The New Zealand Parliament has passed a law that prohibits people born after 2008 from buying cigarettes or tobacco products ever in their lifetime. The law is planned to gradually phase out the use of tobacco products entirely, but will not prohibit vape products. This is certainly a step in the right direction, but there is some concern that it will lead to a black market.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-63954862.amp

US tried alochol ban ~100 years ago

Wow what is next? Alcohol? Soda? Scary actually.

Here in British Columbia, they're increasing the tax on cigarettes (again) next year and there's already a lot of criticism on that as its pushing more and more people to the black market with every tax hike.

Strange place we live in - junkies get free tax funded crack and opioids and can shoot up wherever and whenever, but tobacco users get chastised at every turn.

As for New Zealand, I get the point of the ban and support the premise of it, but honestly, its just the wrong way in going about it.

New Zealand is an island on the other side of the planet, somewhat isolated, so I would say the thought of banning things and having absolute control over what enters the country is greater than most other nations. No land borders, no close sea neighbors that can push sea traffic, so yes, I can see the thought process of the ban without the effect of a huge black market. The Covid pandemic and their response probably made this decision much easier.

A ban on under 15 year olds purchasing cigarettes, but with the age rising by one year each year, will have a much more minor effect on the black market, and stealing for profit, that the already very high prices by way of tax, is having.
The drive for this measure has been largely spearheaded by our indigenous Maori people. The same demographic that were previously so succesfully targeted by the tobacco industry, that female Maori had amongst the very highest smoking rates in the world. This remains a major factor in significant ongoing poor health outcomes and lower life expectancies of this demographic.
Maoridom is now very politically engaged in improving the lot of their people and with very considerable success. But there is still a lot to do. Their work is benefiting all of us.

NZ is about the only country that life expectancy of it's peoples have risen since the start of this decade.

This is particularily significant compared to the savage decline in life expectancy of indigenous peoples elsewhere in the same period.

You might talk about the erosion of freedoms but surely the greatest freedom of all is healthy life itself?

I see where they're going, but outright bans haven't had great success for other drugs. That said, NZ (like Australia) has reduced tobacco usage to around 10% of the population already via increasingly strong discouragement measures and taxation. I'm not sure about NZ, but around 70% of the packet price in Australia is tax/excise.

My biggest concern with outright bans on a product that people want is the impact of criminality in other areas of society. We already see it with ice users cruelling the justice system with their lies.

Good. New Zealand has led the world with aggressive anti-tobacco measures and over a 25-30 year period has absolutely crushed the smoking rate as a result of it.

I fully expect in a few years time for the tobacco companies (and their lackies/lobbyists) to go all out on trying to massage the statistics to make it look like the policy isn't having an effect.

Kent350787 wrote:

I see where they're going, but outright bans haven't had great success for other drugs. That said, NZ (like Australia) has reduced tobacco usage to around 10% of the population already via increasingly strong discouragement measures and taxation. I'm not sure about NZ, but around 70% of the packet price in Australia is tax/excise.

My biggest concern with outright bans on a product that people want is the impact of criminality in other areas of society. We already see it with ice users cruelling the justice system with their lies.

There is no outright ban on tobacco possession or use.
Just that the existing ban on on selling to underage people will be dynamically raised.
The only other measure is a dramatic reduction in the number of points of sale of tobacco products.
This reduction though will savagely impact convenience stores, called dairys, here in NZ, a remnant of the time long gone, when milk runs, and convenience stores were protected from competition from grocery shops, and then supermarkets.
Our convenience stores, very largely owned by people from South Asia, are hugely dependant, about 60% on the profits from cigarette sales, with an estimated 20% from related sales.

But yes undoubtedly it will create problems we must wait and see if these are less then both the health and addiction purchase prices currently being experienced, especially by one already disadvantaged demographic.

Toenga wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

I see where they're going, but outright bans haven't had great success for other drugs. That said, NZ (like Australia) has reduced tobacco usage to around 10% of the population already via increasingly strong discouragement measures and taxation. I'm not sure about NZ, but around 70% of the packet price in Australia is tax/excise.

My biggest concern with outright bans on a product that people want is the impact of criminality in other areas of society. We already see it with ice users cruelling the justice system with their lies.

