New Zealand Passes World-First Tobacco Law To Ban Smoking For Next Generation 241
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: New Zealand has introduced a steadily rising smoking age to stop those aged 14 and under from ever being able to legally buy cigarettes in world-first legislation to outlaw smoking for the next generation. New Zealand is believed to be the first country in the world to implement the annually rising smoking age, ensuring tobacco cannot be sold to anyone born on or after January 1, 2009. It will be accompanied by a slew of other measures to make smoking less affordable and accessible, including dramatically reducing the legal amount of nicotine in tobacco products and forcing them to be sold only through specialty tobacco stores, rather than corner stores and supermarkets.
The country has also increased funding for health services and campaigns, and rolled out quitting services specifically for Mori and Pacific communities. The number of stores legally allowed to sell cigarettes will be reduced to a tenth of their existing levels -- from 6,000 to just 600 nationwide. The laws passed their final reading on Tuesday evening, and will come into force in 2023, as New Zealand attempts to reach its goal of making the country "smoke-free" by 2025. [...] The new laws, however, will not restrict vape sales. Data indicates that at least some New Zealanders haveswapped their nicotine habit from cigarettes to vapes. Associate health minister Ayesha Verrall said at the law's passing on Tuesday: "Thousands of people will live longer, healthier lives and the health system will be $5 billion better off from not needing to treat the illnesses caused by smoking, such as numerous types of cancer, heart attacks, strokes, amputations."
"For decades we have permitted tobacco companies to maintain their market share by making their deadly product more and more addictive. It is disgusting and it is bizarre. We have more regulations in this country on the safety of the sale of a sandwich than on a cigarette."
The country has also increased funding for health services and campaigns, and rolled out quitting services specifically for Mori and Pacific communities. The number of stores legally allowed to sell cigarettes will be reduced to a tenth of their existing levels -- from 6,000 to just 600 nationwide. The laws passed their final reading on Tuesday evening, and will come into force in 2023, as New Zealand attempts to reach its goal of making the country "smoke-free" by 2025. [...] The new laws, however, will not restrict vape sales. Data indicates that at least some New Zealanders haveswapped their nicotine habit from cigarettes to vapes. Associate health minister Ayesha Verrall said at the law's passing on Tuesday: "Thousands of people will live longer, healthier lives and the health system will be $5 billion better off from not needing to treat the illnesses caused by smoking, such as numerous types of cancer, heart attacks, strokes, amputations."
"For decades we have permitted tobacco companies to maintain their market share by making their deadly product more and more addictive. It is disgusting and it is bizarre. We have more regulations in this country on the safety of the sale of a sandwich than on a cigarette."
Weed too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Weed too? (Score:5, Informative)
Not legal in NZ - there was a legalisation referendum a couple of years ago, it failed.
CBD products are medically licensed, so if you need it for a health reason then there are legal avenues you can pursue, but general consumption is not legal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When we make highly-desired commodities illegal, we instantly create black markets. History has shown us the folly of trying to beat back the black markets through law enforcement: it results in a lot of taxpayer money being completely wasted, increased violence all over the place from clashes with law enforcement, and a whole lot more money being funneled directly into the pockets of criminal drug mafias (which they then use to bribe said law enforcement). And, worst of all, with unregulated mafias as th
Re: Weed too? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Less than 3 cartons' worth.
Re: Weed too? (Score:5, Funny)
You are only looking at the extra costs, but not the savings.
On average, smokers live 13 fewer years than non-smokers.
That is 13 years of pensions that aren't being paid. In America, the average social security check is $1,800.
$1,800 * 12 * 13 = $280,000.
That can pay for a lot of doctor visits.
Everybody dies eventually (Score:2)
You are only looking at the extra costs, but not the savings.
On average, smokers live 13 fewer years than non-smokers.
That is 13 years of pensions that aren't being paid. In America, the average social security check is $1,800.
