9 ms·

New Zealand Bans Cigarette Sales to Everyone Born After 2008

24 points by krn 4y ago

AliCollins 4y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20221220041333/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/14/world/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban.html https://web.archive.org/web/20221220041333/https://www.nytim...
aluminum96 4y ago
Wow, what an incredible victory for NZ public health. It's so hard to imagine ever implementing reforms like these in the US. The political resistance would be insurmountable ("individual freedom," etc). It's a good thing the anti-smoking policies from 1960s proved durable -- they'd be impossible to enact today.
- nickff 4y ago
  >"Wow, what an incredible victory for NZ public health." That's one way of looking at it; another would be to say that it's a significant erosion of liberty effectuated against the young. Should governments ban all activities which surpass a certain risk threshold? Examples might include drinking alcohol, skiing, mountain climbing, ice climbing, motorcycling, and consumption of unhealthy foods (however you might define them).
  - bill_joy_fanboy 4y ago
    I would gladly give up some "liberty" if we could go ahead and cleanse some of the degeneracy from my society. I don't need the "freedom" to smoke. Also, smoking =/= mountain climbing.
    - nickff 4y ago
      What about the freedoms you value that I'd cleanse? I am aware that smoking isn't the same as mountain climbing, it would have been redundant for me to list the same thing more than once. Each of the activities on the list is distinguishable from the others.
    - zqfuz 4y ago
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - soupbowl 4y ago
      Fools easily give up "liberty".
      - another2another 4y ago
        Well, cigarettes are addictive after a while. So by starting to smoke you could argue that your liberty is already being taken away from you to an extent and you're instead an unwilling slave to the tobacco industry. Where is your "liberty" then?
      - bill_joy_fanboy 4y ago
        Well, I don't need the freedom to smoke. So, by having that freedom "taken away", what have I lost? I'll gladly give at least that one thing up to live in a society of healthier people.
    - pschuegr 4y ago
      Degeneracy is a pretty strong word here for what is a relatively minor vice, don't you think?
      - bill_joy_fanboy 4y ago
        I personally don't think so. The deleterious nature of smoking is pretty severe and leads to a lot of problems that don't just affect the individual. Smokers are more likely to contract (and spread) tuberculosis, for example. They are more likely to die early due to one or more expensive diseases that tax the healthcare system. Also, the fact that they smoke influences other people to do so! So, I would say, yes, cigarettes are degenerate. Society needs to grow out of such vices.
  - crtified 4y ago
    Drinking alcohol and motorcycling do have some government mandated controls, including some based upon age. In addition to alcohol, a great many chemical substances fall under government controls. Particularly where the public health risk is deemed of high cost. In that context, how is this so significant or different?
    - rufus_foreman 4y ago
      "You can't drink alcohol until you are 21" is a very different law than "You can't ever drink alcohol if you were born after 2001".
  - MontyCarloHall 4y ago
    >Should governments ban all activities which surpass a certain risk threshold? The purpose of regulating personal activities is to mitigate negative externalities to society, not to eliminate personal risk. Thus, whether and how something should be regulated is a function of both how probable it is to cause said externalities, and the overall absolute impact of them. The negative externalities of skiing or mountain climbing are that others in society have to pay for healthcare costs associated with injuries sustained from these inherently risky activities. However, on an absolute level, skiing/climbing injuries are rare enough that society has decided to eat this minimal cost. Smoking, on the other extreme, is much more common and has externalities that extend beyond healthcare costs to the smoker [*], e.g. secondhand smoke and litter from cigarette butts. Thus, on an absolute level, its externalities have been deemed unacceptably large by society. But rather than banning smoking outright, there are other ways to mitigate these externalities (bill smokers directly for smoking-related healthcare costs, restrict smoking to areas that minimize secondhand smoke exposure, have draconian fines for littering, etc.) This argument can also apply to alcohol (e.g. draconian penalties for drunk driving) or unhealthy food (bill healthcare costs associated with obesity directly to the patient) [*]. [*] Yes, I am aware of studies that claim smoking/obesity causes a net decrease of healthcare costs, since most expensive healthcare occurs in old age, which smokers/obese people are less likely to reach. If indeed these studies are true, that should be factored into the actuarial calculus.
