New Zealand is set to be smoke-free with the government announcing their Smokefree 2025 plan on Thursday, which involves the bold move to ban the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2011.

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product


https://au.yahoo.com/news/new-zealand-t ... 08983.html

A101 wrote:

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

Virtual737 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

It dose not matter what I think of the product ( I am a non smoker) and think it’s a disgusting habit but it is their choice to smoke a legal product or not

Drinking also can lead to unhealthy lifestyle but they are not stopping people from doing that

Virtual737 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

'Splode, for a start. Cancer treatments are another —although those are getting better.

In all seriousness, the numbers on smoking are... not honest on a good day. 10 - 20% of smokers will lose the last 10 - 20 years of their lives over it. To me that is enough not to, but it is nowhere near the point where stupidly drastic measures like this are required. I smell an election year...

A101 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

It dose not matter what I think of the product ( I am a non smoker) and think it’s a disgusting habit but it is their choice to smoke a legal product or not

Drinking also can lead to unhealthy lifestyle but they are not stopping people from doing that

They are making a product that does zero good and lots of harm illegal only for those that could never have used it legally in the first place. How is that taking the rights of anyone away? They will still have the choice to smoke a legal product, but tobacco wont be on the list.

I started smoking on my 18th birthday. Philip Morris International (or whoever owned the Marlboro brand in the UK in late 1980s) send scantily clad women to the bar I was in giving out free Zippo lighters along with full packets of cigarettes. At this point in time the harmful affects of smoking along with its intense addiction were already known.

Why in the world would you be against a law that harms the tobacco industry yet does zero harm whatsoever to the general public (in fact quite the opposite)?

A101 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

It dose not matter what I think of the product ( I am a non smoker) and think it’s a disgusting habit but it is their choice to smoke a legal product or not

Drinking also can lead to unhealthy lifestyle but they are not stopping people from doing that

Drinking does not cause illness and death when used as intended - every package: ‘enjoy in moderation’

A101 wrote:

New Zealand is set to be smoke-free with the government announcing their Smokefree 2025 plan on Thursday, which involves the bold move to ban the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2011.

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product


https://au.yahoo.com/news/new-zealand-t ... 08983.html

The ban seems performative and not necessary. Studies in most developed countries show increases in education campaigns and tobacco taxes have largely reduced habitual use, especially amongst younger people likely to start.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

In all seriousness, the numbers on smoking are... not honest on a good day. 10 - 20% of smokers will lose the last 10 - 20 years of their lives over it. To me that is enough not to, but it is nowhere near the point where stupidly drastic measures like this are required. I smell an election year...

Have you ever smoked long term? Where are you getting those figures from out of interest?

By the way, 10-20% of smokers losing the last 20 years of their lives is way more potent than the effects of COVID. We criticise governments for not doing the right thing and then, when they do, we criticise them still.

Aaron747 wrote:

The ban seems performative and not necessary. Studies in most developed countries show increases in education campaigns and tobacco taxes have largely reduced habitual use, especially amongst younger people likely to start.

Reduced from what level to what level? How does NZ fare specifically?

Aaron747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

It dose not matter what I think of the product ( I am a non smoker) and think it’s a disgusting habit but it is their choice to smoke a legal product or not

Drinking also can lead to unhealthy lifestyle but they are not stopping people from doing that

Drinking does not cause illness and death when used as intended - every package: ‘enjoy in moderation’

Either does smoking does not always lead to cancer, case in point my mother in law was a 5 pack a day girl she passed away in good health at 94 but she chocked on a piece of apple at home

But my uncle died of cirrhosis of the liver and by my standards he was not a heavy drinker

Virtual737 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The ban seems performative and not necessary. Studies in most developed countries show increases in education campaigns and tobacco taxes have largely reduced habitual use, especially amongst younger people likely to start.

Reduced from what level to what level? How does NZ fare specifically?

In NZ specifically the reductions have been drastic since the 1990s...

From 35% of adults to roughly 18% of adults and from over 30% of year 10 students to around 5%:

https://tcdata.org.nz/TobaccoSectorOverview.html

A101 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

It dose not matter what I think of the product ( I am a non smoker) and think it’s a disgusting habit but it is their choice to smoke a legal product or not

Drinking also can lead to unhealthy lifestyle but they are not stopping people from doing that

Drinking does not cause illness and death when used as intended - every package: ‘enjoy in moderation’

Either does smoking does not always lead to cancer, case in point my mother in law was a 5 pack a day girl she passed away in good health at 94 but she chocked on a piece of apple at home

But my uncle died of cirrhosis of the liver and by my standards he was not a heavy drinker

Your aunt may have had a genetic protection against cancer and your uncle may have been genetically predisposed to liver disease. Doctors understand now that genetics are at least as important in disease protection as what we put in our bodies.

