it comes across. I know I'm stretching for it, and it kind of hurts.
jiveturkey42 4y ago
How unfortunate, nicotine is a highly effective nootropic
- dylan604 4y ago
  Too bad smoking cigarettes gives you way more than the nicotine you so crave.
- onemoresoop 4y ago
  Maybe there are ways to intake nicotine that are not as harmful as cigarettes or maybe there are better nootropics out there
- KMnO4 4y ago
  They’re not banning nicotine. You’re complaining that spraying crops with DDT was banned because “corn is actually tasty”.
AlbertCory 4y ago
> New Zealand's smoking rate is already at historic lows, with just 8% of adults smoking daily according to government statistic released in November - down from 9.4% last year. if this was accomplished without prohibitions, how many negative consequences (black markets, organized crime, smuggling, adulterated cigarettes) is NZ willing to tolerate to get to zero? One would think that at some point, you get down to a hard core that will never stop.
- yboris 4y ago
  The point of the law is to prevent anyone born after 2008 from buying cigarettes. Hardcore users that are older than that can continue to purchase tobacco.
  - standardUser 4y ago
    Right, those born after 2008 will have to buy their cigarettes illegally.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Illegal cigarettes are something deeply ingrained in my mind as part of the trade from the mafia. I'm now imagining guido looking men with kiwi accents.
      - standardUser 4y ago
        I used to (illegally) order cartons from Eastern Europe when I was a broke college kid. They didn't taste as good, but were less than half price of US cigarettes!
    - grujicd 4y ago
      When I was a kid in the 80-ties parents sent me to buy cigarettes for them. It was not illegal to sell them to minors. I guess there'll be reversal of that practice in New Zealand.
CM30 4y ago
Why do they think this won't increase the allure of cigarettes in general? Feels like prohibition has always been a questionable idea, regardless of what its target is, and it has pretty much never worked as expected. It's especially awkward given that people's interest in tobacco has already fallen to new lows without it (the article suggests only 8% of the adult population smokes now), so it feels like it could be completely counterproductive, while doing nothing could have caused interest to crash even more.
- blackoil 4y ago
  > prohibition has always been a questionable idea Any data on it having counter effect on the actual consumption and prevelance? I believe are the negatives were secondary but it was effective in primary goals.
  - hedora 4y ago
    When the US raised the drinking age from 18 to 21, binge drinking in college skyrocketed. Alcohol producers are now some of the staunchest defenders of our current drinking age.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - worik 4y ago
      > Alcohol producers are now some of the staunchest defenders of our current drinking age Is that true? That is astounding. I am inclined not to believe it
    - vkou 4y ago
      The problem here seems cultural, not legal. College dorms and frathouses seem like the perfect climate for creating a culture of binge-drinking. 1. A bunch of dumb, young adults. 2. Sent away from home to live together, with only their peers for role models. 3. With few responsibilities, and not enough schoolwork to do to keep themselves busy. I'm not sure why anyone would expect any outcome that didn't include way too many drugs and way too much partying. The drinking age isn't a problem, that set of inputs would produce the exact same thing, whether it was 18, 19, or 35. If you actually want to solve college binge drinking, kill the frat life, close down all the dorms for local students, and have them commute to school.
standardUser 4y ago
Not to worry, the (black) market always provides. It's almost like the government is abdicating their own responsibility for regulating markets and protecting public health, and instead sanctioning criminal activity to handle the issue.
- barbazoo 4y ago
  What would you do differently to solve the problem?
  - b800h 4y ago
    There isn't a problem.
    - worik 4y ago
      There is a huge problem. Young people are still taking up smoking in large numbers. It is not uniform: The children of smokers are much more likely to smoke. I am unsure this is the correct approach, but the health and economic impacts are huge.
  - sarcoplasmic 4y ago
    With 8% of NZ smoking and that number apparently falling, can you state the problem?
    - hedora 4y ago
      Lower tax revenues and tobacco profits?
    - barbazoo 4y ago
      > She added that the legislation could close the life expectancy between Maori and non-Maori citizens. The overall smoking rate for Maori citizens is at 19.9% - down from last year's figure of 22.3%. 8% among general population but 19.9% among Maori.
csours 4y ago
> The new legislation does not ban vape products, which have become far more popular among younger generations than cigarettes.
- shawnz 4y ago
  That still seems like a big improvement to me?
  - gumby 4y ago
    Really not clear. Nicotine isn't very good for your vasculature system and the vehicles (like PEG) aren't really a good thing to be breathing.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      They're still not as bad as ammonia and smoke. Edit: It hit me that over the next few decades they are probably going to invent some really nasty things to put in vapes, like they did with cigarettes (that were made to be a lot worse than the "mere" nicotine and smoke inhalation of tobacco smoking), so don't read this in 20 years thinking that people in the past thought whatever they're doing in the future is safer that cigarettes, it could eventually become worse for all we know.
      - gumby 4y ago
        Also, at least in the US, the vehicles (solvents) are unregulated, as are the heating devices (I have been told by some vaping friends that they like the "toasted" effect at the end of a long pull, which is the polymer heating, fracturing, and crosslinking. Ugh. PEG is a common vehicle; some molecular weights are so safe they aren't even regulated (called GRAS -- "generally regarded as safe") and some are quite toxic. If you were making the drug delivery device for some pharmaceutical your delivery system would be closely regulated to make sure both drug and vehicle were safely administered at all times. But these drugs are not regulated and neither are their delivery systems. You can sell whatever the hell you like. It's similar to tattoo inks -- some are OK some are really bad (like copper or sooty inks), but all the FDA can do is post some web pages rather than require safe inks.
justahuman74 4y ago
What are they going to provide as an alternative to nicotine? People start using it for a reason
- barbazoo 4y ago
  The NZ government might not think it's their responsibility to provide alternatives to harmful products they're banning.
  - wintogreen74 4y ago
    Their silence on vaping IS promoting alternatives though
- petesergeant 4y ago
  Vapes will still be allowed
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Does anyone actually start smoking because they need nicotine? I've never heard that. It's always been peer pressure and only then do they get dependent on the nicotine.
  - wintogreen74 4y ago
    Good point. What are they going to do to make me look cool then? Vaping (especially in cooler weather) looks ridiculous.
    - pelagicAustral 4y ago
      I recently started smoking again because of I've been under a lot of stress, and I can tell you, I'm already feeling like the Marlboro cowboy again.
  - shawnz 4y ago
    Nicotine is a mild stimulant and we have practically built a society in which stimulant use is nearly essential (see caffeine for example)
chitowneats 4y ago
Matsta 4y ago