Yes, and people who don't die from smoking may go on to develop Alzheimer's and require years of care, or various cancers or other ailments with expensive long term treatments. The assumption that people who die from smoking are a financial liability but when they eventually die from something else - that may be even more expensive - they are not is kind of stupid.
Re:Everybody dies eventually (Score:5, Interesting)
Smokers are 30% more likely to get dementia when compared to non-smokers at the same age. The risk is even higher for heavy smokers.
But they are less likely to reach that age, and it isn't clear how much of that is correlation vs. causation. Both smoking and dementia are more common among minorities and correlated with low income and low IQ.
Re:Everybody dies eventually (Score:4, Interesting)
That is simply not true. It's been shown to improve cognitive function in dementia patients.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
https://discover.vumc.org/2019... [vumc.org]
https://www.alzheimers.gov/cli... [alzheimers.gov]
Nicotine has other benefits, it inhibits amyloid formation by the beta-peptide
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
I'll be the first to admit, smoking is a terrible habit, Nicotine is horribly addictive. I just quit for the second time in my life 11 days ago after about 2 months of tapering down and using lozenges. Despite the negatives, research has shown it has a huge benefit with Alzheimer's, unfortunately the stigma associated with it makes docs afraid to prescribe it.
Re: (Score:3)
You are only looking at the extra costs, but not the savings.
On average, smokers live 13 fewer years than non-smokers.
That is 13 years of pensions that aren't being paid.
You have to be careful with this. The average smoker is also a tax payer. If you graph the deaths vs when you start smoking against the net taxable benefit to society you'll realise it is bad if someone starts smoking too early.
Ideally you want people to take up smoking when they turn 22-25. That way they die just as they reach retirement. Maximise tax revenue, minimise public expenses.
Re: Weed too? (Score:5, Interesting)
I will preface this with the statement that Im not a smoker, I have never smoked, and I dislike smoking.
The NZ government estimated [beehive.govt.nz] about a decade ago that tax revenue on tobacco products covers about two thirds of the cost of providing healthcare for smoking related illnesses ($1.3Billion in revenue against $1.9Billion in healthcare costs - however, later figures put revenue at $1.7Billion) - but this does not account for the additional income that smokers pay directly to GP surgeries for their primary care.
In 2018, 600,000 smokers paid almost as much in taxation as 3.4million drivers in New Zealand. Obesity is much more of an issue in NZ and yet its nowhere nearly taxed as much - and yet it leads to significantly more long term health issues across the populace than smoking does.
The tax revenue situation is not always clear and concise, and Im willing to bet that most smokers wouldnt bat an eyelid at having the tax on tobacco products raised by 50% to cover the healthcare shortfall.
Which means that taxation doesn't exactly solve the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait. I'm sure they'll be working on that law soon enough. For your own good citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Good.
Im all for action on obesity, be it a combination of taxation and restrictions on fast foods, confectionary and other such goods, as well as subsidies for healthier foods and exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
as well as subsidies for healthier foods and exercise.
I'll take the blame for my own obesity, but this is very much something that gets overlooked. It may not be a universal problem, but seems commonplace in the US at least. It's not cheap to eat healthy. I'm not saying it's prohibitively expensive, but for those on a tight budget it just isn't as feasible. Sure, long term health concerns could be more costly. However, if you're not getting enough to eat right now that isn't so much a concern.
Re: Weed too? (Score:4, Insightful)
It absolutely is not more expensive to eat healthy.
You DO have to be willing to actually prepare and cook your own food...much like most families did only 30+ years ago.
You can readily buy veggies and fruits at very reasonable prices....and meats/protiens and prepare meals to eat on all week and it isn't any more expensive than buying prepared crap in the center of the grocery store aisles.
And...do what I and many people do...each week, look at what's in the sale flyer and base that weeks meals on what's on sale.
That way you save money, and you don't get stuck in a rut eating the same old thing all the time.
Re: Weed too? (Score:2)
Shhhh...
Luckily I can still drink myself to death or blitz myself into another dimension with all sorts of very legal prescriptions, amirite? Nothing bad about those precious staples of life. Nosiree!