Virtual737 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

It dose not matter what I think of the product ( I am a non smoker) and think it’s a disgusting habit but it is their choice to smoke a legal product or not

Drinking also can lead to unhealthy lifestyle but they are not stopping people from doing that

They are making a product that does zero good and lots of harm illegal only for those that could never have used it legally in the first place. How is that taking the rights of anyone away? They will still have the choice to smoke a legal product, but tobacco wont be on the list.

I started smoking on my 18th birthday. Philip Morris International (or whoever owned the Marlboro brand in the UK in late 1980s) send scantily clad women to the bar I was in giving out free Zippo lighters along with full packets of cigarettes. At this point in time the harmful affects of smoking along with its intense addiction were already known.

Why in the world would you be against a law that harms the tobacco industry yet does zero harm whatsoever to the general public (in fact quite the opposite)?

Tobacco smoking will still be a legal product for those born before 2011 when the law kicks in, as of this moment I am assuming you have to be 18yo to buy legally

All this is going to do is drive a black market for a packet of fags, they have made drug use a criminal offence but that does not stop people from using it.

As for you taking up smoking did anyone for e you to do it or was it your own choice?

Aaron747 wrote:

From 35% of adults to roughly 18% of adults and from over 30% of year 10 students to around 5%:

https://tcdata.org.nz/TobaccoSectorOverview.html

Is that 5% therefore an acceptable loss? One could argue that if the law affects so few, why the opposition?

A101 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A101 wrote:

All this is going to do is drive a black market for a packet of fags, they have made drug use a criminal offence but that does not stop people from using it.

So why have any laws? Why are you not campaigning for the legalisation of all drug use to stop the black market?

Virtual737 wrote:

Have you ever smoked long term? Where are you getting those figures from out of interest?

1. Not really. There was a time when I smoked whenever I drank, but that was a while ago, and I never surpassed about a pack per week usage. I doubt that would qualify as heavy.

2. Google. Did not take long.

Virtual737 wrote:

By the way, 10-20% of smokers losing the last 20 years of their lives is way more potent than the effects of COVID. We criticise governments for not doing the right thing and then, when they do, we criticise them still.

COVID is contagious and the figures for that were only as good as they were because of the measures put in place. The other issue is that C19 was stronger almost exponentially than all other previous iterations, although the trend has generally been in favor of virulence there. The issue with COVID is not COVID, but what its future iterations can do. If the next one is as stronger as this one was to the previous, we will be a lot closer to Bubonic levels of casualties.

There is nothing like that where smoking is concerned. If you light up a smoke, it will not cause me to smoke. The measures we have now, —no smoking on planes or out of designated areas— are quite sufficient as is.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

2. Google. Did not take long.

Google links to sites. It's not a citation on its own, but fair enough.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

The issue with COVID is not COVID, but what its future iterations can do.

Surely you mean "The issue with COVID is not only COVID", or we're ignoring the >5,000,000 people who have already died with relation to it.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

If you light up a smoke, it will not cause me to smoke. The measures we have now, —no smoking on planes or out of designated areas— are quite sufficient as is.

Tell that to Roy Castle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Castle#Illness_and_death. Others smoking did not cause him to smoke directly, but his illness and death were directly related to it. There will have been thousands of others.

Newer laws in terms of where you can smoke go some way to alleviate those darker days.

In conclusion, I'm just not getting the big push back. This law would not make an ounce of difference to anyone who already smokes. What it does is at least try to add another barrier to youngsters who are still in their formative years from taking up a habit that has literally zero benefit to them, but will have a significant chance of stopping serious health issues for both the users and people around them.

The only change I might consider making to the law would be to target the tobacco producers rather than the consumers though, although this would make it much harder to allow existing smokers to continue the abuse.

Virtual737 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

Firearms? :b

Virtual737 wrote:

So why have any laws? Why are you not campaigning for the legalisation of all drug use to stop the black market?

Because illicit drug are illegal to all users and this new law will only make it illegal for some

fallap wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

Firearms? :b

You might want to think about that example a little more.