I mentioned this already in a comment, but although this is a good law, the price of cigarettes is so high that most people have already moved to disposable vapes, which you can get from any Dairy (Kiwi word for a corner shop). To top that off, Crime in NZ post covid has been pretty high, and Ram Raids (driving a stolen car through a shop front) are becoming more and more frequent. With cigarettes being so expensive, they are usually a pretty common target. A dairy worker was stabbed to death a few weeks ago by people who were probably intending to steal cigarettes [1]. I can see less and less retailers stocking cigarettes as the risks outweigh the benefits. Also, the price of groceries in NZ is extortionate [2] and combined with crappy wages (every man and his dog are moving to Aus to double their salary), no one can afford to buy cigarettes. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Sandringham_dairy_stabbing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Sandringham_dairy_stabbin... [2] https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-drink/128200443/how-do-kiwi-supermarket-prices-compare-to-overseas-10-staples-10-supermarkets-10-countries https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-drink/128200443/how-...
- worik 4y ago
  > Crime in NZ post covid has been pretty high Crime in NZ has been trending downwards for over a decade. There has been an increase in certain types of crime, so if cherry picking, increasing crime can be made a thing. Not true tho. > . A dairy worker was stabbed to death a few weeks ago by people... They stole the cash register, not the cigarettes. > Also, the price of groceries in NZ is extortionate Yes. Far too high, a very profitable business with many barriers to entry > combined with crappy wages (every man and his dog are moving to Aus to double their salary), This man and dog is not leaving! That was true for many decades. Ever since the neoliberal reforms that were introduced in NZ with no planning or intelligence (cratered , but it has started to turn around recently. Wages going up in NZ and Ozzie is entering some sort of very strange twilight zone. Is this a good law? It depends. Prohibition has a very bad history. This is a different approach, so maybe
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    Crime in NZ has been trending downwards for over a decade. Reported crime does not equal actual crime. With police response time in the hours range, and a lack of prosecution, people increasingly don't bother reporting crime at all. I remember once the emergency operator pretty much said "look it's going to take a couple of hours, do you really want to bother going through with this?". This was in a city about 2km from the police station.
eadmund 4y ago
Not just cigarettes — all tobacco products. How very appalling. Smoking is a human right. Pipes smell wonderful; tobacco generally tastes great and has a positive effect on one’s mood and attention. Sad day for New Zealanders.
- posterboy 4y ago
  That zeal. From what I heared, anti-drug laws may be construed is that selling is a different matter and possession and production are accessory. That's why possession of small amounts of cannabis for example is decriminalized while traffiking is still prossecuted where I'm from. This is arguable because addictive substances will be sold with the intention of creating dependence, not unlike the loot box topic, thus it cannot be argued that they act under good intentions. And to be real, the wonderful smell acts on your parasympathic nervous system because of appetite, for the smell is associated with roasted food. Add to that the childish reflex of sucking on a nipple. So it is pretty much an eating disorder, in my humble opinion.
  - auveair 4y ago
    > And to be real, the wonderful smell acts on your parasympathic nervous system because of appetite, for the smell is associated with roasted food. Add to that the childish reflex of sucking on a nipple. So it is pretty much an eating disorder, in my humble opinion. Even Freud once said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". There is no scientific basis for the whole "oral fixation", so calling it "childish" is pretty ignorant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_stage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_stage Edit: "Contradicting the Freudian psychosexual development concept of oral-stage fixation, the Duration of Breast-feeding and the Incidence of Smoking (2003) study of 87 participants reported no causal relation between the breast-feeding period and whether or not a child matures into a person who smokes."
    - posterboy 4y ago
      I wondered for a moment if there is less denigrating, more technical word, but haven't found one. The suckling reflex is obvious. But I didn't mean to say grow out of it. Just don't give in.
cjbgkagh 4y ago
Why stop there, why not ban alcohol and sugar as well? But don't touch my coffee - I need that. I'm not totally against government regulating vice, I do wish it was done at a local level so that in the spirit of federalization we can see what works and what doesn't in small experiments before other states would voluntarily adopt it. NZ is a small state so not too many people will be impacted. I do think in an environment where the government is responsible for health outcomes it makes sense to pass mitigating regulation to minimize the costs of health outcomes. Though I do worry we may end up with mandatory exercise and a Canadian style widely encouraged assisted suicide model.
- wintogreen74 4y ago
  >> Canadian style widely encouraged assisted suicide model Canadian here; we're pretty much the polar opposite of our southern neighbours and I'd argue both of us are too extreme in our approach to health care, but I don't think you can accurately argue we have a "widely encouraged" model for ending your own life; except maybe compared to some states where life starts at ejaculation. There's a big difference between "access to" and "encouraged to".
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    This man was encouraged to seek death by staff: https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/chronically-ill-man-releases-audio-of-hospital-staff-offering-assisted-death-1.4038841 https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/chronically-ill-man-rel... We see this type of abuse everywhere it is legalized.
    - justinclift 4y ago
      > We see this type of abuse everywhere it is legalized. Is that really the case though? The example you've highlighted there is indeed pretty crappy, but it's not evidence of the problem occuring "everywhere it is legalized".
      - mensetmanusman 4y ago
wintogreen74 4y ago
I really like a lot of what comes out of NZ, but not this sort of nanny state action. I believe it will have all sorts of negative consequences out of the public light and control. It's a high-level combination of "Won't someone think of the children?" and "Do as I say, not as I do". Definitively a political winner that doesn't impact anyone of voting age for the current crop of NZ politicians.
- megatest123 4y ago
  > I believe it will have all sorts of negative consequences out of the public light and control. Can you please name some?
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    War on drugs etc.
    - worik 4y ago
      This is more of "Serious spanking" on drugs, hardly "war".
      - mensetmanusman 4y ago
        Total ban seems more like war than spank…
  - auveair 4y ago
    Loss of freedom for one, just one more thing the government chose for my body because they "know best"
  - zeveb 4y ago
    Well, forbidding adults from smoking is one of the negative consequences.
    - tuatoru 4y ago
terminal_d 4y ago
One "good law" to paper over 9000 other very bad laws.
- worik 4y ago
  What are you talking about? 9000?
  - terminal_d 4y ago
    My apologies, it's probably over 9000!
petodo 4y ago
As nonsmoker I'm strongly against this, when did alcohol prohibition, war on drugs or their COVID restrictions worked? You will just anger people and it seems completely unnecessary considering there is steady decline in smokers and there are surely more dangerous issues to deal with, in case of NZ it would be pandemic of obesity.
- ipnon 4y ago
  Assisted suicide is legal in New Zealand. What if I want to smoke myself to death? Absolutism from the state is so noxious. Make cigarettes prohibitively expensive and difficult to acquire sure. But complete prohibition is an infringement on our natural right to decide what to consume.
  - halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
    You wanna smoke yourself to death? Do it at home. Most people want to smoke themselves to death in the open, around other people though. It's nobody's right to pollute our air for the sake of their bad habits, thus regulations.