Oh but yes, terrible nasty tobacco everybody! Boo! Boo!
Sometimes I just sit back, kick up my feet, and watch humanity try to do pretty idiotic but well meaning things. Great entertainment!
Re: Weed too? (Score:2)
Why?
Maybe people who choose to have kids should pay their own medical bills, as well as the medical bills of those kids too.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem, as per the article. Each person who smokes needs to pay their own medical bills.
What? Does New Zealand have some sort of arbitrary exception to their single-payer healthcare system? Where are you getting this from the article?
Re:Weed too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Weed too? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, since it will be difficult for the next generation to even get hooked in the first place, there will be little to no demand for a black market for this and subsequent generations.
I don't believe that. Kids are brats and will steal cigs just to try them. Adults will travel and try them. Tobacco, much like alcohol, is embedded in many cultures and simply won't go away.
Marijuana, for example, is non-addictive and has been illegal in USA for years, and yet people still use it illegally all the time, all over the place. The "war on drugs" was a catastrophic failure in the case of a plant that was non-addictive. How much more of a failure will it be for an addictive plant that is used worldwide and has culture and tradition behind it?
This clever "old people in, young people out" does not even begin to address the issue of addiction and demand, it only makes the ban more palatable to current voters.
So, I predict it won't last, and it will do more harm than good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"But, since it will be difficult for the next generation to even get hooked in the first place, there will be little to no demand for a black market for this and subsequent generations."
It's a shame the US didn't try this with fentanyl.
Of wait, we did. And it failed miserably.
Do they think being an island will make it easier to keep the smugglers out?
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, being an island probably does help and homegrown operations aren't hard to spot by the utility company. They would need a lot of solar+battery investment to setup an operation that would be undetectable.
I imagine with some more tech, New Zealand could lockdown pretty effectively because it is an island.
Re: (Score:2)
Pot has clear benefits to using it. It can help with pain and help to relax.
Tobacco doesn't have many redeeming qualities, and the minor benefits that it does offer can be had from other things without the lung damage.
It's an interesting experiment. Other bans failed in part because people were already using alcohol and pot, and at the time the alternatives were few. Not sure it will work, but I'll watch with interest.
Re:Weed too? (Score:4, Insightful)
Marijuana, for example, is non-addictive
Yet...
and yet people still use it illegally all the time, all over the place.
I'm curious how you think that something is NOT addictive, yet people are willing to risk fines/jail to keep using it?
Re: Weed too? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's it so far outside your experience that you cannot fathom doing something simply because you enjoy it? Legality aside, because I don't think that matters as much as you perceive that it matters (or maybe matters to you?)
Seriously though. People die DAILY from alcohol and nobody bats an eyelash. We tried to ban alcohol, which worked WONDERFULLY (for organized crime). Let's do the same for other things too! What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
People risk fines/jail to do all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. Making money is a big one, though we don't usually accuse them of money-addiction. Copyright infringement is one, yet we don't accuse file-sharers of being addicted to music or movies.
The same goes for popularity. That is not, in-and-of-itself, evidence that something qualifies as "addictive."
Part of the problem though is that the world "addictive" sounds boolean but really it is a sliding scale, with some substances being very p
Re: Weed too? (Score:2)
Only if you're naive enough to think kids won't get what they want from other sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Weed too? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is, why would kids want tobacco in the first place? It's probably the single most dangerous widely used drug, and yet it does almost nothing for non-addicts, unlike cannabis or shrooms, or even more dangerous stuff like meth or alcohol.
Kids usually start smoking tobacco to look cool, or fit in with a peer group of smokers. I don't think anyone has ever smoked their first cigarette and thought "that was awesome, I should get some more". And if they have to hit up the black market anyway to get cigarettes, it seems likely they'll go with something more fun, more status-granting, and probably safer instead, like... almost anything, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except of course that while smoke in and of itself is indeed bad for the lungs, not all inhaled particles are the same. Smoking weed while using hemp string means you are only inhaling burned weed and nothing else, not even butane from the lighter.