A101 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

So why have any laws? Why are you not campaigning for the legalisation of all drug use to stop the black market?

Because illicit drug are illegal to all users and this new law will only make it illegal for some

I'd be just as happy if it applied to all then. There are plenty of other laws / regulations that apply to a population based on age or year of birth. Tax, minimum wage... the list goes on.

Virtual737 wrote:

I'd be just as happy if it applied to all then. There are plenty of other laws / regulations that apply to a population based on age or year of birth. Tax, minimum wage... the list goes on.

True, but they most likely will not end up with a criminal conviction because of it either

To me if it’s a legal product it should be left up to the individual to decide if the want to use it or not,

I think it was you how brought up the scenario of starting to smoke because someone came up to you, I too had that happen but choose not to take up the offer it come down to personal choice to choose from my POV

Virtual737 wrote:

fallap wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

Firearms? :b

You might want to think about that example a little more.

A101 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

So why have any laws? Why are you not campaigning for the legalisation of all drug use to stop the black market?
.

Firearms are first and foremost designed with the intention to kill and injure, everything else is just practising on non-live targets <3 So, if you use firearms for their intended purpose the likelihood of death is pretty high

Virtual737 wrote:

Why are you not campaigning for the legalisation of all drug use to stop the black market?

Some of us are indeed all for that, or at the least decimalization And not just to stop the black markets, but to end the drug wars, mass incarcerations, wasteful spending on the latter, etc.

A101 wrote:

I think it was you how brought up the scenario of starting to smoke because someone came up to you, I too had that happen but choose not to take up the offer it come down to personal choice to choose from my POV

At least they've banned (at least in most countries I think) that kind of promotion. I would be totally on your side if smoking did not have the real potential to harm people other than the user. Apart from that, I guess we agree to disagree.

fallap wrote:

Firearms are first and foremost designed with the intention to kill and injure, everything else is just practising on non-live targets <3 So, if you use firearms for their intended purpose the likelihood of death is pretty high

That would mean that pretty much all firearms ever used in any sporting event haven't been used as per the instructions. Your position is only valid is every gun is made and sold with the intention to kill or harm. Fortunately, and clearly, that is not the case.

Virtual737 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

The issue with COVID is not COVID, but what its future iterations can do.

Surely you mean "The issue with COVID is not only COVID", or we're ignoring the >5,000,000 people who have already died with relation to it.

I think you know damned well no one is ignoring that.

Virtual737 wrote:

In conclusion, I'm just not getting the big push back. This law would not make an ounce of difference to anyone who already smokes. What it does is at least try to add another barrier to youngsters who are still in their formative years from taking up a habit that has literally zero benefit to them, but will have a significant chance of stopping serious health issues for both the users and people around them.

Because no one likes the idea of completely unnecessary black markets popping up over night, I would guess...

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

2. Google. Did not take long.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

I think you know damned well no one is ignoring that.

2 snotty answers in one thread. Nicotine cravings?

Virtual737 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

From 35% of adults to roughly 18% of adults and from over 30% of year 10 students to around 5%:

https://tcdata.org.nz/TobaccoSectorOverview.html

Is that 5% therefore an acceptable loss? One could argue that if the law affects so few, why the opposition?

I wasn't aware the goalposts had moved from 'taxation and education are having a demonstrable effect' to whether ANY high schoolers smoking is a 'loss'...is there evidence the stragglers will become adult smokers for life? Based on the data that seems increasingly unlikely.

Aaron747 wrote:

is there evidence the stragglers will become adult smokers for life? Based on the data that seems increasingly unlikely.

What data? Has smoking become much less addictive than it was? If education and taxation alone are having a positive effect then fantastic, but why does that mean further measures should be discounted?

Virtual737 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

is there evidence the stragglers will become adult smokers for life? Based on the data that seems increasingly unlikely.

What data? Has smoking become much less addictive than it was? If education and taxation alone are having a positive effect then fantastic, but why does that mean further measures should be discounted?

The steadily falling number of adult addicts/users. A total ban doesn't seem justified by the trends or levels of use. If we're talking about Mexico and sugary sodas, different story - that's having deleterious effects across society.

Aaron747 wrote:

The steadily falling number of adult addicts/users.

Those numbers are more likely linked to the lower numbers even trying smoking at all. I don't see how that automatically means that significantly less people who take up smoking don't get hooked into later adulthood.