    - hellisothers 4y ago
      And pay for all your medical bills out of your own pocket.
      - Gunnerhead 4y ago
        I think that’s a silly argument. First, aren’t smokers paying for it through the high taxation of cigarettes? Second, wouldn’t this argument also apply to people that drink themselves to death? Or eat themselves to obesity? Or snack on sugar to diabetes? Should we not cover someone’s medical bills if they attempt suicide or drive at high speeds and crash? I’m saying this as a non-smokers who hates the smell of cigarettes.
      - kderbyma 4y ago
        everybody dies one day....and most...use hospitals and health care....so the argument is just a waste of time imo - and frankly....the air is connected across the globe...so that argument is kinda weak too ..
chrismat 4y ago
I grew up in a household with two smoking parents, and it sucked. So on a personal level, nothing would be better than the world collectively giving up the nasty habit. However, I would never, ever advocate or vote for forcing people to do that. Why? Because you could make the exact same case for every single vice. Alcohol has zero benefits for your health - don't even try to give me the "but wine has antioxidants" B.S., the math between the negatives and positives is still in the red (ha!). How about caffeine and other stimulants? Foods too high in fat? Red meat? Too much sunshine? XYZ thing that is considered "unhealthy" this week by the "experts"? Don't get me wrong, reasonable limits imposed at a societal level can certainly make sense (banning smoking from restaurants and airplanes, having blood-alcohol driving laws, et cetera). But the fundamental question here is do you really want to trust your personal decisions on health, diet, and entertainment to those elected via a popularity contest? And the "experts" they solicit their advice from?
- urthor 4y ago
  > do you really want to trust your personal decisions on health, diet, and entertainment to those elected via a popularity contest? Yes. Read the history of Teddy Roosevelt & the Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history If you're familiar with the political culture of Australasia, you'll realise it's an overwhelming "nanny state" culture. Also, you'll realise that Australia/New Zealand have the highest HDI indicators of any nation globally with mean winter temperatures above 10 degree Celsius. Why? Because Australia and New Zealand have a particular cultural value others don't. They trust technocratic experts to know what's best for people. And implement.
  - polemic 4y ago
    > They trust technocratic experts to know what's best for people. And implement. It helps to be small & pragmatic. People (mostly) follow the rules and politicians (mostly) only implement rules with broad support. Police have wide discretion to apply laws and (mostly) do this to benefit public good. That's not to say we don't have problems, of course, but this particular law is seen as a compromise approach to public health that more-or-less works for everyone.
pfoof 4y ago
Wouldn't it be better to increase number of smoke-free zones? For example high fines for smoking on the crosswalk (very annoying, especially that the smokers always walk faster for whatever reason) or at the bus stops. That might influence the number of people questioning if it is worth it to constantly search for a place to smoke. Not a Kiwi, but in Germany and Poland there's no prosecution for that
jimjimjim 4y ago
- lampshades 4y ago
  - jimjimjim 4y ago
    not even the bit about trying to link nickelback with new world orders?
bluescrn 4y ago
While obviously smoking is bad, how is this approach acceptable and not discrimination? Imagine if the approach to getting rid of ICE cars was to say 'nobody born after this date will ever be permitted to drive one, but a person born one day earlier can' - there'd be massive outrage.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  It is discrimination. It is an acceptance that making current generations stop is more difficult than preventing future generations from starting. >ICE cars Common narrative is smoking is bad, whereas ICE cars still bridge a gap. ICE cars also aren't an addiction. The comparison is completely off the mark.
  - estebank 4y ago
    > ICE cars also aren't an addiction. Given how difficult it is to find places in the US where you can have a car-free lifestyle, I would say they are, at least in the US.
- lost_tourist 4y ago
  Yeah but smokers are a minority (significant but small relative to the overall population) where as ICE cars are almost universal and actually serve a purpose to society, whereas smoking has no societal advantage beyond self pleasure/addiction.
turbobooster 4y ago
Many hypocritical users here agree with the ban but defend alcohol...
- nmeofthestate 4y ago
  Except alcohol already has a delivery mechanism that's probably the healthiest option, whereas smoking to get nicotine is inherently anti-social and harms others with secondhand smoke. Anyone in NZ who wants to be addicted to nicotine can still dose using a vape, which doesn't have the same downsides for others. It might be more comparable if NZ were banning some more dangerous way of getting drunk that also gave bystanders cancer.
- brokenmachine 4y ago
  How many people die from secondhand alcohol?
LAC-Tech 4y ago
New Zealand can't even stop people smoking methamphetamine, there's no way this will be effective.
- tehwhale810 4y ago
  I don’t know a ton about NZ, but I never would’ve imagined they have a meth problem. Last I heard Aus and NZ both have incredibly expensive drugs since most (all?) drugs have to be imported?
  - TheHappyOddish 4y ago
    We also have relatively high living wages. Drugs are not at all difficult to obtain.
  - indemnity 4y ago
    Meth is cheap as chips here in NZ, and easier to get your hands on than weed. We have a meth problem alright.
helloworld11 4y ago
The prohibitionist puritans never learn. Laws that reduce smoking permissiveness in public places? Sure, Laws that set rules for advertising and legal buying age or location? Okay, why not. Banning tobacco completely in a spasm of nannying, health-fanatical "for your own good" intervention in people's personal body choices? Why? Have decades of absolutely idiotic drug laws and the previous idiotic bans on alcohol not shown why this is not only a bad idea practically but also just morally wrong by basic definitions of individual's rights to autonomy over their own bodies? Doubtless there are many people here who personally dislike tobacco and thus think it's just fine that others should be banned from using it, but remember, where one set of laws tries to ban some personal way by which a person uses their body, its guiding principle can be expanded widely to include all sorts of other things you do support being able to do. As a basic notion, the whole idea of the state acting as if people should be treated like little children in situations where their actions don't cause non-voluntary damage to others is just plain toxic in so many ways.
karaterobot 4y ago
Not being from NZ, I don't feel it's my place to comment on this legislation or speculate on its effectiveness in that country. Too many variables for me. But, I think this is a very intriguing way to construct a prohibition. I'm very aware that trying to regulate away vices in my country (the U.S.) has a spotty history at best. If people want it, they're going to get it, and the alternative black market and its attendant criminality is often worse than the initial problem. But, this is a new wrinkle that (I assume) is also aware of that phenomena and is trying to mitigate it. I'm very, very interested in seeing how this plays out. Obviously, hoping for the best!
janef0421 4y ago
I don't really mind this. I don't believe it's appropriate for the government to prohibit the use of a psychoactive substance, but this law doesn't do that. It just bans a particular delivery mechanism which is known to be particularly harmful. That seems reasonable.
tuatoru 4y ago
Next step to reduce the PM2.5 load in urban air: banning diesel engines. Might also happen in my lifetime. What will people die of when rates of COPD and lung cancer go way down? will we actually be any healthier?

