Shouldn’t this read, “New conservative NZ government scraps…”?
It’s for money, so it’s OK.
My bad.
Ex smoker here, who is very against smoking as practice. I am also against the complete ban because it makes no sense whatsoever to be for the legalization of cannabis and other drugs but to also be for banning smoking. If I support one, I cannot support the other. I support drug legalization, so I can’t support a smoking ban.
Also, is it just cigarettes or also cigars and pipe tobacco? I know people that, after the ‘flavored cigarette’ ban here, switched to flavored cigarillos or whatever. Just moved someone to a worse product.
Even when you consider the differences in addiction/habit forming? Do you feel the same way about morphine and heroin and their derivatives, that we should either legalize all or nothing?
It might be useful for an inbetween period, first we legalize softdrugs and ban all extremely addictive stuff, then after a year or 5 we open all the gates.
I don’t even know if I’m for a complete ban but it sounded refreshing to have a smoker free generation, is such a low quality drug as well…
The article only talks about cigarettes and smoking, but doesn’t say whether that includes other uses of nicotine
Same with other drug legalization - I think we’re well past the point of knowing that intentionally inhaling burnt stuff is bad, no matter what it is. I can support legalizing cannabis while trying to ban smoking anything
I don’t think any recreational drugs should be branded or advertised. It should be very factual what you are getting and that’s it. I think tobacco should still be available from tobacconists only, which can be state run because it’s unlikely to be profitable otherwise. I’m for complete legalisation of everything but I think the smoke free generation is a great and noble idea.
It conflicts but I’m not a machine ,I see that tobacco is the most readily available addictive substance in the world, responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths and I can just thumbs up a law that removes it as an opportunity without impacting those who are addicted and don’t want to quit.
Caffeine is the most readily available addictive substance in the world, I think.
It’s “addictive” in the sense that you can develop tolerance, cravings, and withdrawal symptoms, but I’ve never heard of anyone being sent to rehab because their coffee habit was wrecking their life. Even pure caffeine just isn’t potent enough to hijack your brain’s reward system the way harder drugs can.
IMHO the word “addiction” really only applies when you feel so compelled to keep engaging in a problematic behavior that you can’t stop even when you know it’s hurting you.
I don’t think any recreational drugs should be branded or advertised.
Wine snobs, beer snobs, whisky snobs, and weed snobs would really hate that. And sommeliers would be having panic attacks.
I’m a beer snob, but banning beer is actually a good idea. It’s just too unhealthy for you
Well all those snobs are suckers for marketing, it’s the process they are enjoying the fruits of not the label.
But I’d envision a world where you could buy cocaine and just have a list of the ingredients and strength, I don’t need Johnny Walker White to be pushing it. Just have it available if people want it.
Are you really gonna argue that all whiskies, wines, etc. taste alike and that anyone who says otherwise is just a sucker? I don’t even like wine but I can tell a red from a white with almost 100% accuracy.
Actually if you go with the original statement that drugs should just be generically labeled, it’s saying all beer, wine, and liquor should just be labeled “alcohol”. Can you imagine someone going to a fancy Italian restaurant and being happy when the only thing on the wine list is just “alcohol”?
That’s not what I argued at all but your point about a fancy restaurant misses the point twice.
I’m saying it’s not the label it is the process, it isn’t red or white by some company, it’s the grape in a cask for how long. It’s not alcohol it’s the right combination of water, hops and wheat brewed the right way. I’m saying that we shouldn’t have Philip Morris Nose Candy when we legalise we should have no branding no advertising “80% cocaine” and a list of what it is cut with.
You clearly don’t know shit about how alcohol is made if you think describing a process that might be virtually identical across dozens or hundreds of brands is adequate to convey the level of detail that consumers use to make purchasing decisions.
For a lot of brands, the process is blending other products to create a specific flavor profile. There is literally no process to describe beyond “the blenders combine things until they find a blend that tastes the way brand X is supposed to taste.” How do you propose to describe such a process without brands? And no, they can’t just describe the individual inputs, because things like wine naturally vary from year to year even with identical processes, which means blends need to use different ratios to get the same flavor for each batch.
I was specifically talking about illicit recreational drugs you’ve clearly steered the conversation in a direction where you feel comfortable being indignant. Alcohol being rolled back to that level is not an option in reality, for drugs it is.