A cigarette on the other hand is a much more complex, man-made item. It's not just nicotine wrapped in a paper with a filter put in front. I imagine if people did smoke nicotine straight it would be a whole lot healthier but not many people are using water pipes f
Re:Weed too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Smoking weed does not cause cancer.
That's a 'bold' claim.
If you meant to say that smoking marijuana isn't as carcinogenic as smoking tobacco I might be inclined to agree. Saying smoking marijuana doesn't increase your risk of cancer is ... laughable.
We actually prescribe it to people WITH cancer
And that has nothing to do with whether it's harmful or not. We also prescribe morphine for people with cancer. That a substance can relieve pain, reduce nausea, or help people feel more at ease with their impending demise doesn't mean it has no negative side effects, it just means that their side effects tend to be outweighed by the specific benefits at that moment in time.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, studies seem mixed. I've seen different studies finding slight positive correlations with lung cancer, as well as slight negative correlations. At present there does not seem to be a consensus, except that any impact on cancer risks is probably small, even among heavy smokers.
One possible explanation lies in the fact that cannabis contains a cornucopia of different medicinally useful compounds, a few of which are suspected to have anti-carcinogenic properties.
Re:Weed too? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're preaching to the choir. I'm just highlighting that if tobacco cigarettes are demonized, then it's only consistent to demonize weed for exactly the same reasons, regardless of what a bunch of "activists" say.
Smoking anything is not going to be healthy. I prefer my cannabis as edibles. The anti-cannabis crowd tends to make no distinction.
Re: Weed too? (Score:2)
Typically an anti"anything" crowd will make as few distinctions as possible. Less thinking that way, more following and sneering. Far better that way, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
If you can stop people from smoking in the first place then there will be no black market. In the short term there will be a black market for those that have been smoking (assuming you actually eliminate their legal access) but once these individuals have passed on then there is no market left (black or otherwise) since there is no demand.
The problem is will these measures actually stop individuals from starting to smoke in the first place. I have no information either way but I do know that I see a lot les
Re: (Score:2)
The parent reads like a counterfactual produced by a tobacco exec.
> When we make highly-desired commodities illegal, we instantly create black markets.
Same as when you heavily tax them (eg Africa)
> History has shown us the folly of trying to beat back the black markets through law enforcement:
That is not the lesson, as it's been effective for all manner of things over history, even today. The most recent failures (US prohibition and failed drug wars) is a matter of popular support. You can't protect a
Re: Weed too? (Score:2)
"The most recent failures (US prohibition and failed drug wars) is a matter of popular support. "
A matter of popular support? For the drug wars? Where have you lived? People were eating that shit up for decades! (Along with their completely legal Vicodin and alcohol, fentanyl, OXY... But those are legal, so they're okay.)
Obviously it has swung the other way a bit at this point, but there for a while, honestly, I can't imagine your logic holding water anywhere in the u.s. sorry.
Re:Weed too? (Score:5, Insightful)
New Zealand has a massive advantage and disadvantage of it being a very remote island nation. Smuggling to New Zealand is actually very, very hard compared to most of the rest of the world because of geographic realities.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you understand the difference between "low volume high impact" drugs and "high volume low impact" tobacco.
One requires massive volume and weight in freight to be smuggled. And if you want to understand just how important those two are in the other, mass move of a lot of drug supply to variants and derivatives of fentanyl is specifically because of how little space it takes per dose when being smuggled.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When we make highly-desired commodities illegal, we instantly create black markets. History has shown us the folly of trying to beat back the black markets through law enforcement: it results in a lot of taxpayer money being completely wasted, increased violence all over the place from clashes with law enforcement, and a whole lot more money being funneled directly into the pockets of criminal drug mafias (which they then use to bribe said law enforcement). And, worst of all, with unregulated mafias as the source of the drug, it lacks quality controls so it becomes even more of a health hazard, and these now-wealthy criminal mafias have no inhibitions about breaking other laws and harming people in other ways to further their own wealth.