175 points by petodo 4y ago

actually discussed here, but it didn't gain a lot of points, so not much visibility for such big news https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33967454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33967454

jamesvnz 4y ago
Big news? It's certainly not a topic of active conversation in NZ. It was talked about for a day or two when it was announced a while back - I haven't seen a single news article about it recently, nor has anyone talked about it. The opposition political parties haven't made a big deal out of it either that I've noticed. I don't think anyone really cares. With vaping still being allowed - it's all a bit moot. Anyone born after 2008 is going to be buying a vape.
- over_bridge 4y ago
  I'm also from NZ. No one cares about this really. Smoking is already unpopular and people feel little sympathy for the plight of future smokers. We don't have the same culture of personal freedoms at any cost as many commenters here. It's gross so get rid of it.

thatguy0900 4y ago

How generous of the grown ups to ban things for other people but not yourself. Like it's objectively a good thing but it seems so silly and immature to me. How good could society be by now if we could get every generation to pass restrictions on the vices of the next generation only, I suppose. Edit: I know talking about down voting is discouraged, but since I'm being downvoted, why not go further? Alcohol is also objectively bad, why not implement this for alchohol? You would presumably even avoid all the rum running and speak easys and mass organized crime you had with the US doing the first time around if everyone who already enjoyed it got to keep doing it. Would you also find this law but for alcohol reasonable?