I've said my piece so nothing really more to add. Looks like I'm very much in the minority on the issue.

Virtual737 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

McDonald’s style food is similar. Whiskey is pretty similar.

Yet NZ will keep the age to purchase and use a far more dangerous drug as to short and long term affects at 18 - alcohol. Raise the minimum age for both alcohol and tobacco including any nicotine containing products (vaping) and alcohol to 21 and strongly enforce the laws on sellers and users.

Beyond raising the minimum To me it would be better to just make it harder for everyone to purchase and be discouraged from using tobacco and nicotine containing products. NZ like many countries already has strong limits on marketing, packaging, advertising, including at point of sale, bans on almost all smoking indoors Maybe make it so can only be purchased at a very few highly regulated licensed dealers, no more every convenience store have them. More public service and in school anti-smoking/vaping education. Penalties on your health insurance (like long done with life insurance) premiums. Penalties for taking certain jobs if a smoker like for taking breaks to go outside to smoke/vape. Financial incentives to get off of smoking for all persons.

ltbewr wrote:

. Raise the minimum age for both alcohol and tobacco including any nicotine containing products (vaping) and alcohol to 21 and strongly enforce the laws on sellers and users.

Because that worked miracles, didn't it? Maybe it's time for a less hysterical approach?

Slippery slope, I would be afraid. No matter how much I abhor tobacco and the companies that profit from poison, what would be next. A counter argument would be that governments ban ingredients all the time from various food products, and people don't generally even notice it. From CFC, to trans fat.

The difference is that people will not find illegal channels to get trans fats, or CFC products, because acceptable alternatives were found and people don't "miss" these ingredients. A ban will only work when an alternative to nicotine can be found that does not cause any of the deleterious effects nor it creates new ones (like e-cigarettes).

I'm not against banning products, but I am against lazy government officials just banning things as a way to avoid the hard work of solving the bottom line issues of addiction and recreational activities.

Virtual737 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

Alcohol.


I am a non smoker but this of course is an overreach

NIKV69 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product

Tobacco should not be legal with our knowledge of what it does to both the user and those around them.

Can you think of another product which, when used exactly as intended, has such a high likelihood of illness or death?

Alcohol.


I am a non smoker but this of course is an overreach

Processed sugar.

Smoking causes cancer. 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. So whether you deliberately decide to smoke knowing the risks is one thing, potentially causing other people health problems because of your decisions is another. Yes banning smoking inside has reduced 2nd hand smoke issues but it still exists. In some countries healthcare is entirely paid for by taxes (unlike the US). Therefore I am paying for the care of those who make a conscious decision to do something that costs the healthcare system money, resources and time that could be better spent on things you cannot control.

Any comparison to alcohol is rediculous. In moderation or very occasionally it has zero affects. The younger generation doesn't drink anything like older generations and they don't smoke anything like it either. Time are a changing.

I think smoking is utterly disgusting. Aside from the smell, you also have the massive problem of disguarded butts everywhere. For me ban it, or tax it out of existence.

Reinhardt wrote:

Any comparison to alcohol is rediculous. In moderation or very occasionally it has zero affects. The younger generation doesn't drink anything like older generations and they don't smoke anything like it either. Time are a changing.

I think smoking is utterly disgusting. Aside from the smell, you also have the massive problem of disguarded butts everywhere. For me ban it, or tax it out of existence.

I don't know where you hang out but the younger generation drinks just as much if not more, yes their smoking is less but you are picking and choosing here. As for your moderation argument the same holds true with tobacco if people smoked a pack a month we wouldn't have this problem.

Reinhardt wrote:

Smoking causes cancer. 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. So whether you deliberately decide to smoke knowing the risks is one thing, potentially causing other people health problems because of your decisions is another. Yes banning smoking inside has reduced 2nd hand smoke issues but it still exists. In some countries healthcare is entirely paid for by taxes (unlike the US). Therefore I am paying for the care of those who make a conscious decision to do something that costs the healthcare system money, resources and time that could be better spent on things you cannot control.

Any comparison to alcohol is rediculous. In moderation or very occasionally it has zero affects. The younger generation doesn't drink anything like older generations and they don't smoke anything like it either. Time are a changing.

I think smoking is utterly disgusting. Aside from the smell, you also have the massive problem of disguarded butts everywhere. For me ban it, or tax it out of existence.

