Aesma wrote:

I think it's an interesting take on the issue, I don't really understand how it can be legal to discriminate like this

There are plenty of examples of where you year of birth affects what your rights are. If the pushback is against a potentially discriminatory law then by all means make it a blanket ban. I understand why some might be against the law, but pick your fights.

If tobacco companies weren't so totally underhand, intentionally making an already dangerous product more dangerous then I might have a little (very little) sympathy, but they've brought this upon themselves.

https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press-releases/2014_06_23_report

This is a very interesting prposal. Given the experience of the US led war on drugs over the last centruy I'm not convinced that a ban is the best option, but I'm happy for the NZ propsal to be successful.

The Australian approach has been to hide tobacco products away, plain packaging, gruesome pictures on packaging and increasing taxation. Our smoking rate is estimated to have halved in the last 30 years, to just over 10% of the population smoking daily.

Virtual737 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I think it's an interesting take on the issue, I don't really understand how it can be legal to discriminate like this

There are plenty of examples of where you year of birth affects what your rights are. If the pushback is against a potentially discriminatory law then by all means make it a blanket ban. I understand why some might be against the law, but pick your fights.

If tobacco companies weren't so totally underhand, intentionally making an already dangerous product more dangerous then I might have a little (very little) sympathy, but they've brought this upon themselves.

https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press-releases/2014_06_23_report

That’s a press release issued by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids about a report by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Not exactly an objective source.

I thought we’d finally learned the lessons on prohibition, but I guess now we’re just swapping marijuana out for tobacco? Seems dumb to me.

flyguy89 wrote:

That’s a press release issued by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids about a report by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Not exactly an objective source.

There are plenty of other sources to back up statements, such as:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/tobacco/en/l-3/5.htm

EDITED to remove a comment that was unnecessarily imflammatory.

I'm wondering how this squares with Jacinta Ardern's policies of non-discrimination and equality?

Virtual737 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

That’s a press release issued by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids about a report by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Not exactly an objective source.

There are plenty of other sources to back up statements, such as:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/tobacco/en/l-3/5.htm

EDITED to remove a comment that was unnecessarily imflammatory.

OK, but that still doesn't answer this question: why create a black market where there isn't one?

Virtual737 wrote:

There are plenty of examples of where you year of birth affects what your rights are. If the pushback is against a potentially discriminatory law then by all means make it a blanket ban. I understand why some might be against the law, but pick your fights.

Can you give an example ? I can think of age of retirement, here in France it's moving 3 months every year or something like that, mostly because the people retiring these days, or already retired, didn't put enough money aside for their old days, so the younger have to bear the brunt. This is already likely to cause issues in the not so distant future.

But I can't think of any service, any good, someone isn't allowed to buy because of their age, once they are no longer a minor.

I'm in favor of a ban ideally but it's easier said than done.

A major advantage of NZ is that it's a country totally isolated in the middle of an ocean, smuggling stuff there isn't the easiest thing.

And if smoking is totally banned, then you can only do it hidden, which means that you need to be able to not smoke for hours at a time, already helping the compulsive smokers lower their consumption.

Aaron747 wrote:

OK, but that still doesn't answer this question: why create a black market where there isn't one?

I don't for one second pretend it's the perfect solution, but if the black market argument is the major negative then so what?

i would prefer it to be taxed out of existence (which would also create a black market) or banned totally (which would also create a black market). Not one of those 3 options would eliminate smoking but all 3 of them would reduce it (opinion).

Aesma wrote:

Can you give an example ?

Retirement ages increasing (as you already mention). Tax laws (certainly in the UK) are different depending on your date of birth. I think (from memory) this is related to people married before a certain year. Then there are employment laws that are different based on age, even when all of those ages are considered adult - such as the minimum wage examples I gave somewhere up thread.

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?

Food high in fats?

NZ doesn't appears tp ban, or even mandate correct labelling of, HFCS