stevehawk 4y ago
I can't upvote this enough. This is a mind blowing precedent for New Zealand, and scarily, every country. I can't imagine how Boomers in the USA could be drooling at this concept.
- hedora 4y ago
  In the US, it is the opposite. The younger generations are (correctly) panicking over climate change, but the octegenarians in congress are working tirelessly to make sure that we'll continue burning the planet down for decades after they've kicked the bucket.
Arubis 4y ago
This is a totally reasonable point. Interestingly, so is its inversion: "How thoughtful of the grown ups to prevent harm to other people, even knowing it won't save themselves."
- avbanks 4y ago
  But I don't understand that, if we're operating on under the premise that smoking is bad for all (which it is), then why not ban it for all now? Thats sets a horrible precedent.
  - Arubis 4y ago
    It's kind of a harm reduction-style argument. The premise here is that banning smoking for a group more likely to already be addicted might be a non-starter, so let's at least reduce harm where we can. A fairer way might be to say "people that don't already have an established history of smoking can never buy cigarettes going forward", but that immediately creates an unhealthy incentive for everyone to go out and buy their first pack right now.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Any credence to it's better to prevent someone from starting than trying to get someone to stop? Trying to find a way to see this from a positive view than the super cynical way it comes across. I know I'm stretching for it, and it kind of hurts.

jiveturkey42 4y ago

How unfortunate, nicotine is a highly effective nootropic

dylan604 4y ago
Too bad smoking cigarettes gives you way more than the nicotine you so crave.
onemoresoop 4y ago
Maybe there are ways to intake nicotine that are not as harmful as cigarettes or maybe there are better nootropics out there
KMnO4 4y ago
They’re not banning nicotine. You’re complaining that spraying crops with DDT was banned because “corn is actually tasty”.

AlbertCory 4y ago

> New Zealand's smoking rate is already at historic lows, with just 8% of adults smoking daily according to government statistic released in November - down from 9.4% last year. if this was accomplished without prohibitions, how many negative consequences (black markets, organized crime, smuggling, adulterated cigarettes) is NZ willing to tolerate to get to zero? One would think that at some point, you get down to a hard core that will never stop.

yboris 4y ago
The point of the law is to prevent anyone born after 2008 from buying cigarettes. Hardcore users that are older than that can continue to purchase tobacco.
- standardUser 4y ago
  Right, those born after 2008 will have to buy their cigarettes illegally.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Illegal cigarettes are something deeply ingrained in my mind as part of the trade from the mafia. I'm now imagining guido looking men with kiwi accents.
    - standardUser 4y ago
      I used to (illegally) order cartons from Eastern Europe when I was a broke college kid. They didn't taste as good, but were less than half price of US cigarettes!
  - grujicd 4y ago
    When I was a kid in the 80-ties parents sent me to buy cigarettes for them. It was not illegal to sell them to minors. I guess there'll be reversal of that practice in New Zealand.

CM30 4y ago

Why do they think this won't increase the allure of cigarettes in general? Feels like prohibition has always been a questionable idea, regardless of what its target is, and it has pretty much never worked as expected. It's especially awkward given that people's interest in tobacco has already fallen to new lows without it (the article suggests only 8% of the adult population smokes now), so it feels like it could be completely counterproductive, while doing nothing could have caused interest to crash even more.

blackoil 4y ago
> prohibition has always been a questionable idea Any data on it having counter effect on the actual consumption and prevelance? I believe are the negatives were secondary but it was effective in primary goals.
- hedora 4y ago
  When the US raised the drinking age from 18 to 21, binge drinking in college skyrocketed. Alcohol producers are now some of the staunchest defenders of our current drinking age.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - worik 4y ago
    > Alcohol producers are now some of the staunchest defenders of our current drinking age Is that true? That is astounding. I am inclined not to believe it
  - vkou 4y ago
    The problem here seems cultural, not legal. College dorms and frathouses seem like the perfect climate for creating a culture of binge-drinking. 1. A bunch of dumb, young adults. 2. Sent away from home to live together, with only their peers for role models. 3. With few responsibilities, and not enough schoolwork to do to keep themselves busy. I'm not sure why anyone would expect any outcome that didn't include way too many drugs and way too much partying. The drinking age isn't a problem, that set of inputs would produce the exact same thing, whether it was 18, 19, or 35. If you actually want to solve college binge drinking, kill the frat life, close down all the dorms for local students, and have them commute to school.

standardUser 4y ago

Not to worry, the (black) market always provides. It's almost like the government is abdicating their own responsibility for regulating markets and protecting public health, and instead sanctioning criminal activity to handle the issue.

barbazoo 4y ago
What would you do differently to solve the problem?
- b800h 4y ago
  There isn't a problem.
  - worik 4y ago
    There is a huge problem. Young people are still taking up smoking in large numbers. It is not uniform: The children of smokers are much more likely to smoke. I am unsure this is the correct approach, but the health and economic impacts are huge.
- sarcoplasmic 4y ago
  With 8% of NZ smoking and that number apparently falling, can you state the problem?
  - hedora 4y ago
    Lower tax revenues and tobacco profits?
  - barbazoo 4y ago
    > She added that the legislation could close the life expectancy between Maori and non-Maori citizens. The overall smoking rate for Maori citizens is at 19.9% - down from last year's figure of 22.3%. 8% among general population but 19.9% among Maori.