There is no outright ban on tobacco possession or use.
Just that the existing ban on on selling to underage people will be dynamically raised.
The only other measure is a dramatic reduction in the number of points of sale of tobacco products.
This reduction though will savagely impact convenience stores, called dairys, here in NZ, a remnant of the time long gone, when milk runs, and convenience stores were protected from competition from grocery shops, and then supermarkets.
Our convenience stores, very largely owned by people from South Asia, are hugely dependant, about 60% on the profits from cigarette sales, with an estimated 20% from related sales.

But yes undoubtedly it will create problems we must wait and see if these are less then both the health and addiction purchase prices currently being experienced, especially by one already disadvantaged demographic.

What's the current age in NZ for tobacco? 17 (in line with the other laws defining adulthood)?

What's the current age in NZ for tobacco?

18. In line with sales of alcohol in shops.

ACDC8 wrote:

Strange place we live in - junkies get free tax funded crack and opioids and can shoot up wherever and whenever, but tobacco users get chastised at every turn.

I get safe injection sites, Give addicts a way out and make sure they don't OD also. But do they really give free crack and opioids in BC? That's like saying Democrats have opened the Southern border.

Toenga wrote:

What's the current age in NZ for tobacco?

18. In line with sales of alcohol in shops.

CA and OR (WA too?) are 21 to buy tobacco and marijuana and alcohol. The last time I looked, a pack of good brand cigarettes are about $11 here in Oregon. More in Washington and California. And people still smoke a pack or more a day! I am glad I gave this up when it was still $4 a pack I can't imagine....

ACDC8 wrote:

Here in British Columbia, they're increasing the tax on cigarettes (again) next year and there's already a lot of criticism on that as its pushing more and more people to the black market with every tax hike.

Strange place we live in - junkies get free tax funded crack and opioids and can shoot up wherever and whenever, but tobacco users get chastised at every turn.

As for New Zealand, I get the point of the ban and support the premise of it, but honestly, its just the wrong way in going about it.

I'm just curious to know what you consider is the right way ? I don't mean that in a rude way, I'm genuinely interested in knowing what alternative method you have in mind .

Toenga wrote:

What's the current age in NZ for tobacco?

18. In line with sales of alcohol in shops.

Odd. So a 17 year old caught drinking or having tobacco would be sent to adult jail, since 17 is an adult in NZ? Sounds like US "logic".

I wonder what would happen in 2026 and onwards if someone 18+ gets caught smoking and they were born after 2007?

seb146 wrote:

I get safe injection sites, Give addicts a way out and make sure they don't OD also. But do they really give free crack and opioids in BC?

Yup. There are various Provincial sponsored programs in the aim of handing out a safer supply of drugs - free of charge. Meth too.

I just find it strange that one addiction is being pushed one way and another addiction is being pushed the opposite way.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

I'm just curious to know what you consider is the right way ? I don't mean that in a rude way, I'm genuinely interested in knowing what alternative method you have in mind .

That I honestly don't know, maybe just some tougher restrictions, but an outright ban traditionally doesn't work as we've seen with alcohol and drugs. Just my opinion of course.

ACDC8 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I get safe injection sites, Give addicts a way out and make sure they don't OD also. But do they really give free crack and opioids in BC?

Yup. There are various Provincial sponsored programs in the aim of handing out a safer supply of drugs - free of charge. Meth too.

I just find it strange that one addiction is being pushed one way and another addiction is being pushed the opposite way.

So all lives matter? Don't get me wrong: drug addiction needs to be addressed but why is it so awful to save lives?

So, what happens if the bum a fag off somebody?



is it illegal to buy or smoke ?

seb146 wrote:

So all lives matter? Don't get me wrong: drug addiction needs to be addressed but why is it so awful to save lives?

Nothing wrong with saving lives.

NIKV69 wrote:

Wow what is next? Alcohol? Soda? Scary actually.

It's not really, smoking is at historic lows in NZ, all this is doing is accelerating it's demise. Only a complete idiot would take up smoking today, now those people will have to find something else.

SEAorPWM wrote:

Toenga wrote:

What's the current age in NZ for tobacco?

18. In line with sales of alcohol in shops.

Odd. So a 17 year old caught drinking or having tobacco would be sent to adult jail, since 17 is an adult in NZ? Sounds like US "logic".

I wonder what would happen in 2026 and onwards if someone 18+ gets caught smoking and they were born after 2007?

Where do you get 17 from?