Marijuana at least has medicinal use though, right? I mean, it’s not 100% the same.
Tobacco has some very legit medical uses.
I’m not for banning tobacco. But as you can see, these medicinal uses are not the same as those for Marijuana, and even if they were, I wouldn’t be aghast if kids stole tobacco leaves from the hospital and rolled joints with the.
I’m also not for banning tobacco. Not sure how anyone would think I am from what I said, but apparently that’s the interpretation.
We all understand that. The link you provided doesn’t really show a wide amount of medicinal value. Some value, sure. A lot? No.
So? I didn’t claim it cured cancer, just that it had some use as opposed to no use. What do you people want?
Good. Fuck government telling me what I can and can’t do with my body.
Shut it crybaby, you’re government property and you need to learn to accept it.
Top 10 debates of all time
And this is the kind of shit that happens when the right are put in power. Fuck people yay money.
Disgusting.
Do you support the legalisation of cannabis or other drugs?
I do. And as a smoker, I also support attempts to eliminate tobacco. It’s a shit drug, only good at making the craving stop for a bit, and it’s awful for your health and general quality of life.
And other drugs including cannabis are ok for your health? What about alcohol?
Tobacco is a vice, stop wanting nanny state rules only when they fit you.
Also obesity is the number one killer for Western nations now…where is the sugar and McDonald’s ban?
they think prohibition works. it never does. History always repeats itself.
don’t waste your time on them.
The real problem with tobacco is that the use of it harms others around the people using it.
I agree banning drugs is not the best option. Education and support is better.
Gas and diesil cars are the other things can think of that are terrible for the health those around them. And they need to be banned asap too. For multiple reasons. But health is definitely one.
Agreed. Education is the way to move forward. Banning it just creates more problems and solves none.
How does using it harm others? Unless you’re straight up locked in a room with a chain smoker for a few years it’s about as bad for you as sitting in traffic or near a camp fire.
Education is already working, as a very small portion of western nations smoke now. In the USA it’s less than 9% and that’s for all tobacco users which includes vaping. So cig smokers are probably around %5 at most now. Tobacco is a non-issue and is blinding us from other problems.
True, they’re the same ones who would have been marching to ban alcohol…
In the UK sugar tax is a thing. People are going to consume stupid amounts of sugar so we may as well increase the taxes to hopefully fund the diabetes mellitus treatment in later life.
In the same vain I support higher taxes on tobacco. Whether that sends people to the black market remains to be seen.
Ok but this isn’t about a tax it’s an all out ban…so which is it you’re ok with the ban or not?
I’m not the other person.
I was merely pointing out there are other ways.
For what it’s worth I am not for banning things. Drugs have been illegal my whole life and it hasn’t stopped me.
Fair enough.
what about […]
lol
Really? Great addition to the conversation…love when you nanny state shits show up.
The argument you’ve presented oversimplifies complex public health issues by lumping together unrelated substances and policies.
Tobacco, universally acknowledged for its lack of health benefits and high harm potential, is incomparable to substances like cannabis or alcohol, which may have varied effects and potential positive uses.
The term ‘nanny state’ is a reductive way to dismiss nuanced health policies that aim to balance regulation with individual freedom.
Regarding obesity, it’s a multifactorial issue. A simplistic approach like banning sugar or fast food ignores the broader socio-economic and lifestyle factors at play (although a sugar tax is probably not a terrible idea).
How so? Tobacco is a vice which has health benefits such as organic pesticides and cognitive research against dementia and Alzheimer’s. It’s a vice just like cannabis and alcohol is. Neither of which when used in the way the majority of people use them have any health benefits.
Nanny state is exactly what trying to ban a vice is. Prohibition is a nanny state response.
What does that have to do with my comments pointing out obesity is a way bigger problem than tobacco is? Tobacco is being used as a scapegoat, while increased alcoholism and obesity is at epidemic levels. Tobacco is no longer an issue of public health in western nations. Education has basically fixed this.
Weed can have huge benefits for health, just look at multiple sclerosis.
Sugar and fat are good if not abused. But yes, I do believe restaurants shouldn’t be allowed to sell 2000 calories monstrosities.
Tobacco has zero (health) benefits. It’s just a net loss on society (except for those who produce, sell and tax it) and thus shouldn’t exist.
Tobacco is used as an organic pesticide
Nicotine is also being tested for dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
Do alcohol…and tell me if it should be allowed next.