csours 4y ago

> The new legislation does not ban vape products, which have become far more popular among younger generations than cigarettes.

shawnz 4y ago
That still seems like a big improvement to me?
- gumby 4y ago
  Really not clear. Nicotine isn't very good for your vasculature system and the vehicles (like PEG) aren't really a good thing to be breathing.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    They're still not as bad as ammonia and smoke. Edit: It hit me that over the next few decades they are probably going to invent some really nasty things to put in vapes, like they did with cigarettes (that were made to be a lot worse than the "mere" nicotine and smoke inhalation of tobacco smoking), so don't read this in 20 years thinking that people in the past thought whatever they're doing in the future is safer that cigarettes, it could eventually become worse for all we know.
    - gumby 4y ago
      Also, at least in the US, the vehicles (solvents) are unregulated, as are the heating devices (I have been told by some vaping friends that they like the "toasted" effect at the end of a long pull, which is the polymer heating, fracturing, and crosslinking. Ugh. PEG is a common vehicle; some molecular weights are so safe they aren't even regulated (called GRAS -- "generally regarded as safe") and some are quite toxic. If you were making the drug delivery device for some pharmaceutical your delivery system would be closely regulated to make sure both drug and vehicle were safely administered at all times. But these drugs are not regulated and neither are their delivery systems. You can sell whatever the hell you like. It's similar to tattoo inks -- some are OK some are really bad (like copper or sooty inks), but all the FDA can do is post some web pages rather than require safe inks.

justahuman74 4y ago

What are they going to provide as an alternative to nicotine? People start using it for a reason

barbazoo 4y ago
The NZ government might not think it's their responsibility to provide alternatives to harmful products they're banning.
- wintogreen74 4y ago
  Their silence on vaping IS promoting alternatives though
petesergeant 4y ago
Vapes will still be allowed
GekkePrutser 4y ago
Does anyone actually start smoking because they need nicotine? I've never heard that. It's always been peer pressure and only then do they get dependent on the nicotine.
- wintogreen74 4y ago
  Good point. What are they going to do to make me look cool then? Vaping (especially in cooler weather) looks ridiculous.
  - pelagicAustral 4y ago
    I recently started smoking again because of I've been under a lot of stress, and I can tell you, I'm already feeling like the Marlboro cowboy again.
- shawnz 4y ago
  Nicotine is a mild stimulant and we have practically built a society in which stimulant use is nearly essential (see caffeine for example)

chitowneats 4y ago

Matsta 4y ago

I mentioned this already in a comment, but although this is a good law, the price of cigarettes is so high that most people have already moved to disposable vapes, which you can get from any Dairy (Kiwi word for a corner shop). To top that off, Crime in NZ post covid has been pretty high, and Ram Raids (driving a stolen car through a shop front) are becoming more and more frequent. With cigarettes being so expensive, they are usually a pretty common target. A dairy worker was stabbed to death a few weeks ago by people who were probably intending to steal cigarettes [1]. I can see less and less retailers stocking cigarettes as the risks outweigh the benefits. Also, the price of groceries in NZ is extortionate [2] and combined with crappy wages (every man and his dog are moving to Aus to double their salary), no one can afford to buy cigarettes. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Sandringham_dairy_stabbing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Sandringham_dairy_stabbin... [2] https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-drink/128200443/how-do-kiwi-supermarket-prices-compare-to-overseas-10-staples-10-supermarkets-10-countries https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-drink/128200443/how-...

worik 4y ago
> Crime in NZ post covid has been pretty high Crime in NZ has been trending downwards for over a decade. There has been an increase in certain types of crime, so if cherry picking, increasing crime can be made a thing. Not true tho. > . A dairy worker was stabbed to death a few weeks ago by people... They stole the cash register, not the cigarettes. > Also, the price of groceries in NZ is extortionate Yes. Far too high, a very profitable business with many barriers to entry > combined with crappy wages (every man and his dog are moving to Aus to double their salary), This man and dog is not leaving! That was true for many decades. Ever since the neoliberal reforms that were introduced in NZ with no planning or intelligence (cratered , but it has started to turn around recently. Wages going up in NZ and Ozzie is entering some sort of very strange twilight zone. Is this a good law? It depends. Prohibition has a very bad history. This is a different approach, so maybe
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  Crime in NZ has been trending downwards for over a decade. Reported crime does not equal actual crime. With police response time in the hours range, and a lack of prosecution, people increasingly don't bother reporting crime at all. I remember once the emergency operator pretty much said "look it's going to take a couple of hours, do you really want to bother going through with this?". This was in a city about 2km from the police station.

eadmund 4y ago

Not just cigarettes — all tobacco products. How very appalling. Smoking is a human right. Pipes smell wonderful; tobacco generally tastes great and has a positive effect on one’s mood and attention. Sad day for New Zealanders.