16 is the age of consent
18 is the voting, drinking, smoking age
20 is when you reach legal adulthood

New Zealand depends a lot on tourism - will this affect incoming passengers born after 2008 as well?

The article says

Legislation passed by parliament on Tuesday means that anyone born after 2008 will never be able to buy cigarettes or tobacco products.

What's stopping someone born after 2008 from flying to the next closest country (Australia I guess), buying duty-free fags there and flying back home? It also does not mention if an older sibling/friend/mate born before 2008 is able to buy fags on behalf of a person born before 2008.

Passing legislation is one thing - actually policing/implementing it is a different story altogether.

Kiwirob wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Wow what is next? Alcohol? Soda? Scary actually.

It's not really, smoking is at historic lows in NZ, all this is doing is accelerating it's demise. Only a complete idiot would take up smoking today, now those people will have to find something else.

it's called choice that's the difference until they ban tobacco period.

What's next alcohol

wonder what taxes are going to rise to replace the lost revenue

This raises questions about the fairness of the tobacco excise and fuel taxes. The Government collected $1.7 billion in tobacco excise last year, excluding GST. By 2021, that figure will be $2.2 billion according to Treasury because two more 10 per cent tax increases are planned for the start of 2019 and 2020 - and that is before GST.

Treasury's most recent forecast was that Government expenditure will be $95.3 billion, meaning smokers will contribute over two per cent of the revenue needed to fund Government operations.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... ing-to-22b

Sorry could not find up to date numbers

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Wow what is next? Alcohol? Soda? Scary actually.

It's not really, smoking is at historic lows in NZ, all this is doing is accelerating it's demise. Only a complete idiot would take up smoking today, now those people will have to find something else.

it's called choice that's the difference until they ban tobacco period.

What's next alcohol

wonder what taxes are going to rise to replace the lost revenue

I don't smoke so I'm not concerned about it, besides it only applies if you were born after 2008 and doesn't cover e-cigarettes.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's not really, smoking is at historic lows in NZ, all this is doing is accelerating it's demise. Only a complete idiot would take up smoking today, now those people will have to find something else.

it's called choice that's the difference until they ban tobacco period.

What's next alcohol

wonder what taxes are going to rise to replace the lost revenue

I don't smoke so I'm not concerned about it, besides it only applies if you were born after 2008 and doesn't cover e-cigarettes.

Taxes have been progressively raised in both our countries to discourage smoking, at the same time as nicotine replacement options were subsidised. The argument has long been that the savings to the health system would outweigh the loss of taxation revenue from tobacco products.

Hopefully the criminality surrounding prohibition will be less of an issue as the smokers progressively die off.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's not really, smoking is at historic lows in NZ, all this is doing is accelerating it's demise. Only a complete idiot would take up smoking today, now those people will have to find something else.

it's called choice that's the difference until they ban tobacco period.

What's next alcohol

wonder what taxes are going to rise to replace the lost revenue

I don't smoke so I'm not concerned about it, besides it only applies if you were born after 2008 and doesn't cover e-cigarettes.

It does not effect me either, but that’s not the point. It’s still inhibiting people choice for a legal products

It just shits me all this nanny state stuff

40A Sale and delivery of smoked tobacco product to smokefree generation
(1)
A person—
(a)
must not sell a smoked tobacco product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009; or
(b)
having sold a smoked tobacco product to a person of any age, must not deliver it, or arrange for it to be delivered, to a person born on or after 1 January 2009.
(2)
A person who knowingly or recklessly contravenes subsection (1)(a) or (b) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $150,000.
40B Supplying smoked tobacco product to smokefree generation prohibited
(1)
A person must not, in a public place,—
(a)
supply a smoked tobacco product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009; or
(b)
supply a smoked tobacco product to a person with the intention that it be supplied (directly or indirectly) to a person born on or after 1 January 2009.
(2)
A person who knowingly or recklessly contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000.
(3)
In this section, public place has the same meaning as in section 2(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1981.

https://legislation.govt.nz/bill/govern ... #LMS708231


And if anyone interested here is the legislation in full

https://legislation.govt.nz/bill/govern ... 08154.html

Kiwirob wrote:

Only a complete idiot would take up smoking today, now those people will have to find something else.

I am sorry in my country we are free to make that decision for ourselves.