It is an enormous lose all-around.
By this logic, then every country should legalize and tax, rather than ban these: all porn, child porn, guns, all drugs, gambling, prostitution, slavery, selling babies, human blood and organs trading, etc, otherwise black markets will spring up and it would be "enormous lose all-around", right?
Wait, nearly all countries in the world banned most of the above and were fine. NZ banning one more won't bring doom.
If any country have mafia problem, it is more a problem with incompetent governance, rather than b
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with smoking specifically is the way it's consumed is both harmful and unpleasant to non smokers in the vicinity.
From a drug consumption perspective it makes absolutely no sense to release the drug as a cloud of smoke and then inhale a small fraction of it, leaving the rest floating around making it unpleasant for others.
There are plenty of ways to consume nicotine and other drugs which don't affect non users.
If users want to consume drugs they should be free to do so, but they should not be fre
Re: (Score:2)
>It's still secondhand smoke and not everyone wants to smell your stinky-ass skunk weed.
Yes, but it's different secondhand smoke. Or should we ban cars as well? After all that's secondhand smoke too, and far more dangerous than cannabis smoke.
And that's the thing - tobacco smoke isn't just unpleasant, it's dangerous. Even secondhand in dramatically increases your risk of developing lung cancer.
Cannabis smoke though - studies are all over the place. Some find that heavy smokers have increased lung can
Re: (Score:2)
Many countries are taking steps to reduce and eventually ban vehicles with internal combustion engines.
Cars do produce noxious fumes which are both unpleasant and harmful to people, but the key differences are that vehicles are used outdoors and provide an essential function that until recently had no viable alternative. Smoking does not provide an essential function, and there are viable alternatives (see all the other nicotine products like gum, tablets etc and the various edible cannabis options).
People
why not just set an end of all sales date? (Score:2)
why not just set an end of all sales date?
Re:why not just set an end of all sales date? (Score:5, Insightful)
By increasing the minimum age for sale and consumption of products, you avoid a few things...
Firstly, the ethical issue of forcing people to go through addiction withdrawal. But of course, this does mean some underage smokers will be caught out, however legally you shouldnt be smoking while under the minimum age, so you shouldnt be addicted, thats on you if you are. Underage smokers will find it harder and harder to continue to smoke now rather than easier as this leads us to...
Secondly, as the minimum age goes up, there will be progressively fewer sales as consumers either voluntarily give up or die off - products will become harder to find and buy as retailers stop stocking it, so underage smoking will decrease as an issue over the same time period.
If you just set a single end date for all sales, none of the above is true - and you suddenly have a single date on which people either have to turn to the black market for smuggled tobacco products, or they all go through withdrawal at the same time.
Even reducing tobacco smoking to the levels of illicit drug usage in the general populace is actually a huge positive step, so the argument that "there will always be a black market for this stuff" is a valid one but still represents a decent improvement in numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
They are setting an end of sale date (sort of). If they keep increasing the age limit to legally buy tobacco products eventually you will get the age up to only those older than 125 will legally be able to buy tobacco products. So the de-facto end of all sales will be 2334 (assuming they increase it one year every year). 8^)
Re: (Score:3)
addiction, that's why.
Just let the addicts die off and do your best to make sure no new ones can be formed.
What is your proposal for making sure no news one can be formed? Mass media campaigns? Laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe something like this: https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Governments love making plants illegal to cultivate then turn around and spend taxpayer money enforcing the law. It's a jobs program for so many layers of society.
Obesity action next (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No he doesn't, not unless you get fat because someone else eats a cheeseburger.
Smoking has negative effects well beyond the person undertaking the activity. Additionally smoking provides zero positive benefits what so ever, and for all the bad things we can say about fast food, it does none the less provide actual sustenance even if not healthy.
His argument isn't valid. It's called a slippery slope fallacy. Logical fallacies do not make valid arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope fallacy.