Removed by mod
Literally the post I replied to says it has no benefits and shouldn’t exist…
All it does is extend the craving really.
I get a choice what I can and can’t do with my body? Sign me up I guess.
Bruh, they’re trying to make sure the next generation who never smoke, don’t start smoking.
The same way they ensured our generation didn’t have to deal with asbestos or lead pipes.
what about banning crimes? wouldn’t making crimes illegal solve all our problems?
deleted by creator
Either you don’t have good reading comprehension or you are trolling. To spell it out for in case you are really challenged crimes are already ilegal by definition and yet that doesn’t make society free from crime. In other words your assumption of this working is delusional
Definitely worked with drugs and alcohol.
? Alcohol consumption has been dropping consistently with each new generation…
That’s because of gradual shifts in culture and attitudes, not due to prohibition.
Prohibition has failed to effectively “ban” any drug, and often tends to encourage their usage and harm efforts to alleviate addiction.
Tobacco smoking is also declining in many nations in response to improved public health awareness and again cultural shifts. If those trends continue it could all but fade away naturally. Tobacco prohibition is arguably not necessary and could even become counterproductive.
Raising the legal drinking age has definitely helped. While there’s still all too many teenagers drinking, my experience through my teens is that it’s a lit fewer than when I was a kid and harder to get.
— funny story - as an obviously older adult I got carded a couple years ago at a baseball game. They had a zero tolerance policy so I could not get a beer, despite going to multiple stands. Finally, partly out of amusement, I asked a newly legal intern less than half my age to buy beer for me
I’m not so sure. I’m in the UK, many parts of Europe have more liberal laws and attitudes towards alcohol than us, but it’s the British teens (and the British in general) infamously known for binge drinking.
Lol except women right? Oh and trans people.
deleted by creator
Barking up the wrong tree with that one 🤣
It’s amazing how you’ve imagined an entire political perspective from one comment. My goodness you have an imagination!
Smokers are a drain on the medical system
Depends statistically they die earlier and of relatively quick diseases. Combined with a life time of paying steep taxes to ingest poison, usually they tend to be a net positive for the state (coldly put).
Obesity is the number one drain on the medical system by 10 fold over smokers. It’s the number one cause of death western nations now. Increased cancers/disease and chronic illness, plus a whole host of other things. Smokers are already disappearing because it’s been a taboo in society for a long time now. The next generation isn’t smoking anymore.
Also alcohol is on the rise as well.
I think vice taxes are a great tool to discourage behavior that affects public health but we need to increase them.
However it’s a lot harder to create a vice tax on food. It would be great to make poor food choices more expensive than better choices but I don’t see how you can draw clear lines, nor be effective. For example this obese person doesn’t eat much junk or overly processed food so even if you could clearly define junk food, a vice tax wouldn’t help
Ok, but what about those of us who enjoy pipe tobacco or cigars or any other form of smoking? It’s not killing us like the 6 pack a day guy…so why are we included in the ban? 99% of obese people aren’t eating healthy… they’re drinking a 2 liter of coke a day and eating fast food non stop. They’re the pack of day smokers…so you’re logic would apply to them as well…
As someone who enjoys a good microbrew once in a while, or a smooth single malt, I would be affected by a higher alcohol tax but still think it’s a good idea. I like to think I’m responsibly enjoying my vice and I spend more on it to reach higher quality, but I still recognize it’s a vice. Realistically I’d grumble but not change my habits because I don’t use it very often
You would be the exception to the rule. People would be pissed if it cut further into their purchasing power because of a high tax on alcohol. So while I applaud your willingness to take on a higher tax because you don’t drink often, many others would not be so willing.
I hate smoking, but where do we stop? Gamers who sit too long in a chair are an issue for the medical system, too. People who do no sports. People who do not sleep enough. Eating habits…
I mean that’s the classic slippery slope fallacy you’re employing here. The answer is, sometimes it’s a more clear cut situation and other times it isn’t.
But just because the next rung down your logical ladder is more of a gray area than smoking does not mean that smoking is now also as much of a gray area. That’s not how this works.
This is the same style of argument people make when debating against gay marriage. Well if gay people can get married does that mean people can marry dogs now? Why not? Where do we draw the line?