SEAorPWM wrote:

Toenga wrote:

What's the current age in NZ for tobacco?

18. In line with sales of alcohol in shops.

Odd. So a 17 year old caught drinking or having tobacco would be sent to adult jail, since 17 is an adult in NZ? Sounds like US "logic".

I wonder what would happen in 2026 and onwards if someone 18+ gets caught smoking and they were born after 2007?

You have extrapolated that into the nonsensical.

The basic offence remains the same, selling a harmful substance to an underage person.
So the offender is the retailer not the consumer.

The only change is that underage will advance by one year every year

Although I strongly suspect that the laws for selling tobacco products will be much closely aligned to our laws for selling alcohol that in their present form have been in place for decades.
These are.
Sellers have to be licensed. Licence granting is very heavily weighted around quality maintenance ahead of limiting places of sale.
Licences have to be periodically renewed and renewal can be opposed by the police on the basis of recurring breaches of licence, namely maintaining public order and serving minors.This is rarely invoked, and even more rarely upheld, but loss of licence means end of the business.

The licencing authority regularily runs stings using underage purchasers.
First offence within a timeframe warning.
Second a 24 hr suspension of licenced sales (alchol) on a prime day.
Up to the licensee whether they totally close for the day.
Third 3days, 4th 7days.
These suspensions are incredibly effective.
For restaurants etc trading without alcohol sales is not viable, and for both restaurants and supermarkets trading, or closing under these circumstances is a very visable demolition of their carefully cultivated persona of being responsible traders. Especially for repeat offenders.

So for convenience stores trading prohibited from selling their prime profit generator, tobacco products, even for a short period would imperil their entire viability.
Time to enhance their age verification systems rapidly. Their call. No imprisonment required.

Edit
A 101 has helpfully uploaded the actual wording of the legislation.

In NZ the costs of ill health are also bourne by our public health system, so it is quite proper that our government takes public health measures such as compulsory seat belt wearing to limit public expenditure.

I can see in 4 years' time (when the current batch of people born in 2008 turn 18) , there will be a lot of start-up airlines offering - Flights to Nowhere.

As soon as they're in international waters, crack open the duty free carts loaded with cigarettes. After 10 mins over international waters, turn back and land.

Most of the verbiage posted so far seems to punish the seller/supplier within NZ's territorial land/waters - there is little mention of actual possession. Would the scenario above fly (no pun intended)?

Kiwirob wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

Toenga wrote:

What's the current age in NZ for tobacco?

18. In line with sales of alcohol in shops.

Odd. So a 17 year old caught drinking or having tobacco would be sent to adult jail, since 17 is an adult in NZ? Sounds like US "logic".

I wonder what would happen in 2026 and onwards if someone 18+ gets caught smoking and they were born after 2007?

Where do you get 17 from?

16 is the age of consent
18 is the voting, drinking, smoking age
20 is when you reach legal adulthood

17 is when adulthood starts per the The Oranga Tamariki Act of 1989:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_j ... g%20factor

The good news is, it sounds an "underage" person won't get charged with possession under NZ law, so you won't get these idiotic situations where underaged people (17 year olds) get rammed through the adult court/jail system like in Texas for the same thing.

NIKV69 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Only a complete idiot would take up smoking today, now those people will have to find something else.

I am sorry in my country we are free to make that decision for ourselves.

Maybe that's fine for you, for countries that has public health care I don't see why my taxes should go towards smokers.The affects of smoking are well known for many, many years and cost health providers a fortune in money and time. At a time where public services are struggling the world over, particularly in health care (which won't get much better over the next decades due to every older populations) it's even more important people actually took responsbility to look after themselves better and for more preventative medicine / attitudes.

People are clearly incapable of making the right decision when it comes to smoking so I have no issue for government to step in .

I know that's unthinkable forparts of the US, but the rest of the world works differently... luckily. I'm sure you'll say well who gives the government the right to decide what the right decision is and it's a slippery slope. No it isn't. You can vote the government out if you don't like it... and they'll leave peacefully.

Reinhardt wrote:

Maybe that's fine for you, for countries that has public health care I don't see why my taxes should go towards smokers.The affects of smoking are well known for many, many years and cost health providers a fortune in money and time. At a time where public services are struggling the world over, particularly in health care (which won't get much better over the next decades due to every older populations) it's even more important people actually took responsbility to look after themselves better and for more preventative medicine / attitudes.

