3 ms·

> Alcohol is also objectively bad, why not implement this for alchohol? Well we both know that will never happen. But yes, alcohol is harmful but I think smok

by jmclnx 4y ago

> Alcohol is also objectively bad, why not implement this for alchohol? Well we both know that will never happen. But yes, alcohol is harmful but I think smoking is even more so. If Cost is NZ only concern, they can always charge more for healthcare for people who drink/smoke, price depends upon length of use. But we all know that will never work. Where I work, just about everyone when signing up for healthcare always ticks the "I do not smoke" box to get a cheaper rate. And I doubt there is a sure fire way to verify how much people smoke or imbibe over their lifetime.

thatguy0900 4y ago
Why couldn't it happen? If you get to make laws like this you can do all sorts of things. The only people it hurts are the ones who don't get to vote on it, after all. The people doing the voting can rest easy knowing they can drink as much as they want. You can't just raise taxes because then the people voting would also have to pay them. Maybe you could just raise taxes for people under 18 and grandfather yourself into the cheaper stuff.
justahuman74 4y ago
> they can always charge more for healthcare That would be unpopular in a country that has free healthcare, making 'free' conditional will scare everyone with sliperly slope arguments that it will lead to a US-style system
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Not to mention the further down the slope of "tax for this, fee for that" type carrot and stick bullshit you go the more you defeat the point of pooling the cost of something (either via insurance or via the state).
FpUser 4y ago
>"But yes, alcohol is harmful but I think smoking is even more so." I disagree. Also alcoholics harm many other people around them
- thebooktocome 4y ago
  See, I’m old enough to remember holding my breath to get past a throng of chain-smokers when they’d gas out a restaurant or clog the front of a store.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    I agree with this particular aspect but it is long gone. I do not see smokers harm anyone but themselves now. Alcoholics on the other hand ...
  - auveair 4y ago
    Me too, doesn't really happen anymore so it seems like with time, some sensible regulations and education everything works out? Why the need for a ban?
parineum 4y ago
> But yes, alcohol is harmful but I think smoking is even more so. I think that's more due to the relative ease of tracking the harmful effects of smoking. I don't think the majority of harm caused by alcohol ends up on death certificates as "alcoholism" and there are much more non-fatal negative outcomes from alcohol. It's not that difficult to track lung cancer deaths relative to smoking population and find the excess deaths but tracking road fatalities, spouses abused, kids dropped out of school and even the secondary effects like children of alcoholics not receiving help with schoolwork are much harder to track. Second hand smoke is bad but your chain smoking dad can still help you with your math homework.
TheHappyOddish 4y ago
The cost is already well offset with a pack of 20s costing close to $30USD, most of that in tax. The "smokers are expensive in the healthcare system" argument worked when cigarettes were cheap, but hasn't been true in the last decade.

by jmclnx 4y ago

thatguy0900 4y ago

Why couldn't it happen? If you get to make laws like this you can do all sorts of things. The only people it hurts are the ones who don't get to vote on it, after all. The people doing the voting can rest easy knowing they can drink as much as they want. You can't just raise taxes because then the people voting would also have to pay them. Maybe you could just raise taxes for people under 18 and grandfather yourself into the cheaper stuff.

justahuman74 4y ago

> they can always charge more for healthcare That would be unpopular in a country that has free healthcare, making 'free' conditional will scare everyone with sliperly slope arguments that it will lead to a US-style system

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Not to mention the further down the slope of "tax for this, fee for that" type carrot and stick bullshit you go the more you defeat the point of pooling the cost of something (either via insurance or via the state).

FpUser 4y ago

>"But yes, alcohol is harmful but I think smoking is even more so." I disagree. Also alcoholics harm many other people around them

thebooktocome 4y ago
See, I’m old enough to remember holding my breath to get past a throng of chain-smokers when they’d gas out a restaurant or clog the front of a store.
- FpUser 4y ago
  I agree with this particular aspect but it is long gone. I do not see smokers harm anyone but themselves now. Alcoholics on the other hand ...
- auveair 4y ago
  Me too, doesn't really happen anymore so it seems like with time, some sensible regulations and education everything works out? Why the need for a ban?

parineum 4y ago

> But yes, alcohol is harmful but I think smoking is even more so. I think that's more due to the relative ease of tracking the harmful effects of smoking. I don't think the majority of harm caused by alcohol ends up on death certificates as "alcoholism" and there are much more non-fatal negative outcomes from alcohol. It's not that difficult to track lung cancer deaths relative to smoking population and find the excess deaths but tracking road fatalities, spouses abused, kids dropped out of school and even the secondary effects like children of alcoholics not receiving help with schoolwork are much harder to track. Second hand smoke is bad but your chain smoking dad can still help you with your math homework.

TheHappyOddish 4y ago

The cost is already well offset with a pack of 20s costing close to $30USD, most of that in tax. The "smokers are expensive in the healthcare system" argument worked when cigarettes were cheap, but hasn't been true in the last decade.