posterboy 4y ago
That zeal. From what I heared, anti-drug laws may be construed is that selling is a different matter and possession and production are accessory. That's why possession of small amounts of cannabis for example is decriminalized while traffiking is still prossecuted where I'm from. This is arguable because addictive substances will be sold with the intention of creating dependence, not unlike the loot box topic, thus it cannot be argued that they act under good intentions. And to be real, the wonderful smell acts on your parasympathic nervous system because of appetite, for the smell is associated with roasted food. Add to that the childish reflex of sucking on a nipple. So it is pretty much an eating disorder, in my humble opinion.
- auveair 4y ago
  > And to be real, the wonderful smell acts on your parasympathic nervous system because of appetite, for the smell is associated with roasted food. Add to that the childish reflex of sucking on a nipple. So it is pretty much an eating disorder, in my humble opinion. Even Freud once said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". There is no scientific basis for the whole "oral fixation", so calling it "childish" is pretty ignorant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_stage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_stage Edit: "Contradicting the Freudian psychosexual development concept of oral-stage fixation, the Duration of Breast-feeding and the Incidence of Smoking (2003) study of 87 participants reported no causal relation between the breast-feeding period and whether or not a child matures into a person who smokes."
  - posterboy 4y ago
    I wondered for a moment if there is less denigrating, more technical word, but haven't found one. The suckling reflex is obvious. But I didn't mean to say grow out of it. Just don't give in.

cjbgkagh 4y ago

Why stop there, why not ban alcohol and sugar as well? But don't touch my coffee - I need that. I'm not totally against government regulating vice, I do wish it was done at a local level so that in the spirit of federalization we can see what works and what doesn't in small experiments before other states would voluntarily adopt it. NZ is a small state so not too many people will be impacted. I do think in an environment where the government is responsible for health outcomes it makes sense to pass mitigating regulation to minimize the costs of health outcomes. Though I do worry we may end up with mandatory exercise and a Canadian style widely encouraged assisted suicide model.

wintogreen74 4y ago
>> Canadian style widely encouraged assisted suicide model Canadian here; we're pretty much the polar opposite of our southern neighbours and I'd argue both of us are too extreme in our approach to health care, but I don't think you can accurately argue we have a "widely encouraged" model for ending your own life; except maybe compared to some states where life starts at ejaculation. There's a big difference between "access to" and "encouraged to".
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  This man was encouraged to seek death by staff: https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/chronically-ill-man-releases-audio-of-hospital-staff-offering-assisted-death-1.4038841 https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/chronically-ill-man-rel... We see this type of abuse everywhere it is legalized.
  - justinclift 4y ago
    > We see this type of abuse everywhere it is legalized. Is that really the case though? The example you've highlighted there is indeed pretty crappy, but it's not evidence of the problem occuring "everywhere it is legalized".
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago

wintogreen74 4y ago

I really like a lot of what comes out of NZ, but not this sort of nanny state action. I believe it will have all sorts of negative consequences out of the public light and control. It's a high-level combination of "Won't someone think of the children?" and "Do as I say, not as I do". Definitively a political winner that doesn't impact anyone of voting age for the current crop of NZ politicians.

megatest123 4y ago
> I believe it will have all sorts of negative consequences out of the public light and control. Can you please name some?
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  War on drugs etc.
  - worik 4y ago
    This is more of "Serious spanking" on drugs, hardly "war".
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      Total ban seems more like war than spank…
- auveair 4y ago
  Loss of freedom for one, just one more thing the government chose for my body because they "know best"
- zeveb 4y ago
  Well, forbidding adults from smoking is one of the negative consequences.
  - tuatoru 4y ago

terminal_d 4y ago

One "good law" to paper over 9000 other very bad laws.

worik 4y ago
What are you talking about? 9000?
- terminal_d 4y ago
  My apologies, it's probably over 9000!

petodo 4y ago

As nonsmoker I'm strongly against this, when did alcohol prohibition, war on drugs or their COVID restrictions worked? You will just anger people and it seems completely unnecessary considering there is steady decline in smokers and there are surely more dangerous issues to deal with, in case of NZ it would be pandemic of obesity.

ipnon 4y ago
Assisted suicide is legal in New Zealand. What if I want to smoke myself to death? Absolutism from the state is so noxious. Make cigarettes prohibitively expensive and difficult to acquire sure. But complete prohibition is an infringement on our natural right to decide what to consume.
- halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
  You wanna smoke yourself to death? Do it at home. Most people want to smoke themselves to death in the open, around other people though. It's nobody's right to pollute our air for the sake of their bad habits, thus regulations.
  - hellisothers 4y ago
    And pay for all your medical bills out of your own pocket.
    - Gunnerhead 4y ago
      I think that’s a silly argument. First, aren’t smokers paying for it through the high taxation of cigarettes? Second, wouldn’t this argument also apply to people that drink themselves to death? Or eat themselves to obesity? Or snack on sugar to diabetes? Should we not cover someone’s medical bills if they attempt suicide or drive at high speeds and crash? I’m saying this as a non-smokers who hates the smell of cigarettes.
    - kderbyma 4y ago
      everybody dies one day....and most...use hospitals and health care....so the argument is just a waste of time imo - and frankly....the air is connected across the globe...so that argument is kinda weak too ..

chrismat 4y ago

I grew up in a household with two smoking parents, and it sucked. So on a personal level, nothing would be better than the world collectively giving up the nasty habit. However, I would never, ever advocate or vote for forcing people to do that. Why? Because you could make the exact same case for every single vice. Alcohol has zero benefits for your health - don't even try to give me the "but wine has antioxidants" B.S., the math between the negatives and positives is still in the red (ha!). How about caffeine and other stimulants? Foods too high in fat? Red meat? Too much sunshine? XYZ thing that is considered "unhealthy" this week by the "experts"? Don't get me wrong, reasonable limits imposed at a societal level can certainly make sense (banning smoking from restaurants and airplanes, having blood-alcohol driving laws, et cetera). But the fundamental question here is do you really want to trust your personal decisions on health, diet, and entertainment to those elected via a popularity contest? And the "experts" they solicit their advice from?