Indeed. I'm interested in some of the replies to the "tell me another product that...".

https://www.ashscotland.org.uk/media/5861/4addiction.pdf Smoking is known to be at least as addictive as heroin and (NY Times article behind paywall but i'll link it if necessary) much more addictive than alcohol for most people.

Pretty much anything consumed outside of moderation can kill you (including water). Tobacco smoking manages to achieve it, and affect others, with "normal" consumption.

NIKV69 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

Any comparison to alcohol is rediculous. In moderation or very occasionally it has zero affects. The younger generation doesn't drink anything like older generations and they don't smoke anything like it either. Time are a changing.

I think smoking is utterly disgusting. Aside from the smell, you also have the massive problem of disguarded butts everywhere. For me ban it, or tax it out of existence.

I don't know where you hang out but the younger generation drinks just as much if not more, yes their smoking is less but you are picking and choosing here. As for your moderation argument the same holds true with tobacco if people smoked a pack a month we wouldn't have this problem.

I come from the UK but live in Germany. My opinion relates to those countries, but I see / feel similar trends in other EU countries.

Smoking:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... itain/2019

UK smokers 2011 - 20.2 %
UK smokers 2019 - 14.1%

Since 2011, the largest fall in smoking prevalence has been among 18- to 24-year-olds
Those aged 25 to 34 years continued to have the highest proportion of current smokers (19.0%, around 1.6 million people), when compared with any other age group, and those aged 65 years and above continued to have the lowest proportion of current smokers (7.8%, around 904,000 people). Across time, the largest reduction in smoking prevalence has been among 18- to 24-year-olds; 25.7% of this group smoked in 2011 compared with 16.0% in 2019, a reduction of almost 10 percentage points (see Figure 2).

Drinking:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... itain/2017

Since 2005, the overall amount of alcohol consumed in the UK, the proportion of people reporting drinking, and the amount drinkers report consuming have all fallen. This trend is especially pronounced among younger drinkers [2].

Since 2005, teetotalism has increased among those aged 16-44, but has fallen by 5% for those aged 65 and over

When looking at self-reported drinking behaviour by sex, the latest data show that 61.9% of men and 52.4% of women drank alcohol in the week prior to interview. Looking at drinking habits by age, the highest consumption was found among those aged 45 to 64 years, with 64.6% saying they drank alcohol in the past week; the lowest was found among those aged 16 to 24 years, with 47.9% saying they drank alcohol in the past week.

Young people aged 16 to 24 years in Great Britain are less likely to drink than any other age group; when they do drink, consumption on their heaviest drinking day tends to be higher than other ages.

The age group with the highest number of drinkers are 35-60. My age group. That matches what I see and grew up with, and is reported on the news regularly. Everyone I knew when I was younger drinked. In fact I didn't know anyone who didn't. These days I know huge numbers of under 25's who won't touch a drop.

Reinhardt wrote:

Since 2005, teetotalism has increased among those aged 16-44,

These days I know huge numbers of under 25's who won't touch a drop.

And how do they intend to solve this problem?

Reinhardt wrote:

In some countries healthcare is entirely paid for by taxes (unlike the US). Therefore I am paying for the care of those who make a conscious decision to do something that costs the healthcare system money, resources and time that could be better spent on things you cannot control.

Unfortunately for you that’s all part of the package if you want universal healthcare as well as a free society. You either agree to socialize even negative health decisions you disagree with, or head down a path of further and further intervening in people’s personal lives.

The founding document for NZ governance is the 1840 vintage "Treaty of Waitangi" freely negotiated between representatives of the British Crown and the Chiefs of the majority of Maori tribes.
This explicitly stated that the governance would be a partnership between the interests of the Crown, and Maori interests.
For Britain, they got territory without having to commit large numbers of British troops to defend it, in a time when worldwide, they were perhaps a little over extended.
For Maori, they retained ownership of their land and fisheries and expected their values and traditions would be respected.
They also got protection from other competing colonial interests, most notably from France.

Unfortunately for Maori, other imperatives of colonialists meant that Treaty was for many years considered legally, non binding, until legally trained, Maori activists took it up through the court systems , right up to the Privvy Council in the UK. Here it was determined that the Treaty was legally enforceable and Maori views must be taken account of in all government actions as part of the partnership provisions.