    - fargle 4y ago
      I think this represents an honest take, but it illustrates why there is such a chasm between the people applauding this kind of thing and those that are horrified. You must understand that not everybody believes that this is the role of society. Are we living in a free country or a glorified HOA? A progressive might applaud this - seems very smart, actuarial, fair, etc. And might put down a conservative that keeps harping on intangibles like freedom as being crude or simple minded or worse evil or in concert with evil things (as decided by the progressive) like Big Tobacco. Of course cancer sticks are bad. But don't assume - it could be that some people see the problem not about tobacco, but have thought about three moves ahead about several ways this can go very, very wrong. This kind of relationship with the government, well meaning at the beginning or not, will end up going only one way.
- genocidicbunny 4y ago
  You'd probably need to frame it in some financial way. For example, allow health insurance companies to deny coverage to smokers, and disallow public health insurance (like Medi-Cal) from insuring smokers. Unfortunately, this would likely be a literal slippery slope back down to allowing health insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
- japaneseminisub 4y ago
  Most, if not all people have moved to vapes, which are not covered by this law. Ie kids can still buy them. This is only shifting deck chairs on the Titanic, not any meaningful change.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    Are vapes as bad for kids as cigarettes?
- refurb 4y ago
  This will probably be as effective as banning underaged drinking in the US. The only upside is that NZ is fine with vaping. So they aren't cutting people off from nicotine, they are just banning more harmful forms of it.
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  "It's so hard to imagine ever implementing reforms like these in the US" Ever is a long time. Are you familiar with Prohibition?
  - rolenthedeep 4y ago
    Prohibition is the only constitutional amendment to ever be repealed, and was only on the books for 14 years. It's an absolute embarrassment. A lot of people died, as well. Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster. I really can't come up with a better illustration of why Americans won't go for a wide spread ban on tobacco. Prohibition perfectly illustrates the exact opposite of your argument.
    - rufus_foreman 4y ago
      >> Prohibition perfectly illustrates the exact opposite of your argument What do you think my argument is? For me it is not hard to imagine things ever happening when they already happened.
      - rolenthedeep 4y ago
        Trying to extrapolate how people would feel about a new law based solely on the existence of a similar law is disingenuous at best. You're ignoring that the law was massively unpopular, was seldom enforced, almost never respected, and it was the only amendment to have been repealed. Saying that Americans would take a ban on tobacco because they banned alcohol doesn't hold up because alcohol was never actually banned. The law existed, yes, but alcohol was always available to pretty much everyone. Repealing a constitutional amendment is massively difficult. That should tell you a lot about how Americans felt about it. I'm saying prohibition is a perfect example of why Americans won't support a total ban on tobacco because it very explicitly and very definitively shows how much they did not support a total ban on alcohol. They hated the ban so much that they had to change the constitution. You can't get any more definitive than that.
        rufus_foreman 4y ago
Animatronio 4y ago
Sooo... section 40A says a person must not sell/deliver a smoked tobacco product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009 and then section 40B says a person must not, in a public place, supply a smoked tobacco product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009. Seems pretty easy to circumvent - giving away for free, bundling with other merchandise, gifting... I don't see anything about prohibiting smoking per se.
propogandist 4y ago
The younger crowd prefers vaping, this will just force tobacco companies to push eCigs
baandang 4y ago
dublin 4y ago
[flagged]