Slippery slope arguments are usually fallacious, but I don’t think this one is. A slippery slope argument is valid when thing A actually does enable thing B. Banning something because it’s unhealthy does, in fact, enable further bans on other things by normalizing the notion that something being enticing but unhealthy is a sufficient reason to ban it.
Just look at all the things that have been criminalized at some point on the principle that they’re dangerous to the people who use them, or just that they’re vaguely bad for you. Cannabis, pornography, sex toys, gambling, even raw milk! And look at the specific things we know are next because they’re already being taxed in some jurisdictions. Tobacco is actually a great example because it’s going through the transition right now from being heavily taxed to being banned outright.
But this isn’t clear cut; I tend to hear that smokers are a net plus for a country’s finances because of the taxes on cigarettes and due to dying younger, before costlier chronic disease treatments and social care are required.
So yes, you should be asking where to draw the line.
A lot of the reasoning for banning smoking is second hand smoke. So far we’re drawing the line at when your bad havit affects someone else
Where I live (the US), smoking in most public places is already banned unless you’re outdoors and far from the entrance to act building. Any additional ban would apply almost exclusively to people who smoke alone or in the presence of other smokers.
That’s not been the argument where I live for a generation ban, because smoking in public is already banned - so the argument is all about the health of the people who can no longer buy cigarettes.
Cool so when do we start banning junk food? This isn’t a slippery slope argument. I’m using the same logic you’re using against tobacco, except sugar kills more people than tobacco does.
My intake of sugar has no affect on anyone else.
Food is a necessity: smoking is not
Obesity is also more complicated than just sugar. I can only go by personal anecdote here but I struggle with weight issues despite not eating much junk or overly processed food. A sugar tax would affect actual foods but not be sufficient nor even useful toward improving health
Your intake of sugar absolutely impacts other people when you end up with chronic health issues that other people have to help pay for.
Sugar doesn’t just cause obesity, it also causes all kinds of cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9775518/
And sugar is not a necessity. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/added-sugar-in-the-diet/
You will get by just fine without sugar in your diet. I didn’t say we should ban food, I said we should ban sugar. You’re struggling to show me why it’s so different from tobacco.
The only real differences are 1) everyone loves sugar, so they’ll make up a reason for the double standard and 2) public consumption doesn’t immediately hurt other people. But then I never said I was opposed to banning smoking in public so that’s actually irrelevant.
Should being a drain on the medical system be a crime?
Smokers pay more in taxes and insurance premiums.
Not enough. I support discouraging use by greatly increasing taxes and insurance.
And yes, as someone who sometimes enjoys alcohol, that goes for all vice taxes. They need to be raised regularly with inflation or they need to be a percentage
Not enough, according to who? Smokers already pay more in taxes and everything I’ve read suggests they pay for more care than they actually receive, so how is it not enough?
Punitive actions like raising taxes and insurance aren’t going to help addicted people get off of tobacco. That’s just a tax on poor and middle class people.
Not enough because they’re not deterring people from smoking. While I understand it only punishes those already addicted, they’re kind of a lost cause. The priority needs to be preventing new victims. Someone who is not yet addicted is less likely to take it up if it’s more expensive
The thing is, if you smoke outdoors, you are violating people’s right to live in an clean environment and breathe fresh air. I don’t care if you fuck yourself up in your own house, but the moment smokers smoke outside of their own homes, they are messing with the liberties of all other citizens.
Are they making smoking outdoors illegal?
The ban doesn’t apply to people’s homes and what they do there?
You must really hate woodstoves and fire pits. Wait till you hear about internal combustion engines!
All of those things serve a purpose. What purpose does smoking tobacco have?
And those are banned in many places, except for engines, but there are changes in that department, too
So they can decide what’s good for your body except for abortions? It’s incredible how people values are so fluid. They might as well say that everything the right does is evil and wrong.
Everything the right does is evil and wrong.
They should be called the pretty good and mostly evil sides if we were being honest. But no one wants to openly support the mostly evil side. (strangely there are a very large group of silent right supporters too what’s that about? )
I think that’s the type of reasoning that leads to communism and famines. Politicians are known to steal agenda items from the other side. I think it’s really stupid to oppose good measures just because they are not coming from your tribe.
What’s wrong with communism? Seems like a good idea to me.
I already made it clear on my answer but I’m not surprised you missed it. it’s pretty disingenuous to ask something like that and disrespectful for those who had to suffer it. it’s well documented so if you want to know you just need to stop covering your ears.