Re:Obesity action next (Score:5, Funny)
It's only slippery if you're a messy eater...
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope fallacy.
How so? Eating fast food is clearly bad for you, leads to obesity and heart diseases, is addictive, so where is the slope in this?
Eating fast food is good for you. It provides calories and nutrients that keep you alive. Sure, there other foods that are better for you, but given the difference between eating fast food and not eating, the choice is clear. Smoking has no upside whatsoever except a mild nicotine high which you can absolutely, positively do without.
Any comparison between fast food and smoking is disingenuous at best. And the idea that because an entirely-harmful vice is being made illegal leads to outlawing some poor
The role of government (Score:2)
In societies where legitimacy is based on consent the governments stick is only capable of beating down outliers. When you venture beyond this to things a significant proportion of things people are willing to do regardless of legality the resulting loss of legitimacy yields increasing peril for society.
In the US prohibition ushered in organized crime. Endless wars on hookers and blow has lead multiple countries flirting with becoming failed states as criminal enterprise mount credible challenge to state
New Zealand is about to learn (Score:5, Insightful)
the war on drugs doesn't fucking work. Banning shit like this makes it more desirable - especially to kids who otherwise may not have had any interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it seems that the rest of the world didn't really learn anything from the US's "War On Drugs" during the 80's and 90's.
All they will likely achieve is making black market tobacco "cooler" and more desirable to teens once they can no longer legally buy it.
You name the problem and it'll appear (Score:5, Insightful)
So they're creating a black market for tobacco. Reminds me of the cost of alcohol in Iceland and Finland. I took the ferry from Helsinki to Tallinn and back for a few day's stay in Estonia and as I normally do, I took lots of photographs. My funniest one on that trip is the guy who rolled a shopping cart with 8 cases of beer in it right into the ferry and then off to his car in Helsinki. Others were carrying back suitcases full of stuff.
But it may work for NZ because they don't have an easy hop to cheaper places for materials. I routinely pick up multiple handles of Bacardi for $16 (yeah, I drink way too much) and yet when I went to Iceland for a couple weeks trip, despite my wife's warning at the airport to buy a few bottles before flying, I ended up not drinking much at all, given that a fifth of Captain Morgan was over $80. Living in Iceland could possibly be the cure for alcoholism. If they did something like that in Iceland, then maybe this will work for NZ.
Al Capone's ghost is laughing his ass off (Score:3)
And rightly so.
But why wouldn't politicians try another ban on sin products, when Prohibition and the War on (Some) Drugs were both so successful.
Re: (Score:2)
This time it will be different! /s
Excellent Idea (Score:2)
If you want to make tobacco go away (Score:2)
Drinking and pot have mental effects that make them somewhat desirable in and of themselves but there really isn't any reason to spoke tobacco besides addiction. Even the strongest tobacco is it most going to make you a little light-headed. It's not going to relax you or make
Re: (Score:2)
Even Though They Won, They Will Lose (Score:5, Interesting)
Tobacco Companies are protected by what are known as " investor-state dispute settlement" clauses in international treaties. Those clauses give to foreign companies rights unavailable to local companies. They get to claim billions in compensation through an extraterritorial tribunal if they believe their rights have been infringed on even after losing in the nation in question.
From The Conversation... [theconversation.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Glad you posted about it, it saves me some time to write it.
But even if New Zealand has to pay for missed tobacco industry earnings, at least they would save the health cost. Perhaps it is still a good bargain
Re: (Score:2)
It is ultimately an excellent bargain. All the money of the world won't mean shit if you get cancer or a chronic illness that makes your life hell.
dumb paternalistic law (Score:2, Troll)
This is a country that allows you to free solo a mountain, but apparently a cigarette is too dangerous.
Not the right way (Score:2)
I am not a fan of cancer sticks either, but we know banning these things does not work. Instead, why can’t they make it legal but just make it really inconvenient by banning smoking from all businesses, apartment hallways, places like that. Also, put a fat tax on it. And then, make it socially unacceptable. Also health insurance rates for smokers can be a bit extra.