Addressing past injustices, especially land confiscation is an ongoing huge task of our Waitangi Tribrunal.
Much has been accomplished but it will probably be always work in progress. A point of view that does not sit well with advocates for "full and final settlement"

Back to smoking, Maori were targetted by sophisticated marketing by the tobacco industry, and at one stage we had in young Maori women amongst the highest market penetration in the world for smoking.
Maori smoking rates, are a huge contributor to their relitively poor health outcomes.
Maori leadership has long been at the forefront of the multi pronged strategy to prevent the young taking up smoking. Maori Members of Parliament from all parties have been very prominent and very very largely united on this issue.
Under the Treaty provisions this Maori view as part of the partnership provisions has special status.

As an aside, an issue currently before the Waitangi Tribrunal is the failure of the government, against health advice, to prioritise Maori covid vaccination given the very increased vulnerability of Maori to covid.

Good. More nations should follow suit and put an end to death sticks.

flyguy89 wrote:

Unfortunately for you that’s all part of the package if you want universal healthcare as well as a free society. You either agree to socialize even negative health decisions you disagree with, or head down a path of further and further intervening in people’s personal lives.

Nah, this has nothing to do with universal healthcare. This is what New Zealand is going to do. Pretty much the entire civilized world has universal healthcare aside from the US, but only one nation is implementing a ban on tobacco.

Auckland, 2047: "Hey Gramps, can I bum a smoke?"
No, I suppose that would get Gramps in trouble for 'supplying'

A101 wrote:

New Zealand is set to be smoke-free with the government announcing their Smokefree 2025 plan on Thursday, which involves the bold move to ban the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2011.

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product


https://au.yahoo.com/news/new-zealand-t ... 08983.html

So the government is gonna make it illegal...perhaps because the government is the main authority behind the country's healthcare system, it has a justified interest in reducing illnesses associated with smoking. I mean, otherwise, I guess the government can keep tobacco legal and simply tax smokers 10x more to offset their medical bills...but you'd likely be against it for reasons.

Apparently Tasmania looked at doing this a few years ago, but the health minister deemed it unworkable


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-24/ ... rk/6344602

einsteinboricua wrote:

A101 wrote:
New Zealand is set to be smoke-free with the government announcing their Smokefree 2025 plan on Thursday, which involves the bold move to ban the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2011.

Talk about interfering in people lives and taking away choices on a legal product


https://au.yahoo.com/news/new-zealand-t ... 08983.html

So the government is gonna make it illegal...perhaps because the government is the main authority behind the country's healthcare system, it has a justified interest in reducing illnesses associated with smoking. I mean, otherwise, I guess the government can keep tobacco legal and simply tax smokers 10x more to offset their medical bills...but you'd likely be against it for reasons.

I can understand the health reason why they want to do it, but for me it’s age discrimination.

And no I would not care if they increased the tax rate on it by 100% because it becomes up to the individual if they want to continue or not.

But increase tax also brings in avenues for the black market for a legal product as well as it will just deprive government of tax revenues and like it or not those tax revenue going into building a better living society from healthcare to roads

I think it's an interesting take on the issue, I don't really understand how it can be legal to discriminate like this, though. In junior high school we had a day about sex ed and tobacco and drugs, we put condoms on wooden penisses, stuff like that, then there was a collection of large photographs of various cancers and consequences of smoking (like what is displayed on packs nowadays), that worked great on me, I've never even put a cigarette to my lips.

Virtual737 wrote:

They are making a product that does zero good and lots of harm illegal only for those that could never have used it legally in the first place. How is that taking the rights of anyone away? They will still have the choice to smoke a legal product, but tobacco wont be on the list.

I started smoking on my 18th birthday. Philip Morris International (or whoever owned the Marlboro brand in the UK in late 1980s) send scantily clad women to the bar I was in giving out free Zippo lighters along with full packets of cigarettes. At this point in time the harmful affects of smoking along with its intense addiction were already known.

Why in the world would you be against a law that harms the tobacco industry yet does zero harm whatsoever to the general public (in fact quite the opposite)?

At 18 I was at a student's party in the early 2000s, such tactics for tobacco were already illegal here. Not for alcohol though, so free booze flowed all night, and the women were scantily clad for starters, at some point they were naked, dancing on small podiums in the middle of the students. Some memories !
Smoking in such places was still allowed so by 5am I was sweating vodka and reeking of smoke.

Now both are banned, alcohol must be sold it can't be free and the liquor industry can't sponsor the event, and smoking inside is illegal. If there are still naked women, I'm good with it !