urthor 4y ago
> do you really want to trust your personal decisions on health, diet, and entertainment to those elected via a popularity contest? Yes. Read the history of Teddy Roosevelt & the Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history If you're familiar with the political culture of Australasia, you'll realise it's an overwhelming "nanny state" culture. Also, you'll realise that Australia/New Zealand have the highest HDI indicators of any nation globally with mean winter temperatures above 10 degree Celsius. Why? Because Australia and New Zealand have a particular cultural value others don't. They trust technocratic experts to know what's best for people. And implement.
- polemic 4y ago
  > They trust technocratic experts to know what's best for people. And implement. It helps to be small & pragmatic. People (mostly) follow the rules and politicians (mostly) only implement rules with broad support. Police have wide discretion to apply laws and (mostly) do this to benefit public good. That's not to say we don't have problems, of course, but this particular law is seen as a compromise approach to public health that more-or-less works for everyone.

pfoof 4y ago

Wouldn't it be better to increase number of smoke-free zones? For example high fines for smoking on the crosswalk (very annoying, especially that the smokers always walk faster for whatever reason) or at the bus stops. That might influence the number of people questioning if it is worth it to constantly search for a place to smoke. Not a Kiwi, but in Germany and Poland there's no prosecution for that

jimjimjim 4y ago

lampshades 4y ago
- jimjimjim 4y ago
  not even the bit about trying to link nickelback with new world orders?

bluescrn 4y ago

While obviously smoking is bad, how is this approach acceptable and not discrimination? Imagine if the approach to getting rid of ICE cars was to say 'nobody born after this date will ever be permitted to drive one, but a person born one day earlier can' - there'd be massive outrage.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
It is discrimination. It is an acceptance that making current generations stop is more difficult than preventing future generations from starting. >ICE cars Common narrative is smoking is bad, whereas ICE cars still bridge a gap. ICE cars also aren't an addiction. The comparison is completely off the mark.
- estebank 4y ago
  > ICE cars also aren't an addiction. Given how difficult it is to find places in the US where you can have a car-free lifestyle, I would say they are, at least in the US.
lost_tourist 4y ago
Yeah but smokers are a minority (significant but small relative to the overall population) where as ICE cars are almost universal and actually serve a purpose to society, whereas smoking has no societal advantage beyond self pleasure/addiction.

turbobooster 4y ago

Many hypocritical users here agree with the ban but defend alcohol...

nmeofthestate 4y ago
Except alcohol already has a delivery mechanism that's probably the healthiest option, whereas smoking to get nicotine is inherently anti-social and harms others with secondhand smoke. Anyone in NZ who wants to be addicted to nicotine can still dose using a vape, which doesn't have the same downsides for others. It might be more comparable if NZ were banning some more dangerous way of getting drunk that also gave bystanders cancer.
brokenmachine 4y ago
How many people die from secondhand alcohol?

LAC-Tech 4y ago

New Zealand can't even stop people smoking methamphetamine, there's no way this will be effective.

tehwhale810 4y ago
I don’t know a ton about NZ, but I never would’ve imagined they have a meth problem. Last I heard Aus and NZ both have incredibly expensive drugs since most (all?) drugs have to be imported?
- TheHappyOddish 4y ago
  We also have relatively high living wages. Drugs are not at all difficult to obtain.
- indemnity 4y ago
  Meth is cheap as chips here in NZ, and easier to get your hands on than weed. We have a meth problem alright.

helloworld11 4y ago

The prohibitionist puritans never learn. Laws that reduce smoking permissiveness in public places? Sure, Laws that set rules for advertising and legal buying age or location? Okay, why not. Banning tobacco completely in a spasm of nannying, health-fanatical "for your own good" intervention in people's personal body choices? Why? Have decades of absolutely idiotic drug laws and the previous idiotic bans on alcohol not shown why this is not only a bad idea practically but also just morally wrong by basic definitions of individual's rights to autonomy over their own bodies? Doubtless there are many people here who personally dislike tobacco and thus think it's just fine that others should be banned from using it, but remember, where one set of laws tries to ban some personal way by which a person uses their body, its guiding principle can be expanded widely to include all sorts of other things you do support being able to do. As a basic notion, the whole idea of the state acting as if people should be treated like little children in situations where their actions don't cause non-voluntary damage to others is just plain toxic in so many ways.

karaterobot 4y ago

Not being from NZ, I don't feel it's my place to comment on this legislation or speculate on its effectiveness in that country. Too many variables for me. But, I think this is a very intriguing way to construct a prohibition. I'm very aware that trying to regulate away vices in my country (the U.S.) has a spotty history at best. If people want it, they're going to get it, and the alternative black market and its attendant criminality is often worse than the initial problem. But, this is a new wrinkle that (I assume) is also aware of that phenomena and is trying to mitigate it. I'm very, very interested in seeing how this plays out. Obviously, hoping for the best!

janef0421 4y ago

I don't really mind this. I don't believe it's appropriate for the government to prohibit the use of a psychoactive substance, but this law doesn't do that. It just bans a particular delivery mechanism which is known to be particularly harmful. That seems reasonable.

tuatoru 4y ago

Next step to reduce the PM2.5 load in urban air: banning diesel engines. Might also happen in my lifetime. What will people die of when rates of COPD and lung cancer go way down? will we actually be any healthier?