Sorry but this is not a world first. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that it took them until 2014 to raise the age to 18.
I was about to say I don't remember a time when the age was below that where I grew up, but I looked it up and it was legal in Texas up until 1989. Wow, Texas was 25 years ahead of the UK on something. How progressive of my home state.
I rarely got carded for cigarettes back then anyway. They started cracking down in the late '90s when I was a bit older and I got carded more then.
I finally switched to e-cigs. I wish I'd quit those too, bu
That which is not mandatory must be banned! (Score:2)
That which is not mandatory must be banned!
- reducing the legal amount of nicotine - (Score:4)
I take a choline supplement. It does some good things for me, and most people. It is closely related to nicotine. Also good for many people. Both will improve memory, reduce tension and possibly make you a bit smarter.
Many college students use one or both to help during important exams. Factory workers, soldiers at war and people facing a firing squad find an unpleasant environment more tolerable after smoking.
There are many harmful substances in cigaret smoke, but nicotine is always brought up first. I challenge anyone to explain why it is so bad. It is a method of self-medication for people who actually need what it offers. Take it away and you risk suicide or other terrible results such as opioid addiction. Yes, it's addictive, like coffee or alcohol or sugar. But sometimes it is necessary unlike those others.
You are Slashdot. You are a cut above the average person. Don't allow yourself to follow the politically correct viewpoint without some personal investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Eh? Nonsense. We've had universal healthcare in Canada for decades and nobody has lost any freedom. Tobacco is legal here and so is pot.
This is a NZ-specific law. I don't think it's a good law because if you want to ban tobacco, you should just ban it outright and not have a creeping age-limit ban.
Re:This is the downside of universal healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's a good law because if you want to ban tobacco, you should just ban it outright and not have a creeping age-limit ban.
Nicotine addition is hell. If there was a total ban, things would get ugly fast.
This is a great idea. Nobody has to go through withdrawal unless/until they want to. But nobody new can start. The problem solves itself over time.
I wish the U.S. would do this. But Big Tobacco has lobbyists with deep pockets and the government loves that tax revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
Nicotine addition is hell. If there was a total ban, things would get ugly fast.
Meh. The first 3 days are hell. The first two weeks are fairly unpleasant. After that the nicotine is out of your system, and your body has largely rebalanced its various hormones and signalling molecules to live without it. At that point it's purely down to social cues and learned behaviours which, while difficult to break, don't actually cause severe or long lasting physiological side effects (well, not that I've experienced anyway).
Nobody has to go through withdrawal unless/until they want to
This, however, hits the nail on the head. You have to want to quit, to be
Re: (Score:2)
Nicotine addition is hell. If there was a total ban, things would get ugly fast.
You never met my mother: she was a pack-per-day smoker for decades. She went to her doctor because she was ill (flu, or something); her doctor suggested that she would feel better if she didn't smoke, so she stopped. She never smoked a single cigarette after that.
Re:This is the downside of universal healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, universal healthcare gives us a lot more freedom. We're free to switch jobs early, to quit and start our own business, to quit and do SFA, whatever. That's freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? You're advertising medical assisted suicide in commercials now. You're putting people down and recommending it to people who are merely a mild inconvenience on the healthcare system - people who are struggling to get care for chronic issues, but can't, due to a shit system - not the terminally ill.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. MAID cases in Canada are 3.3% of all deaths. The money savings is negligible; it's all about letting people choose to end their lives with dignity, if that's what they want.
The Veterans Affairs worker who was pushing assisted suicide inappropriately has been fired and there's an investigation underway. Despite the breathless propaganda from Fox News, that employee was violating policy, not following it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Canadian government is actively pushing assisted suicide as a way to lower costs.
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
This is just the beginning.
https://www.foxnews.com/politi... [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Troll. Not only do I get timely medical care, but I know a serious condition won't bankrupt me. I know that I can see whatever doctor I want and not just those my insurance company approves.