People are clearly incapable of making the right decision when it comes to smoking so I have no issue for government to step in .

I know that's unthinkable forparts of the US, but the rest of the world works differently... luckily. I'm sure you'll say well who gives the government the right to decide what the right decision is and it's a slippery slope. No it isn't. You can vote the government out if you don't like it... and they'll leave peacefully.

What about the Government stepping in with regards to other contributors to high public healthcare costs? Alcohol, poor diet choices, not exercising, extreme sports with high risk of injury, etc.?

While I don't disagree with your comment, I also understand the viewpoint other members have as to where one is willing to draw a line.

Also, I live in Canada, so my opinion (and tax dollars) speaks on behalf of public healthcare.

Can't get cigarettes if you're born after 2008, but you can get clean needles to inject poison and be a junkie, funded by the NZ taxpayer and the Ministry of Health. Mkay.....

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I don't smoke so I'm not concerned about it, besides it only applies if you were born after 2008 and doesn't cover e-cigarettes.

It does not effect me either, but that’s not the point. It’s still inhibiting people choice for a legal products

It just shits me all this nanny state stuff

Coca-Cola used to contain actual cocaine. One used to be able to buy morphine in a pharmacy. Farmers used to spray DDT on their crops. Governments all over the World ban products that have been shown to be harmful to health. How is this any different, apart from the fact it isn't an outright ban?

Regardless of whether you smoke or not, some of the tax that you hate paying is used to provide healthcare to those smokers who become ill. I suspect in the long term, a significant part of any lost revenue would be offset by lower healthcare bills for smokers.

Yes was aware of that and apparently still made from coca leaves minus the cocaine paste.

But the main difference here is it has been withdrawn from sale to everyone not just a select group and still a legal product. Either it’s legal product or not

The taxes I mentioned in NZ context is the government still needs to replace the lost income or reduce services

This link suggest that theNZG made1.7b in tobacco taxes for approx 602000 people compared to 1.9b in fuel taxes out of3.4 million people. It’s a big chunk of revenue to lose


https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/1 ... on-tobacco

Redd wrote:

Can't get cigarettes if you're born after 2008, but you can get clean needles to inject poison and be a junkie, funded by the NZ taxpayer and the Ministry of Health. Mkay.....

Agree it’s hypocrisy at work
Why don’t they give them stuff for free instead of just a subsidy when tobacco is legal and the other shit is not

ACDC8 wrote:

What about the Government stepping in with regards to other contributors to high public healthcare costs? Alcohol, poor diet choices, not exercising, extreme sports with high risk of injury, etc.?

While I don't disagree with your comment, I also understand the viewpoint other members have as to where one is willing to draw a line.

Also, I live in Canada, so my opinion (and tax dollars) speaks on behalf of public healthcare.

I think government in many countries should be doing vastly more in regard to diets - promoting healthier eating from an early age. Parents need to do much better here especially in certain Western Countries where you do have a choice.

In terms of exercising, so many schools don't have playing fields anymore in my country as they had to be sold off because the schools were not funded properly. A lot more effort needs to go into helping single parents, those on lower incomes to eat healthier and not take it into adult life. I don't think we should be denying junk food (I mean ban ingredients we know cause issues by all means.. US needs to do much better there), because in moderation it's fine.. smoking however isn't fine in any moderation.

If you look at those countries with the highest life expectancy, alchohol is part of the culture but it comes in at a young age and is responsbily done. Those countries also happen to have diets nothing like you see in the US or UK for example. Huge amounts of fresh veg, fish etc.

I don't believe extreme sports have anything like an impact on healthcare services as smokers.

I am not sure if the new law in NZ will really work but it is worth a try. I think eventually it will be reversed due to it lack of working or creating black markets and other issues.

There has been several major ways taken to reduce tobacco consumption I have seen develop in the USA over the last almost 60 years. Raising age to purchase to 21 (as in many USA states, some other countries). Severely limit marketing and advertising including at the stores themselves. Don't show smoking in movies or TV programs (even if historically incorrect). Keep raising taxes. Ban smoking starting with workplaces and eventually except in private residences. Higher rates for life and health insurance. Pressure from doctors and health officials. All tobacco products are sold 'from behind the counter'. Ban flavored tobacco products (including menthol). Plain packaging so no open brand showing, much of the packaging with graphic pictures of body disease from smoking and blunt warnings. The best thing is to not start. For me, my father (who lived to 80, quit smoking unfiltered cigarette in his 50's) hacking his brains out every morning when a child and teen discouraged me.