Except of course what happened every single time it was tried
I mean, trying to get rid of smoking is admirable, but completely banning a drug has historically not often ended well, because it forces those who ended up addicted underground, and creates opportunity for organized crime to profit from their production.
sure but this is for people that were born after 2009. If enough 14yos have smoked to justify your argument humanity is doomed anyway
Many of the smokers I’ve known started smoking at that age or younger. When I was at school there was a playground back market for cigarettes.
Banning cigarettes for younger people now won’t stop that. Just as banning cannabis for everyone doesn’t stop those who want to smoking it.
Many of the younger people in my family now however don’t want to smoke. There has been a significant shift in cultural and health attitudes against tobacco consumption, without a ban being required.
It’s not a temporary measure though I imagine? If someone born after 2009 gets ahold of some illegal cigarettes a few years from now (I definitely remember some high schoolers when I went to school that smoked, despite being under the legal age at the time) and gets addicted, then the issue still arises. People end up addicted to illegal drugs all the time.
If that was their reasoning: fine, but it isn’t.
They actually, out loud, said they need the tax revenue to fund top bracket tax cuts.
Yes, if prohibition has taught us anything it’s that it doesn’t work.
My country, the UK, is attempting to follow in New Zealand’s footsteps and recently announced its own “generation ban” on tobacco smoking. Despite the fact that tobacco usage has been declining here for many years and seems likely to all but cease naturally anyway.
I’m no fan of tobacco smoking, but prohibition does not seem the right approach to take. It doesn’t seem helpful or necessary from a public health standpoint, and is also an impediment of individual liberty.
Revoking such a ban for tax reasons isn’t a great angle either though in New Zealand’s case. However, from what I remember of USA history tax was a motivation to repeal alcohol prohibition in the 1930s, so maybe that’s an unpleasant taste we should be willing to swallow in this case.
If the cigarette smoking is on historical low, isn’t it a best time to ban it, because the least people is going to be affected?
National speed running worst govt.
So I’m a little torn on this
In general I’m very left leaning, and I was a fan of most policies adern put in. This one I thought was a weird one and really harsh. You want to raise the smoking age to 25 or 30 sure. But banning it entirely is to me like banning weed entirely or when people tried to ban alcohol, etc.
I understand smoking isn’t healthy for anyone. But it’s still someone’s choice to do so or not. Drinking isn’t healthy either. Lots of people die every year from drinking entirely too much. You can’t ban that entirely either.
Bans work better on tobacco because unlike alcohol or drugs, they’re used habitually but generally not recreationally. That is, the role of cigarettes in society and individually is different from those of alcohol, cannabis, and the like.
I am going to hazard a guess that tobacco industry lobbying is responsible for this. They went into Eastern European nations and pitched the idea that tobacco control was bad for the country’s economy because without smokers they’d have to deal with more people who live to retirement age, and killing them earlier makes things cheaper.
Banning cigarettes removes them from convenience stores, making them much harder to buy. The work they’ve done so far has pulled the smoking population down to 8% from over 16% ten years ago, although it’s still 20% among Māori.
I would not be surprised if the ban cut that in half or more.
I guess the difference is you have a right to smoke, the 6 people sitting next to you have 6 rights not to. Maybe that was the consideration at the time?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
New Zealand’s new government will scrap the country’s world-leading law to ban smoking for future generations to help pay for tax cuts – a move that public health officials believe will cost thousands of lives and be “catastrophic” for Māori communities.
National has had to find new ways to fund its tax plan, after its coalition partner, New Zealand First, rejected a proposal to let foreign buyers back into the property market.
“Coming back to those extra sources of revenue and other savings areas that will help us to fund the tax reduction, we have to remember that the changes to the smoke-free legislation had a significant impact on the Government books – with about $1bn there.”
But public health experts have expressed shock at the policy reversal, saying it could cost up to 5,000 lives a year, and be particularly detrimental to Māori, who have higher smoking rates.
Te Morenga highlighted recent modelling that showed the regulations would save $1.3bn in health system costs over the next 20 years, if fully implemented, and would reduce mortality rates by 22% for women, and 9% for men.
“This move suggests a disregard for the voices of the communities most affected by tobacco harm – favouring economic interests,” said chief executive Jason Alexander.
The original article contains 601 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