You really should get your info from more reliable sources.
Re: (Score:3)
You realise that smoking is regulated even in countries without universal healthcare, right?
Re: This is the downside of universal healthcare (Score:4, Informative)
Alcohol? Really? Been there, done that. LMGTFY https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=prohibition+&l=1 [letmegooglethat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Given that most every developed nation has universal healthcare, but only 1 has decided to ban cigarettes, I'm going to have to say there's no correlation.
Re: (Score:3)
It is rather bizarre, the fixation on drag queens. For example, you can't talk about cigarette bans without someone bringing them up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Compare health outcomes and life expectancy in Canada vs the USA. Canada wins.
Compare health care expenditure per capita in Canada vs the USA. Canada spends much less.
You're being fucked over by greedy corporations in the United States and are too brainwashed to even imagine there could be an alternative.
Re:Where are the activists? (Score:4, Interesting)
Many jurisdictions place age limits on legal consumption of various products. Some places in the US even limit alcohol consumption to 21+ years old, even though the age of majority is 18. So I doubt an age-discrimination challenge would get very far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the court just said it was inconsistent with the bill of rights to stop 16 olds from voting so you are probably right.
Anyhow while I too would be happy if no one smoked, I have never smoked in my life, I think its a dumb idea banning it all it will do is create a black market, like every other addictive substance.
Also it seems inconsistent with vaping. The reason the government gave for not banning that too is that they said is there wasn't as much evidence that that was bad. Of course there isn't it h
Re: (Score:2)
2. The main risk of carcinogens in cigarettes is because of the burning and inhaling of smoke. Besides the nicotine, vaping seems a hell of lot safer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Maori didn't smoke until the Pakeha brought tobacco to the country.
And of course there are no Maori 'reservations'.
Re:Are they going to put people in prison? (Score:5, Interesting)
NZ is a fairly unique co-pay system with three levels of care
Firstly, primary healthcare (GP visits for example) has a cost associated that the patient must pay on attendance - you can get a government subsidy if you are low income, vulnerable etc, but for everyone else the GP visit charge is between $20 and $100 (set by the practice).
Secondary care is free - basically anything in public hospitals or ER.
We also have a third level, socialised private medical insurance for accident related injuries, ACC - gets you private levels of care if your condition is accident related, rather than general healthcare orientated. If you are obese and your back gives out, for example, then your condition is treated as part of primary and secondary care. If your back gives out because you lifted something awkwardly at work, you get covered under ACC - the government pays to treat you as a priority in any hospital or treatment centre available, including private ones, *unless* the injury was likely aggravated by an underlying lifestyle related condition (ie you were obese, had existing bulging disks as a result, and one of them slipped because you picked something up).
So, basically, people who lead unhealthy lifestyles who develop lifestyle related illnesses already have to pay more as their injuries are general healthcare related - meanwhile, people injuring themselves accidentally or because of their work get covered for free as a priority.
Re: (Score:3)
Smokers were, in the words of treasury, more than paying for their health cost back in 2010.
Citation please, because the references I have seen [beehive.govt.nz] suggest that tobacco tax revenue only covered two thirds of their healthcare costs in 2010.
The Treasury estimates that when the price changes are fully in place (in three years
time) it will generate up to an additional $205m in revenue. The total amount of revenue
raised by tobacco excise and GST after the changes ($1.3b) will still leave at least half a
billion shortfall compared to the health related costs of smoking. These are difficult to
calculate precisely, but are currently estimated by the Ministry of Health to be at least
$1.9b out of the total Health Budget of around $12b
Re: (Score:2)
Who is ignoring automobile deaths? Maybe I missed something but I didn't see anything in the summary saying that they are removing all automotive legislation so they can concentrate on reducing tobacco usage.
You do realize that governments can do two things at once (and actually quite a bit more than two things)?
Re: ignore elephant in the room (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
where the fuck have you been, ever since they sold out ... like what? over a decade ago?
Re: (Score:2)