Social, economic and other pressures can also be put into play. In the USA, the discount store chain Target stopped selling tobacco products in 1996 due to the hassles of enforcement of age of purchase laws and major drugstore chain CVS stopped doing so in 2014 as in conflict with their connection to health. Other US retailers have raised prices above state mandated minimum prices, don't want the risks of losing their business if sell to underage persons, remove a product that is frequently stolen by employees, or due to ID checking, made it not worth the hassle to sell tobacco products. Social and peer pressure against tobacco as a filthy habit should be encouraged.

I think one area of law to consider is to substantially reduce the number of retail sales points of purchase as done in some USA states with alcoholic beverages. Perhaps limiting the number of outlets and requiring an expensive license may reduce access so can be more tightly controlled with fewer outlets.Make it so not every convenience store sells them. Ban all advertising of tobacco products at point of sale. Ban sales within 500 feet of a school. As in the UK, all tobacco products have to kept behind a closed cabinet, marked with prices of brands at the most like other products in the store, make it more inconvenient to sell.

889091 wrote:

I can see in 4 years' time (when the current batch of people born in 2008 turn 18) , there will be a lot of start-up airlines offering - Flights to Nowhere.

As soon as they're in international waters, crack open the duty free carts loaded with cigarettes. After 10 mins over international waters, turn back and land.

Most of the verbiage posted so far seems to punish the seller/supplier within NZ's territorial land/waters - there is little mention of actual possession. Would the scenario above fly (no pun intended)?

I think it'd be legal presuming taxes were still being paid on the cigs.

I also doubt there would be that huge a demand to get a boatload of people to pay to do this.

Far easier/likely to just do the black market thing: get an adult to buy them for you.

Reinhardt wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Only a complete idiot would take up smoking today, now those people will have to find something else.

I am sorry in my country we are free to make that decision for ourselves.

Maybe that's fine for you, for countries that has public health care I don't see why my taxes should go towards smokers.The affects of smoking are well known for many, many years and cost health providers a fortune in money and time. At a time where public services are struggling the world over, particularly in health care (which won't get much better over the next decades due to every older populations) it's even more important people actually took responsbility to look after themselves better and for more preventative medicine / attitudes.

People are clearly incapable of making the right decision when it comes to smoking so I have no issue for government to step in .

I know that's unthinkable forparts of the US, but the rest of the world works differently... luckily. I'm sure you'll say well who gives the government the right to decide what the right decision is and it's a slippery slope. No it isn't. You can vote the government out if you don't like it... and they'll leave peacefully.

Certainly in the EU and before the great stupidity of 2016, the UK was a leader in this, taxes on tobacco are high compared to the US, as are the graphic health warnings.
It's often been said that they are so high in the UK, the NHS would feel the loss of revenue if everyone gave up tomorrow!
(Of course savings would come from the best medical intervention of all, preventative).

Back in the 1990's I saw a documentary where Big Tobacco had 'scientists' muddying the waters on the health effects to Congress. Some denying proven facts established decades before.
Of course Capitol Hill was/is full of client lawmakers of theirs.
Same tactics with Big Oil too.

All this claiming to be free.
Mugs.

889091 wrote:

I can see in 4 years' time (when the current batch of people born in 2008 turn 18) , there will be a lot of start-up airlines offering - Flights to Nowhere.

As soon as they're in international waters, crack open the duty free carts loaded with cigarettes. After 10 mins over international waters, turn back and land.

Most of the verbiage posted so far seems to punish the seller/supplier within NZ's territorial land/waters - there is little mention of actual possession. Would the scenario above fly (no pun intended)?

With a duty free allowance of 50 cigarettes or 50 grams I don't think so.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I don't smoke so I'm not concerned about it, besides it only applies if you were born after 2008 and doesn't cover e-cigarettes.

It does not effect me either, but that’s not the point. It’s still inhibiting people choice for a legal products

It just shits me all this nanny state stuff

Coca-Cola used to contain actual cocaine. One used to be able to buy morphine in a pharmacy. Farmers used to spray DDT on their crops. Governments all over the World ban products that have been shown to be harmful to health. How is this any different, apart from the fact it isn't an outright ban?