24 points by krn 4y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20221220041333/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/14/world/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban.html https://web.archive.org/web/20221220041333/https://www.nytim...

aluminum96 4y ago

Wow, what an incredible victory for NZ public health. It's so hard to imagine ever implementing reforms like these in the US. The political resistance would be insurmountable ("individual freedom," etc). It's a good thing the anti-smoking policies from 1960s proved durable -- they'd be impossible to enact today.

nickff 4y ago
>"Wow, what an incredible victory for NZ public health." That's one way of looking at it; another would be to say that it's a significant erosion of liberty effectuated against the young. Should governments ban all activities which surpass a certain risk threshold? Examples might include drinking alcohol, skiing, mountain climbing, ice climbing, motorcycling, and consumption of unhealthy foods (however you might define them).
- bill_joy_fanboy 4y ago
  I would gladly give up some "liberty" if we could go ahead and cleanse some of the degeneracy from my society. I don't need the "freedom" to smoke. Also, smoking =/= mountain climbing.
  - nickff 4y ago
    What about the freedoms you value that I'd cleanse? I am aware that smoking isn't the same as mountain climbing, it would have been redundant for me to list the same thing more than once. Each of the activities on the list is distinguishable from the others.
  - zqfuz 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - soupbowl 4y ago
    Fools easily give up "liberty".
    - another2another 4y ago
      Well, cigarettes are addictive after a while. So by starting to smoke you could argue that your liberty is already being taken away from you to an extent and you're instead an unwilling slave to the tobacco industry. Where is your "liberty" then?
    - bill_joy_fanboy 4y ago
      Well, I don't need the freedom to smoke. So, by having that freedom "taken away", what have I lost? I'll gladly give at least that one thing up to live in a society of healthier people.
  - pschuegr 4y ago
    Degeneracy is a pretty strong word here for what is a relatively minor vice, don't you think?
    - bill_joy_fanboy 4y ago
      I personally don't think so. The deleterious nature of smoking is pretty severe and leads to a lot of problems that don't just affect the individual. Smokers are more likely to contract (and spread) tuberculosis, for example. They are more likely to die early due to one or more expensive diseases that tax the healthcare system. Also, the fact that they smoke influences other people to do so! So, I would say, yes, cigarettes are degenerate. Society needs to grow out of such vices.
- crtified 4y ago
  Drinking alcohol and motorcycling do have some government mandated controls, including some based upon age. In addition to alcohol, a great many chemical substances fall under government controls. Particularly where the public health risk is deemed of high cost. In that context, how is this so significant or different?
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    "You can't drink alcohol until you are 21" is a very different law than "You can't ever drink alcohol if you were born after 2001".
- MontyCarloHall 4y ago
  >Should governments ban all activities which surpass a certain risk threshold? The purpose of regulating personal activities is to mitigate negative externalities to society, not to eliminate personal risk. Thus, whether and how something should be regulated is a function of both how probable it is to cause said externalities, and the overall absolute impact of them. The negative externalities of skiing or mountain climbing are that others in society have to pay for healthcare costs associated with injuries sustained from these inherently risky activities. However, on an absolute level, skiing/climbing injuries are rare enough that society has decided to eat this minimal cost. Smoking, on the other extreme, is much more common and has externalities that extend beyond healthcare costs to the smoker [*], e.g. secondhand smoke and litter from cigarette butts. Thus, on an absolute level, its externalities have been deemed unacceptably large by society. But rather than banning smoking outright, there are other ways to mitigate these externalities (bill smokers directly for smoking-related healthcare costs, restrict smoking to areas that minimize secondhand smoke exposure, have draconian fines for littering, etc.) This argument can also apply to alcohol (e.g. draconian penalties for drunk driving) or unhealthy food (bill healthcare costs associated with obesity directly to the patient) [*]. [*] Yes, I am aware of studies that claim smoking/obesity causes a net decrease of healthcare costs, since most expensive healthcare occurs in old age, which smokers/obese people are less likely to reach. If indeed these studies are true, that should be factored into the actuarial calculus.
  - fargle 4y ago
    I think this represents an honest take, but it illustrates why there is such a chasm between the people applauding this kind of thing and those that are horrified. You must understand that not everybody believes that this is the role of society. Are we living in a free country or a glorified HOA? A progressive might applaud this - seems very smart, actuarial, fair, etc. And might put down a conservative that keeps harping on intangibles like freedom as being crude or simple minded or worse evil or in concert with evil things (as decided by the progressive) like Big Tobacco. Of course cancer sticks are bad. But don't assume - it could be that some people see the problem not about tobacco, but have thought about three moves ahead about several ways this can go very, very wrong. This kind of relationship with the government, well meaning at the beginning or not, will end up going only one way.
genocidicbunny 4y ago
You'd probably need to frame it in some financial way. For example, allow health insurance companies to deny coverage to smokers, and disallow public health insurance (like Medi-Cal) from insuring smokers. Unfortunately, this would likely be a literal slippery slope back down to allowing health insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
japaneseminisub 4y ago
Most, if not all people have moved to vapes, which are not covered by this law. Ie kids can still buy them. This is only shifting deck chairs on the Titanic, not any meaningful change.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  Are vapes as bad for kids as cigarettes?
refurb 4y ago
This will probably be as effective as banning underaged drinking in the US. The only upside is that NZ is fine with vaping. So they aren't cutting people off from nicotine, they are just banning more harmful forms of it.
rufus_foreman 4y ago
"It's so hard to imagine ever implementing reforms like these in the US" Ever is a long time. Are you familiar with Prohibition?
- rolenthedeep 4y ago
  Prohibition is the only constitutional amendment to ever be repealed, and was only on the books for 14 years. It's an absolute embarrassment. A lot of people died, as well. Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster. I really can't come up with a better illustration of why Americans won't go for a wide spread ban on tobacco. Prohibition perfectly illustrates the exact opposite of your argument.
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    >> Prohibition perfectly illustrates the exact opposite of your argument What do you think my argument is? For me it is not hard to imagine things ever happening when they already happened.
    - rolenthedeep 4y ago
      Trying to extrapolate how people would feel about a new law based solely on the existence of a similar law is disingenuous at best. You're ignoring that the law was massively unpopular, was seldom enforced, almost never respected, and it was the only amendment to have been repealed. Saying that Americans would take a ban on tobacco because they banned alcohol doesn't hold up because alcohol was never actually banned. The law existed, yes, but alcohol was always available to pretty much everyone. Repealing a constitutional amendment is massively difficult. That should tell you a lot about how Americans felt about it. I'm saying prohibition is a perfect example of why Americans won't support a total ban on tobacco because it very explicitly and very definitively shows how much they did not support a total ban on alcohol. They hated the ban so much that they had to change the constitution. You can't get any more definitive than that.
      - rufus_foreman 4y ago

Animatronio 4y ago

Sooo... section 40A says a person must not sell/deliver a smoked tobacco product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009 and then section 40B says a person must not, in a public place, supply a smoked tobacco product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009. Seems pretty easy to circumvent - giving away for free, bundling with other merchandise, gifting... I don't see anything about prohibiting smoking per se.

propogandist 4y ago

The younger crowd prefers vaping, this will just force tobacco companies to push eCigs

baandang 4y ago

dublin 4y ago

[flagged]