Regardless of whether you smoke or not, some of the tax that you hate paying is used to provide healthcare to those smokers who become ill. I suspect in the long term, a significant part of any lost revenue would be offset by lower healthcare bills for smokers.

Even for us Americans with private insurance, those making dumb health decisions provide an unnecessary drain on the system, including insurance providers.

ltbewr wrote:

I am not sure if the new law in NZ will really work but it is worth a try. I think eventually it will be reversed due to it lack of working or creating black markets and other issues.

There has been several major ways taken to reduce tobacco consumption I have seen develop in the USA over the last almost 60 years. Raising age to purchase to 21 (as in many USA states, some other countries). Severely limit marketing and advertising including at the stores themselves. inconvenient to sell.

So this is in effect the NZ law in advance : limiting the puchase age.
Smoking tobacco, like contact with heavy metals, has a longterm cumalative effect that is not reversed with cessation. The widescale ban of lead water pipes (which few people challenge) has similar health benefits as the tobacco ban.

NIKV69 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Only a complete idiot would take up smoking today, now those people will have to find something else.

I am sorry in my country we are free to make that decision for ourselves.

Good for you, your country does plenty of stupid things which other countries laugh about, besides should I want to smoke I legally can, but I’m quite happy that 2 of my 3 kids should they move to NZ can’t. Smoking is for idiots the sooner we stop it the better.

NIKV69 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Only a complete idiot would take up smoking today, now those people will have to find something else.

I am sorry in my country we are free to make that decision for ourselves.

So long as you don’t live in Brookline, Massachusetts and were born after 1 Jan 2000, those poor Americans won’t be able to smoke until ere home town.

Massively shortsighted. I detest cigarettes and have never smoked. I've always supported indoor smoking bans as common sense public health measures. This is ridiculous. Prohibition never works and just causes more problems.

NIKV69 wrote:

Wow what is next? Alcohol? Soda? Scary actually.

Abortion? Being gay? Other plants with less harmful effects than tobacco or alcohol?

Oh...wait...

I'd be curious to know what percentage of addicted smokers vs casual smokers there are?

Non-smokers and constant smokers seem to have this world view that it's all or nothing when it comes to smokes.

The vast majority I know, myself included, seldom smoke but enjoy a cigarette after a few drinks on occasion. I probably go through 3-4 packs a year, I never crave a smoke but it's nice to have here or there. Obviously my sample size is small, but as an extroverted person who travels a lot, in every city or town outside of every pub or nightclub I think it's fair to say you can find a handful of smokers who only indulge on particular drinking occasions.

Before anyone responds with "smoking proven to be highly addictive!!" I know this and am not suggesting it's not - I'm just saying there is a large silent population who enjoy smoking in moderation.

edit: found an article on this incase anyone else is curious
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/24/so ... index.html

SEAorPWM wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

Odd. So a 17 year old caught drinking or having tobacco would be sent to adult jail, since 17 is an adult in NZ? Sounds like US "logic".

I wonder what would happen in 2026 and onwards if someone 18+ gets caught smoking and they were born after 2007?

Where do you get 17 from?

16 is the age of consent
18 is the voting, drinking, smoking age
20 is when you reach legal adulthood

17 is when adulthood starts per the The Oranga Tamariki Act of 1989:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_j ... g%20factor

The good news is, it sounds an "underage" person won't get charged with possession under NZ law, so you won't get these idiotic situations where underaged people (17 year olds) get rammed through the adult court/jail system like in Texas for the same thing.

Which as far as I can tell doesn’t repeal the Age of Majority Act 1970

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/pub ... whole.html

N1120A wrote:

Massively shortsighted. I detest cigarettes and have never smoked. I've always supported indoor smoking bans as common sense public health measures. This is ridiculous. Prohibition never works and just causes more problems.

NIKV69 wrote:

Wow what is next? Alcohol? Soda? Scary actually.

Abortion? Being gay? Other plants with less harmful effects than tobacco or alcohol?

Oh...wait...

NZ is an Island far from anywhere else, with pretty effective border control, smuggling cigarettes isn’t going to be all that easy, to make smuggling worth while you’re you would need to smuggle tens of thousands of them, NZ is not like most other countries where you can simply drive a truck over the border. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Australia follow sooner rather than later.